The mindset of the populations of Siberian origin (part 15)

Part of the series Perceiving complexity

⟵ The mindset of the populations of Siberian origin (part 14)

I ended the previous part with Çakıl Taşları (translation) of the Turkish singer Şebnem Ferah, as a musical example of realizing the raw unknown you need to face in real life when there is no overwhelming difficulty and you are immersed in the human social life. The nuance there is one of no expectations of a coherent core in the classical human organization that can work with a psychology like in Habeit Ya Leil of the Lebanese singer Nawal El Zoghbi. But still the mind revolves around the concept of a peace of mind as control of the situation given by the classical human organization, while there are no other organizational alternatives available. The situations confronted are in contrast with the framework of that peace of mind.

Yarash-yarash of the Uzbek singer Hadicha is an example of a female singer who has a deeper understanding that there are serious structural problems even in that framework of peace of mind as control of the situation. It is a more direct look at what supposes the diachronic fluid psychology when related to ecosystems of meaning in normal social life, on the backdrop of the accumulated experience along generations around such issues. This is an example in which the female singer realizes herself the trope of the decrepit car and the deep unavoidable realism of the situation (which fulfills the psychological vibrancy hard to find in İnfilak and Ben Buralardan Gidicem of the Turkish singer Gülben Ergen that I wrote about in the previous part).

On the one hand, this diachronic fluid psychology makes you pay much more attention to what is going on in real life. Classical human organization has an optimism working with castles in the air sustained by personal power and it brushes off much of this complexity. For people who struggled in difficult circumstances and for whom those castles in the air felt very inadequate, that organization may appear like in Yorim bor of the Uzbek singer Umidaxon, if they are under impression there is a core of this organization that can still work with this complexity (or it may appear as a decrepit car if they realize there is no such core).

On the other hand, the fact itself of paying attention to this fluid diachronicity makes your mind go in all kinds of unexpected directions, you notice all kinds of unexpected aspects. If you have expectations of a smooth simple worldview like in the classical organization, it can feel very daunting when you really go along with this psychology. But, if you see the situation for what it is, you simply readjust the expectations and see what to do further on, as that satisfying fluid abyssal psychology is fulfilled.

It is something like the reverse of Einstein’s definition of insanity as doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. In this case, it is about doing things with the mind opened to the diachronic fluidity, thus with all kinds of unexpected directions, and expecting the same results. The woman in the video is paying attention to all kinds of unexpected directions of the mind, she ends up multitasking while expecting things to unfold as smooth as in the classical human organization. The classical human organization is not about multitasking, but a monotheistic-like line of thinking.

The diachronic fluidity can work as a monotheistic-like line of thinking in overwhelmingly difficult circumstances that limit the unfoldment of your own diachronic freewill. When used in normal social life, the initial smooth work with the diachronic psychology in difficult circumstances like in Kazagım-ay of the Kazakh band Gaukhartas turns into something like in Naqshli of the Uzbek singer Ravshanbek Abdullayev and Oşko of the Kyrgyz singers Totomidin and Surma.

If continuing to have this impression of smooth work with diachronic psychology, but also paying attention to the real potential of diachronic freewill in normal social life, then a woman may end up in situations of expecting multitasking to unfold smoothly and also going along with freewill choices like a man and expect them to go smoothly (the real life conditioning of the practicalities around the good-looking dress does not match the practical circumstances of the road).

A classical man in the latter circumstances would be more likely to brush off or not acknowledge the failures, as he needs to appear as a “a real man” and stay focused on the optimism of his castles in the air. He thinks from the perspective of power as control of the situation. He may also learn to some extent from the mistakes, as he is not really believing in the structural consistency of those castles and he has also an external gaze over them based on his feeling of being in control of the situation. This learning can be rather linear and limited though, as while he can take his mind of the structural consistency to tweak it, he is still relying on it as the only bestower of meaning in his life.

In the context of the Altaic mindset, the man may also realize that the organization based on castles in the air is like a decrepit car. This does not give or free automatically some other valuable organizational ideas. There may still be a problem when going along with the diachronic fluidity to expect it giving simplistic results as in a monotheistic-like line of thinking. Being helpful is deeply ingrained in the diachronic psychology and this is a major source of such issues. The man in the video ends up in all kinds of problems from immersing in the unexpected diachronicity of helpfulness, while treating it as a predictable psychological environment from the classical masculinity.

The video is without new valuable organizational ideas. There is some sort of an emerging new organization in that area that usually feels as non-psychology not taken in consideration, but it is more about facing the situation and not getting angry, because it is useless. Probably even more important than the uselessness (this is what makes it possible to not be angry) is that you have an intimacy with the fluid abyss of the situation in your psychology, the mind is immersed in the authenticity of the diachronic psychology even when dealing with a social context. It is necessary to notice the immersion in the unknown, as people with vested interests in the existing ecosystem developed with simplistic classical organization may hijack this and ask you to not be angry within the current framework, which may not necessarily work.

In this context of not knowing what to do further on, I should mention also another nuance that has some popularity among the Altaic people, namely to seek, provoke or imagine overwhelming difficulties, as a way to find that initial smooth work with the diachronic psychology. Difficulties limit your realistic diachronic options and make this psychology function much easier. I am aware of two nuances around this.

