Old Abrahamic religious mindsets in new IT companies (part 8)

⟵ Old Abrahamic religious mindsets in new IT companies (part 7)

In a previous part of this series, I wrote about a child-like side in Abrahamic religions that appears even more salient when seeking to describe the Islamic worldview. In the Jewish case, this side appears especially when seeking to relate to the mind-blowing diachronic perspective of the present tense. With some accumulated historical experience giving some better idea of the dearth of psychological tools to immerse in real life from a diachronic perspective, there are all kinds of Jewish nuances around some semi-conscious realization that you need to face this child-like side.

It can be from an adult perspective that realizes it needs some serious reorganizations in order to be relevant in such a diachronic psychological environment, like in the interpretations of Yosef Hashem from a previous part. It can also be a preventive expressivity of what the child-like side shows beyond one’s bubble, like the bad teeth of the initial guy from Mashiach of the band Shabak Samech. This prevents both himself and the others to enter in a flat lazy-minded psychological plateau about his expressivity around those religious topics. It prevents a caricatural weakening and control of this child-like side as in O’zbegim or O’yna of the Uzbek singer Kaniza.

However, this “bad teeth” approach inadvertently turns into a magnet for idiots worldwide. Jews can be very harsh with themselves in order to keep the diachronic fluidity and they become a target for idiots who think they are so great and perfect and who look for other people to blame for their own issues they do not want to deal with. Notice also the difference between the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament. The former is a long litany of human failures and harsh self-judgements and self-blaming, while the later has as a focus a supposed Godly “perfect man” that nobody really saw involved in practical social organization. It is only a creation of an impression of perfection with some sideline kibitzer views around the existing organization. And also the manipulative twist, “ you are a failure as a human and it is only me who can save you”.

This may appear in the context of some Jewish tiredness of such never-ending self-blaming, but it is just an idealistic illusion postponed in the future that does not solve anything in real life and it just avoids the awareness of the diachronic complexity of real life. And this illusion may have been fueled to some extent by Jesus’ disciples as a self-delusion, when sensing that he was not so psychologically strong and they can have a relieving psychological playground for their egos in his memory.

Christianity and Islam are about getting some peace of mind and restoring a sense of psychological organization around such opening of the mind that shows the diachronic complexity of real life through a child-like immersion in it. They frame it as a controllable innocent childhood, not as something showing that mind-boggling complexity beyond one’s bubble. They are about a flat order, they have “solutions” for a view of the world beyond one’s bubble as in Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı.

As I mentioned in previous parts of this series, Christianity and Islam appeared in the context of an intermediary phase in the Jewish history, that one between losing an initial innocence and discovering more mature in-depth rabbinical approaches. The initial Jewish response to a realization like in Yuh Yuh of Cemali was an “I can do it” approach like in Yuh Yuh by Haluk Özkan. The further realization of what a complexity this supposes down the line turned into a perception like in Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı, with a loss of innocence about straightforward “I can do it” capabilities (the interpretation itself from Yuh Yuh by Haluk Özkan has some realizations about these aspects, it is not so innocent, but with some introspective study of masculinity).

Christianity and Islam are about seeking back some innocent peace of mind of classical masculinity when aware of this complexity. Christianity works with the “embrace, extend, extinguish” method to flatten everything beyond the bubble in order to incorporate it into one’s self-centered diachronic fluid control of the situation within the personal bubble, stemming from the initial method applied by Jesus on the disciples. This is the Christian approach to a worldview like in Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı, it aims to create a common psychological ground for everybody, by flattening any divergent directions with smothering “love”.

Islam works with the belief in having the ultimate fluid diachronic truth in one’s bubble and whatever is outside is the Land of War or the Land of Treaty, as stemming from the way Khadija created for Muhammad a cocooned “meaningful world” permeated by the fulfilling gist of the diachronic psychology. The Muslim approach is about having a fluid diachronic sense of order stemming from inside the initial bubble, not by focusing on piercing other people’s bubbles. Christianity is “against the system” by piercing bubbles (self-centered ecosystems of knowledge) left and right, Islam is about “being the system” by developing a self-centered ecosystem of knowledge that really works with the diachronic psychology and by further eating up any other bubbles standing in its way.

This palliative capability to have a simplistic sense of order while aware of the diachronic complexity gives to those invested in these two religions a peace of mind in relation to that abyssal complexity beyond one’s bubble. These religions spread by making people aware of this kind of diachronic complexity while imposing their own ideology as the only possible way (because they sense that their way is very fragile and it must not be questioned).

Christianity developed as an “against the system” ideology, under impression that it found the solution to Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı by rejecting the concept of bubble. Just embrace anyone else with a very simplistic smothering self-righteous “love” in order to validate yourself, what’s so complicated? However, it did not find anything new in terms of human psychological organization, with all the practical consequences of social fakeness, airs of morality and intellectual self-restrictions determined by applying Christianity in real life.

It just remained at the level of rejection of the concept of bubble, thus still revolving around this concept and thinking from the perspective of a psychological bubble, with a mambo-jumbo focus on a supposed future seamless “software” and “hardware” integration. The practical application of Christianity is still a psychological bubble, a crazy bubble made very haughty, self-righteous and aggressive with the belief that it embraces with love anything beyond it and with a “final solution” extermination ideology for those who do not accept this fragile “love”.

Weird how such an ideology could spread so much, it shows serious structural issues in the self-centered classical human sense of morality. The vexing problem in the practical application is that they constantly shoot themselves in the foot as a result of the fact that they continue structurally a Jewish approach to being serious like in Af Echad of Ania Bukstein. In the Jewish case, the focus is on a diachronic psychological abyss, they do not have a specific flat plateau of “truth” to believe in and thus they are not so affected by this issue.

But, in the Christian case, they are under impression that they solved the problem of the constant unexpected angles showed by the other side of Ania Bukstein, as they casted this child-like side in themselves as so innocent and cute. Only to be constantly fed with further unexpected angles about their flat “truth”, which pushes their plateau of “truth” in a myriad of divergent directions and they still end up themselves like in Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı (while they continue with the fragile impression that they found a solution to it). It started early with strifes like those about the nature of Christ and then with a fragmentation in a myriad of divergent crazily child-like denominations constantly at each other throats.

As for Muhammad, he was sustained by Khadija to have a diachronically fluidized bubble with simple classical masculine control of the situation, while he was also clueless of the issues that led to the Christian stance of rejection. When relating to the Christian ethos and its convoluted relation to the concept of psychological bubble, he in fact rediscovered the more direct Jewish relation to the concept of a fluidized bubble that the Christian ethos was seeking so hard to avoid.

The “broken telephone” path from Roman-era Judaism in a struggle to understand itself to the Christian rejection of the concept of bubble as something bad led to Muhammad’s rediscovery of the concept of fluidized bubble with all the profound psychological aspects of feminine origin. This is so valuable and it feels so natural and consequential, how comes that the Christian vibe lacks it? This is what made Muhammad sense that he discovered something profound that has to be brough to the world’s attention. However, this is not a bubble so directly connected and immersed in the fluid complexity beyond it as in the Jewish case. It was a rediscovery through a Christian angle, as an impression of a relieving flat order made possible by the Christian resurgence of the classical masculine organization under impression it can handle that complexity.

Islam continues that relieving impression, only that it notices the Christian avoidance of the sense of self as a bubble and thus it recasts this impression from the point of view of immersion in the bubble. Why avoid it? It feels like discovering the very core of the human psychological organization. But, given the “broken telephone” path, it is an immersion that does not have the classical masculine sense of organization melted down. Thus it does not have the original Jewish masculine perception of the diachronic complexity beyond it and it makes the discoverer think from a classical masculine perspective.

In the Jewish case, this diachronic fluidiziation, even with the support of an older woman, quickly shows the complexity beyond it. There is occasional Jewish male interest in older women, but it is not so much about sustaining a cocooned classical masculine control of the situation. In the first place, the men themselves are not really material for such a classical masculine control of the situation, as they think from the perspective of that new masculinity.

It can be the same as in Islam about a woman able to sustain some organization and immersion in the diachronicity in unexpected ways for a masculine mind. But, in many practical examples that I am aware of, the men simply find an environment that is not so daunting to unfold the diachronic psychology and they have the full-blown expressiveness of the psychological abyss of the diachronicity, not a cocooned vibe like in the Muslim expressivity that still keeps the classical masculine organization.

Think of the Marx Brothers unleashing such a diachronic craziness around the characters of Margaret Dumont as a pillar of stability. Or how Adam Sandler appears to have a soft spot for older women, not necessarily with the vibe of a pillar of stability, since he is not so crazily immersive as the Marx Brothers, but more like an appreciation for the psychological expressivity such women can offer.

There are also Jews like Woody Allen who seek to think about the situation in a serious manner, but they are so overwhelmed by the complexity and the large amount of perceptions when seeking to process them in classical masculine self-centered linear manner. They are also apprehensive about older or experienced women in general because they sense that, if they accept a leadership position like in Ana meen of Najwa Karam and they have support for a streamlined diachronic fluidity that makes some sense, they may end up like in Taram-taram of Farruh Komilov. This may not necessarily be the woman’s intention, but a man who seeks to think and understand in classical linear manner while having that support can turn into a sorry satellite of the woman, as just a figurehead.

Jews like Adam Sandler or Marx Brothers who plunge into a child-like exuberance with the support of more experienced women keep in fact some personality of their own in such a relation, because it is their initiative to dissolve and go beyond the classical linear thinking. They are not under impression that they continue classical masculine psychological structures in that context. It is an unexpectedly new brave direct masculine assumption of that diachronic fluidity. But, on the other hand, they do not have an overall organized thinking like Woody Allen. It is a too steep learning curve. They still think, they are not so dumb, as they are something like the woman from Apa 2 of Ruslan Satenov, with a collaboration between a wise side immersed in the accumulated culture and a child-like side immersed in a diachronic mind-boggling present tense.

The Arab men too have something like this when they feel like the situation is getting too stale, “the blood is getting too thick” and they need to “thin” it. But I did not see them really plunging into that and forfeiting the classical masculine organization and thus have a brave new masculinity in that environment. Thus it still continues a linear psychological framework, with all the ensuing problems. It is like “I am plunging into that, but I am still the usual lord master of the situation”, which forfeits in fact much of the mastery of the situation. In the Jewish case, that plunging is related to the religious experience of a new masculinity like in Hineni of Yossele Rosenblatt.

Some Jews like Woody Allen who are apprehensive about experienced femininity can find interesting airhead women. This is, on the one hand, as a need for a refreshing immersion in the diachronic fluidity for a mind bogged down by linear thinking in such a complexity. On the other hand, it may also be a relaxation that the woman is not so experienced and thus the man is not on the path of turning into a figurehead.

At this point of noticing the relaxation, things are bifurcating. Some of them sense that, if they “go Muhammad” and they find a peace of mind and take advantage of this airhead nature to control the woman for sustaining a linear organization, they lose the connection with what is fulfilling in being immersed in a diachronic fluidity like in Hineni. The control is limiting that profound unfoldment. Other Jewish men can still “go Muhammad” (in various degrees), but they tend to have that relaxation only within their bubble, as they are too aware of the complexity beyond (they do not end up like Muhammad with the impression of discovering the “ultimate truth” about everything beyond his bubble).

Jewish men can still be very controlling in the traditional context and much of the traditional Jewish life is about this. But this control is of a different nature than that of “going Muhammad”. It is about being immersed in the full-course diachronicity with a masculinity like the vibe of the woman’s father from Minem zakonlı hatınım. It is a control while swimming psychologically through the full-course diachronicity.

It is a masculinity developed with the feminine impression that there is a core in the classical masculinity that can work with the diachronicity. In practice, there are no psychological tools to sustain a linear thinking in the full-course diachronicity. The Jewish men progressively lost their innocence about this, they became weary of any tiny nuances in their knowledge as control of the situation. The situation degenerated in the Hellenistic and Roman periods in a plurality of parties swimming through the full-course diachronicity, each with the impression they hold the ultimate truth, like a plurality of men like in Oşko of Totomidin and Surma acting like in the initial part of Toñnuñ daa of the Yakut singer Künney.

The rabbinical Judaism that offered a relevant way out of this conundrum has a more direct masculine engagement with the diachronicity. It continues some of that controlling environment, but it is much more aware about not just jumping on whatever impression of having the ultimate truth. There are Jews who slide into the impression of having a classical masculine control of the situation like Muhammad, but ultimately they are too aware of the full-fledged diachronicity, and they cannot really sustain an simplistic self-centered “ultimate truth about everything”.

I am aware of a Jewish case retracing some of the basics of Muhammad’s path, the Romanian politician Petre Roman (his father was Jewish). Initially, he married a significantly older and intellectual woman (who grew up in Arab countries and was teaching Arabic in Romania). He was not comedian material as in the previous cases, but with an intellectual career and with an interest in social organization and later on he had an important role in the 1989 Revolution that toppled the Communist regime.

However, as a politician in the newly fledging democracy, he was kind of a “lone wolf”, not very able to project a sense of simplistic classical masculine organization and was marginalized. (Not that projecting a simplistic sense of order is the expected normality, in fact there is a serious need for more valuable approaches, but there is a steep learning curve for that.) When he was largely out of the mainstream politics of Romania, he divorced and married a significantly younger woman (who had herself a history of interest in significantly older men; still, she was not underage, but in her 20s). She is also markedly different from his previous intellectual wife, more of an artistic nature, she is a singer. He failed in projecting social organization with that intellectual approach, but still later on he felt the need of a more vibrant expressivity.

Franz Kafka also comes to my mind. In his case, not so much about big age differences, but around the same issues, pendulating between very intellectual women and very airhead women. For people of Jewish background like Kafka or Roman, it is more about entering in the impression of a promise of being able to sustain a simplistic classical masculine sense of organization for the diachronic perspective. This impression of such a promise is likely of non-Jewish origin. Woody Allen entered too to some extent in this promise, but he is more connected to the new masculinity experience like in Hineni of Yossele Rosenblatt, and thus he cannot even have an impression that he can organize things in a simplistic classical masculine way like Kafka or Roman.

All these men, whether they have that impression or not, are already too immersed in a psychology like in Habeit Ya Leil, they inevitably see the larger complexity. They can’t simply work with it and manipulate their own way through life. They may enter in a path of being “Muhammad material”, but they cannot really be so clueless like him and they fail to really sustain such a simplistic organization. Well, on the long term (not on an individual level, but on really long-term generational level), this is a good thing anyway, as an organization really taking in consideration the diachronicity is unavoidable.

These Jewish men end up with a more pronounced defalcation between the wise side and the child-like side, likely as a result of some non-Jewish influences. The original Jewish context does not end up so much in such a defalcation, with the promise that only the wise side can sustain a classical masculine sense of organization. It is more about both at the same time.

Jewish men under the umbrella of women who can sustain some organization for the diachronicity are not so much about entering in a promise that they can have a simplistic classical masculine organization, but about immersing in a complexity like in Habeit Ya Leil in more meaningful ways. Some of them are very child-like, like the previous examples of comedians. Some of them are simply religious men, but with that kind of Jewish religiosity that is not under impression it has a flat egocentric “truth” and it needs to make everyone else submit to it.

There are moments when the child-like side feels that the overall personality of the individual cannot sustain the complexity of real life and, in such situations, it has itself the initiative to retreat within the bubble and collaborate with the wise side. In the Jewish case, the expressivity of this collaboration is simply taken in consideration for what it is and processed as such, as in the previous Yosef Hashem, with the end result of reorganizing the personality so that it can take better in consideration the complexity.

The Muslim approach is about seeing this as a moment when the child-like side is caught on a wrong foot and can be controlled within that bubble to be harnessed for sustaining the simplistic classical masculine organization. Aisha grew up as an intellectual woman, but with a groomed nuance of staying within the confines of the classical masculine organization. She had an important role in all that happened from the Medina period onwards, but she was acting in relieving confines of the classical masculinity. Most likely she was herself not entirely within that framework, more like a frozen surface of a river, as in the analogy from a previous part of this series. But she ended up herself invested in this Muslim perspective, as it offers a relieving simplification for a woman. And it should be noted that there are many women who enter in the Muslim framework on their own volition, as it offers such a relieving simplification for the complexity of real life they are so aware of (however, this is something palliative, as I will get into more detail in the next part of this series).

I mentioned before a visual example of this kind of control in O’zbegim of Kaniza. I do not feel this case stemming mainly and specifically from Islam, it is more about one of the specific outcomes that keeps appearing from the basic psychological context in some Asian cultures. It still shows how the instability fueled by the inadequacy of the Islam in modern context in fact feeds people to further stick with its ethos (until some things will get even more unavoidably clearer, they can’t continue like this indefinitely).

In such a moment when the child-like side feels that the overall personality cannot cope with the complexity of the diachronic unfoldment of real life, it retreats within the bubble. Those girls appear and they start to praise the accumulated Uzbek culture. However, Kaniza is too invested in the sense of simplistic classical masculine organization and she rather perceives such a moment as such a necessary yet so pesky child-like side caught on a wrong foot.

This is an opportunity to contain it in the bubble to stay within the confines of the classical masculine organization. And then it follows the relieving parading of the controlled (caricatural) expressivity of the girls as a harmless and harnessed innocence. When she sees the girls first time on stage, I have the impression that she has also some intuitive insights about how natural and normal is the non-caricatural expressivity of the child-like side. But she cannot process this in an organized manner and sticks with the gold mine she found in this way.

The same as in the Christian case, this is only a palliative solution, the child-like side may be muffled, but it keeps showing unexpected angles. The Islamic mindset continues too a concept of being serious like in Af Echad of Ania Bukstein. On the surface, the Islamic concept of controlled confined child-like side makes easier a classical human style of organization, which has its own problems of getting stale, as I will get into more detail later on. But even before getting stale, Islam shared from the very beginning the same problem as Christianity, being constantly bombarded with unexpected points of view about their flat “truth”, pushing it in a myriad of directions, determining the fragmentation of Islam in a myriad of branches constantly at each other throats. The rabbinical Judaism (developed after that Jewish historical period that produced Christianity and Islam) turned something like in Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı into something like in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir of Gaye Su Akyol.

Probably there should be more awareness about how the immersion in the diachronicity of real life sends you in a psychological realm developed by women as a bubble of meaning amid a huge diachronic unknown. The bubble itself works with a diachronic perspective, but it’s limited scope makes it manageable to some extent. The limitation is not like in classical masculinity as a bubble of “truth”, but with awareness about what is beyond.

The concept of this bubble may be inspired from the classical masculine sense of an ecosystem of meaning, but unlike such a classical masculine ecosystem it has a diachronic perspective, and in the human history there is a constant (informal, less conscious) infusion of this perspective in the classical masculine ecosystems of meaning. The inside unfoldment of this bubble is mostly about immersing from a diachronic fluid perspective in the distilled culture accumulated along generations. It is like the expressivity from İstanbul Ağlıyor of the Turkish singer Gülay.

As for what is beyond, depending on what needs to be shown considering what the man is not aware of, it can appear as a revelation of a much more in-depth complexity of social life beyond the simplistic classical masculine thinking, like in Yuh Yuh of Cemali or as such an unexpected perception of a fluid psychology of the present tense as in Hayat Şaşırtır! (“Life surprises!”, translation) of the Turkish singer Aydilge. Much of the originally feminine expertise of pluging in the mind-blowing diachronic present tense and its psychological “quantum leaps” gathered under the umbrella of a child-like side. Not that this is a given, but a new sense of adulthood relevant for the diachronic present tense needs to develop.

An approach like that from Habeit Ya Leil of the Lebanese singer Nawal El Zoghbi leans a lot on the existing masculine organization, it just revolves around the existing structure. The inner space is like the cinema seat psychological threads of Nawal El Zoghbi, the outside world is the film she is watching with her plurality of psychological threads in action. It is not so much a diachronic psychology as a world in itself, like the case of an inner space direct introspection in combination with a child-like immersion in action.

See also something like Naghsh e To of the (US-based) Iranian band Eendo (the singer Shadi Yousefian may not be Persian, the name suggests Jewish or Armenian background). This is an immersion in the plurality of diachronic threads, but it is rather from an observational perspective of the inner space. Something like Hamin Lahzeh of the same band is more of a direct immersion in the fluidity of real life. This is to some extent mindful of the existing organization and it is creative with what is given. The child-like type of immersion seems to be a much more hardcore level that finds ways to really be within the diachronic psychology as a world in itself with some other coherence. Probably both Nawal El Zoghbi and Shadi Yousefian have a child-like side, but it likely matters the internal balance and the dosage of letting it unfold.

Something like in Islam or like in O’zbegim of Kaniza is about finding a way to have the valuable fluidity within the bubble while being able to continue with the simplistic classical masculine organization as an ecosystem of meaning under the impression that it can control the complexity beyond it by spreading a system of knowledge as control of the situation. This is done by taking in consideration the complexity beyond only to the extent it suits the self-centered simplistic sense of organization. Structurally, if you want that valuable diachronic fluidity within the bubble, you inevitably end up seeing it also beyond the bubble, where it grows to proportions classical masculinity cannot handle. The Muslim method finds a way to avoid this (for a while, as I will get into detail in the next part of this series, as in time it is inevitable to end up in the larger complexity).

Another aspect is that, for a young man from these cultures that are imbued with this feminine perspective, initially an older woman who has some experience in dealing with real life can be very attractive in sustaining some organization for such a complexity he does not know how to relate to. But, if it is specifically too much about finding a support for that, later on he may feel the need of some more practical immersion in the refreshing diachronicity of the present tense (which is lacking as a result of the fact that the man relied on the woman only for sustaining his existing organization through the diachronic fluidity, without significant refreshing). And this may not have been at all the intention of the older woman, she may have even been interested in the full course of a love relationship, including the refreshing mind-boggling present tense. But this is how things shaped up in the mind of the man. For him, it was just about sustaining his existing organization through the fluidity, without significant refreshing.

It is not necessary to shape up like this. For those Jewish comedians or for an Altaic man like that from Oppoq aka of the Uzbek singer Asilbek Amanulloh, a psychological leaning on a woman is about a support to unfold a mixture of both the wise side (which may be left largely to the woman to sustain on an ongoing basis) and the child-like side at the same time. They have plenty of great immersion in the present tense (more details about the Altaic context of the previous example at Part 12 of The mindset of the populations of Siberian origin). Although it is not a refreshment in which they keep the concept of knowledge as control of the situation.

And, of course, there are many other nuances. Radik Yulyakşin/Elvin Grey in Yanıña agılam has a great diachronic fluidity with the support of an older woman, as some sort of collaboration (by the way, older women may find too such men attractive with this specific child-like immersion in life, in case they may have lost themselves some of that child-like freshness or they don’t know how to unfold it after entering too much in the framework of the classical masculine thinking; but it is not necessarily the case and it may also be a range of angles for a woman).

In Uftanma, he is exploring the consequences of being involved emotionally, which opens up for him some horizons of overall organization and responsibility. Still, the interest in such a woman is not so much to seek a clear-cut sustenance of the classical organization, because he already has an Altaic type of new masculinity that really works with the diachronic psychology (and in this manner he has both the intellectual diachronic immersion in the accumulated culture and the artistic expression).

He has some level of awareness about how he finds some sort of a stability to work with the fluidizing diachronicity, but also about how this stability is going to unravel if she dies earlier. The practical unfoldment of the thought of her death makes him realize better what was so valuable at her. It was an immersion in the culture accumulated along generations, in a fluidized diachronic manner (the accumulated culture in the inner space).

In this case, he realizes the perishability of the classical masculine organization, like in the Epic of Gilgamesh, only that the path and the nuances are different. When the woman dies, it is like in the Epic when Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh realizes the non-linear diachronic psychology that was sustaining Enkidu all that time. All was fine for his psychological organization as a simplistic classical masculine linearity while the woman sustained the diachronic fluidization. When the man is left to his own device to deal with that diachronic fluidity that he was infused with, he realizes how flimsy and perishable is his classical sense of organization.

In that ancient Sumerian case, Gilgamesh is about seeking control of the situation by heeding Enkidu’s advice to kill the part that escapes their control. When the woman realizes this, she retreats her support. In Uftanma, the man is not interested to seek that kind of control, but he still realizes how much of a psychological construct was his sense of organization when contemplating the woman’s death. However, given the different premises of the relation, further on, his mind is much better opened to what sustained the psychological fluidity, namely the gist of the diachronic immersion in the accumulated culture. He is relying on a new masculinity that really works with the diachronic psychology, present in Altaic cultures.

He is not like Gilgamesh continuing with the same masculine linear thinking, seeking to stave off the perishability of the psychological constructs and, when realizing the impossibility, to just resign to the fact that he cannot control the diachronic changes. He has a more direct perception of the gist of the bubble as a diachronic fluid immersion in the accumulated culture. At the end of the video he develops that specific piercing gaze some Altaic women (occasionally) have.

Something like this opening of the masculine mind happens also in the Jewish mindset, but also together with the opening about the diachronic mind-boggling fluidity outside the bubble at the present tense (Radik Yulyakşin is mostly about the opening of the mind about the diachronicity within the bubble as an immersion in the accumulated culture; the woman may have been interested in the full course, but this is how things may shape up in the minds of this kind of men interested in older women).

The Jewish opening of the mind may have been in a non-cocooning relation with an adult woman, like the vibe from this interpretation of Shema Yisrael. It is not something obvious from the ancient texts how the initial Jewish men noticed it, the situation is simply presented as a matter of fact. One day God told Abram to change his name to Abraham, to leave his own father and go to the land where his descendats will fulfill the promise of great feats.

They are not resigned like Gilgamesh, they discovered a great psychological immersion with an utterly new sense of masculinity (the recurring trope of God that feels so alive no matter what dreadful historical situations they end up in), but with an (initial) reluctance about realizing the strings attached, blaming the woman for tempting the man to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. They still have some Gilgamesh-type of resignation, but in a more limited context, namely that of accepting the complexity after sensing the gist. Gilgamesh’s resignation did not have available this God that feels so alive, so close and so relevant no matter what dreadful circumstances they end up in.

The basic diachronic psychology is great and it is wholeheartedly accepted in the Jewish ethos. But there is this impression in the initial Jewish religiosity that a masculinity immersed in the gist of the diachronicity can live in the usual classical masculine paradise of simple control of the situation. The knowledge of good and bad is not perceived as necessary strings attached.

And it looks like the women themselves appear to be under this impression, they don’t seem to realize the strings attached, namely that they introduce some irremediable changes in the classical human simplistic sense of organization. Considering how that new Jewish masculinity feels like, this structure of not perceiving the strings attached may have originated among women.

They seem to be under impression that they can open the mind of the men to the diachronic complexity and that there is a core in the classical masculinity that can deal with that. A feminine development of a new masculinity like in Ze Sheshomer Alay of Sarit Hadad was under impression that classical masculinity can handle the diachronic psychology of that view of the human organization, like the multiple threads of Nawal El Zoghbi in Habeit Ya Leil.

And, as I said in a previous part, if I point this out, this can create an impression for women that there is something wrong in their approach, while they cannot figure out what is wrong. It is not that it is wrong, but that there is no core in the classical masculinity that can deal with that. The opening to the larger complexity is good, but it requires major psychological reorganizations.

This is also in the idea that an expressivity like in Hineni of Yossele Rosenblatt feels relevant, which is the kind of masculinity envisaged by women as able to take in consideration the full course of diachronicity. As a potential, it is nothing wrong and its full course is assumed, as it feels relevant. But, when it is to be put in practice, I need to pay attention to what is potential and what utterly unknown aspects need to be found out in real life, as in the vibe of the rabbinical Judaism that already has a history of Jewishness going haywire in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

That haywire period produced also Christianity, which is about framing the feminine opening of the mind as an “original sin” and about projecting a possibility to solve Gilgamesh’s problem with Jesus’ “resurrection”. The original Jewish view is not about an “original sin”, but of a serious crumbling of a simplistic paradisiac worldview and of a resignation with the realization about how complex everything is. Initially, it was easier to live with this psychological condition out of the Paradise by assuming it with an “I can do it” attitude, like an intepretation of Yuh Yuh by Haluk Özkan coming after an experience of Yuh Yuh of Cemali. However, this proved to be so innocent about how much more complexity it entails that you can’t even sustain such a simple “I can do it” attitude.

The Hellenistic and Roman periods reached a watershed immersion in the aftermaths of the “I can do it” approach, like in Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı. Something has to give, you can’t simply continue with classical masculine attitude while engaged in diachronic psychology and seeking to save a sense of order and morality. The rabbinical Judaism realized how to see the situation something like in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir of Gaye Su Akyol, by working with a variety of points of view.

Christianity is about doubling down on classical masculinity. Jesus’ disciples discovered in his memory after his death a self-serving psychological playground, which made them feel like finding a solution to “Enkidu’s death” from the Epic of Gilgamesh. This further grew as a psychological organizational structure with the idea that the female input behind the “immaculate Jesus” was a supposedly “virgin” woman, while the previous historical feminine input that threw the men out of paradise was retrospectively cast as an “original sin”.

Female virginity gives a feeling of primordial control and mental relaxation to the classical masculine sense of organization. There is that much needed diachronic fluidity, but it is non-threatening. The likely psychological/psychotic “ressurection” of Jesus was a way for those people (both men and women, because women too can become weary and tired of such a Jewish diachronic opening of the mind) to see again a simple continuity of the classical masculine sense of organization in that diachronic psychology.

However, this was made possible with an “against the system” approach. It was not about a new practical organizational system, but about projecting in the future a supposed seamless connection between the human “software” and the real life “hardware”. Jesus managed to inspire a few people about such a possible world with sideline kibitzer commentaries about the existing situation at that time, avoiding everytime to get more in-depth about how his vision would work in real life and switching the focus on a soon-to-come seamless future.

When he finally got himself more involved in the real life situation of that time, it didn’t take long to be executed by the Romans for sedition. Still, his followers were so caught in the psychological vision of that seamless future and, in the new reality after his death, they even found in their emotional attachment to him a playground where they can work more fluidly with their own senses of self.

There is this basic issue in the original Jewish worldview that it feels with such a great potential of making sense of a diachronic complexity of the world, but, when put in practice, it turns out to be just a great potential without much practical resources. From the increasingly painful realization of this situation in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Christianity grew as an ideology that dissociates that perception of a great potential from its natural immersion in the diachronic fluidity.

The Jewish feeling of that great potential like in Ze Sheshomer Alay of Sarit Hadad is intrinsically related to an immersion in a diachronic fluidity like in Habeit Ya Leil of Nawal El Zoghbi, Naghsh e To of the band Eendo or in Ana meen of Najwa Karam (and, at a potential level, it really feels relevant for that). Christianity keeps this immersion to a level similar to the relaxing and controlling vibe that the idea of female virginity tends to give to a classical masculine mind. This disconnects the feeling of a great potential from the present tense. The full-course immersion in the diachronic fluidity is about experiencing the present tense and, since this is avoided by clinging with the mind on the concept of virginity, it ends up transposed in a seamless future.

It also feels much more stragithforwardly understandable by a classical masculine mind, given that its structure is disconnected from the idea of ramifying in all kinds of directions (although in practice it cannot be so disconnected, as I will get into more detail later on). It is a great potential of social good without considering too much the real-life ramifications. It has a much more flat feeling that the Jewish one. This can keep a classical masculine sense of organization much more intact and functioning, while it has a large-scale vision of the human society like in Ze Sheshomer Alay of Sarit Hadad.

It also shares much more the problem of the way such a classical sense of organization works, namely that it is a self-centered ecosystem of knowledge. Given the awareness of the large scale diachronic fluidity, it further becomes very fragile when even a tiny piece of information does not confirm the rest of the edifice. Thus, it is much more disposed to both manipulate the internal structure and destroy the external source in order to save its own coherence. This means that in real life everyone should be converted to this ecosystem.

The problem of Christianity is that it cannot avoid the diachronic unfoldment of real life. On the one hand, from the inside, it continues to have intrinsically a child-like side that propels the mind in all kinds of directions and this shreds it into a multitude of denominations with different nuances in their ecosystems of knowledge, each of them convinced it has the “universal truth”. On the other hand, on the outside, after a while, people are not so psychologically “virginal” in relation to the unfoldment of real life. They are increasingly aware of the real-life ramifications of that great potential of social good.

This determined the post-Christian developments of democracy, civil society, scientific quest, which really relate that potential to the utter unfoldment of real life. Although, these developments continue with some “virginal” Christian nuances. The practical application of Christianity in real life was a Dark Age of intolerance, fanaticism, destruction of culture. Things started to change when people began thinking by themselves about how that great potential would relate to the accumulation of real-life experience.

All that Christian casting of a great diachronic organization in the future and the strong self-restrictions in the present tense determine a formal avoidance of that inner space of accumulated culture in which you can work creatively from a diachronic fluid perspective. Christianity avoids something, it avoids the inner core of human psychological fluidity, while its entire edifice is built as an “against the system” structure revolving around it. This is how it found a workable solution to continue simple classical masculine organization while aware of the diachronic psychological fluidity.

This is also how Muhammad felt he discovered the basic essence of everything in the world when he was exposed to the Christian worldview. On the one hand, unlike in the Christian ethos, his background was one of a significant use of that inner core. On the other hand, he was resonating with the Christian view, namely of working with diachronic psychology while not pulverizing classical masculine organization. He was perceiving the situation from the angle that Christianity was avoiding.

The Christian view of diachronic fluidity is like the ascetic, self-restrained, disrupted gaze of some of the spectators in that collage of a Hasidic choir and band. This specific video has a rabbinical Jewish equilibrium for the case when the situation gets polarized between these two sides and they coexist without sliding into a flat future vision of good. Christianity is about a strong rejection of such an unabashed expressivity of the diachronic fluidity, since it is threatening their organizational equilibrium with “virginal” femininity and with smothering “love” aiming to flatten the entire world to a single ecosystem of knowledge.

On the other hand, Muhammad had the support of a more experienced woman to assume such an diachronic fluidity in a cocooned, not so exuberant manner, thus still keeping relevant classical masculine organization in his mind. And then he was able to put it in practice in a controlled unfoldment with an underage girl, when he found an enabler comparable to the Christian use of female virginity. Unlike Christian imagination of “virginity”, this is about practical application and Islam could put to work practically the psychological fluidity from that inner space while keeping classical masculine organization workable.

Thus, unlike the Christian Dark Ages, initially Islam spurred some significant scientific and cultural development. The problem is that such a controlled use makes that inner space stale after a while. And, on the other hand, the accumulation of real-life diachronic experiences increasingly shows what a non-cocooned real-life diachronic unfoldment is about, turning much of the Islamic world stale and with gazes like the disrupted spectators from the previous Hasidic musical collage.

More recent strands of Christianity went into the opposite direction, assuming the psychological fluidity and developing some of the exuberance from that collage. But it has a vibe of a direct fall into an ideal flat happiness, not really immersing in the diachronicity of real life, thus still not really accepting the complex diachronic unfoldment of real life. They are not about Islamic practical work with that diachronic fluidity or Jewish potential to work with that fluidity.

Post-Christianity is about practical work with the diachronic fluidity, albeit with some “virginal” nuance that initially made it easier, but recently increasingly turning into a burden. The post-Christian modern worldview has a flat linear view of the world, as an ecosystem of knowledge expanding in all directions in “virgin” territory, “to boldly go where no man has gone before”.

What in Christianity was a “virginal” simplification with a focus on an ideal fulfillment in the future, in post-Christianity is “deflorated” left and right. In the first place, post-Christianity has a simplifying “virginizing” perspective that makes things beyond the personal bubble feel refreshing and attractive. If something is not known in a way that is not so challenging, then it’s “virgin” and “waiting” to be explored. This is a dynamic process, since specific realizations of knowing that you don’t know something can keep popping up.

This may seem so natural for people who live with this mindset, but when you have other relevant cultural angles, it looks so unaware and ultimately disrespectful of the world. To give a bridging perspective, there is the Romanian novel Toate pînzele sus! (“All sails up!”) of Radu Tudoran, I don’t know if it is translated in English. The main character had an arrangement with a French friend to explore a part of Tierra del Fuego that was still unexplored at that time. It was still “virgin” territory.

The problem starts when the French friend disappears and the Romanian guy assembles a ship crew to search for him. They navigate towards Tierra del Fuego, they even explore that “virgin” territory, but they still cannot find him. In the meantime, a Turkish guy from the crew is the one who inadvertently pushes the plot of the novel in all kinds of unexpected directions because of the diachronic propensities of his mind.

The novel was written by the middle of the 20th century, but cast in the 1870’s, when Romania gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire, analyzing retrospectively the major shifts of those years. The search for the disappeared French guy is symbolic for the focus on Westernization in those years. The focus on its “virginal” gist was eclipsed soon in Romanian practical applications by Turkish cultural propensities to let their minds jump in all kinds of unexpected directions.

This is not necessarily a good thing, if you are not aware that you need to deal with this in an investigative manner. In contrast, a “virginal” worldview may look like a “logical” and safe walk in the park for people who are consciously prepared only for this perspective. It keeps largely intact a classical masculine organization and orientation. But still, when you are aware of how much diachronic unknown is teeming in the very ecosystem of knowledge and in utterly unexpected angles beyond it, it looks like such a limiting and ridiculous idea to have a psychological framework pushing you to seek specifically “virgin” territories for research. Recently, there is some increased scientific and social expertise in this sense, but there still remain some “virginal” issues that I will get into more detail later on. The very topic of successful IT companies that spurred this meandered excursus is something that mostly goes beyond a “virginal” worldview.

→ Old Abrahamic religious mindsets in new IT companies (part 8)