One is like the zestful refreshing vibe full of life from Haydar aka of the Uzbek singer Zafira. These are the kind of difficulties that still have the backup of a reliance on the belief in a core of the social organization that works well, like the hidden next-door wealth the man owns in this video, which along the way is reflected in the feeling that the man knows what he does. This is not a view of difficulties as facing the raw diachronic unknown of social life, like in Yarash-yarash. The feeling of the man knowing what he does makes the situation much more vibrant, as the woman does not need to face that “decrepit car”. This is the perspective of someone who stumbled upon uncertainties around the complexity of social life and does not know how to relate with them. The hope is that an arduous struggle like that initial Altaic smooth work with the diachronic psychology would open the mind around how to relate to those uncertainties.

There is also the case of a person who feels in control of the situation and seeks himself the arduous struggle, which is not about problems and uncertainties around social life, but about the loss of that great feeling of psychological fluidity discovered in the Altaic past when facing overwhelming hardships. This person may seek himself some struggle, but much more consequential is his propensity to put other people through unnecessary difficulties, as he feels he is fine in general (the basic self-centered classical sense of being in control of the situation), while he is annoyed how other people under his watch do not express that desired psychological fluidity. It can be like in the 1993 Korean film Seopyeonje.

In the situation from Haydar aka, the person who has some problems and uncertainties about social life introduces them in a peripheral manner to the person who in general feels in control of the situation and able to deal with any incoming issues, as the man from the video who relies on the fact that he has nearby a house full of all riches. The man feels he is able to deal with any incoming issues by treating them as an arduous struggle through overwhelming difficulties, awakening a valuable fluidity of the mind.

This course of action can also happen inside a person. One side of the person is immersed in that arduous state of mind, other sides are noticing problems and refer them to the former, which can trigger this unfoldment. This peripheral introduction coupled with the impression that everything is solvable with some arduous struggle can even spur an organizational expansion.

On a larger scale, something like this creates what I call the supernova effect repeating again and again in the Altaic history. There appears some leadership that frames the existing situation as a simplified difficult one, solvable as a struggle through hardships and difficulties, thus easier to work with (many of these leaders underwent difficulties and survived serious threats, even in childhood, in a manner that revived that initial Altaic experience). This is a simplification that makes possible the original Altaic smooth work with the diachronic psychology. They are inspired, with the mind on the roll. They also awaken a zestful state of mind in followers and these followers are ready to go through difficulties like the woman from Haydar aka even when there are no clear signs of success in sight, because they feel that the leader is relying on something that they cannot fathom themselves, it takes them out of facing the decrepit car.

This can make possible mind-blowing success and quick expansion, but then inevitably it comes a time when they need to face the real complexity the organization they developed is sitting on. From here on, there are a few directions I am aware of to appear.

One is that the diachronic fluidity that can make the minds of the men jump by leaps and bounds as by the end of Oy, Dusya, oy, Marusya of Otava Yo turns into the entanglement of threads around Umidaxon in Kel yarashaylik, as when a woman ends up invested in an ecosystem of meaning. They may try for a while to keep the situation afloat and a sense of overall organization like the women from Jalğız-aq bile of the Kazakh singer Nurjan Kermenbaev, but obviously this is a losing game.

Other direction is what I call the Lizaveta effect, after the pivotal character Lizaveta from Crime and Punishment of Dostoevsky. The main character Raskolnikov develops the image of the pawnbroker Alyona as that of a bad person that deserves to be killed, only to kill in the process also her innocent sister Lizaveta. This is another way to realize how that entanglement of threads around Umidaxon relates to normal social life.

Other direction is a pathos of power like in this interpretation of Yiğit Efe by the Turkish singer Sevilay Gök Akyıldız. This is the vibe of someone who realizes himself/herself when tasting absolute power that something is changing. He/she has a strong grip on the situation, even when becoming invested in an ecosystem of meaning like in Kel yarashaylik. Even with such an investment, there is no one that can confront you. Then you kind of have to face yourself directly all that complexity. The mindset of struggle against overwhelming difficulties is there, but you have such a strong grip on the situation. It may feel ridiculous to invent imaginary danger.

When you contemplate the plateau of power, you slide into immersing into the complexity of threads around Umidaxon. This is not as a struggle to contain the control of the situation like in Kel yarashaylik or like in the Lizaveta effect, but a pathos around power, like the vibe of the interpretation of Sevilay Gök Akyıldız. It reached the desired control of the situation, but unexpectedly that plateau does not give the absolute satisfaction you imagined it would give. It may continue as a praise of power, but the underlying feeling is “now what?” The wind does not blow anymore in the ship’s sails.

In practice, it may be a mixture of these directions. Also, in the first place, lots of men who become aware of such possibilities of success don’t really get the idea about inner non-linear unexpected changes in contact with real life to be able to go beyond classical masculinity and work with the diachronic psychology. They just end up in bovaryst dreams like in Küme Düşersin of the Turkish singer Oğuz Yılmaz or in Ty takoy (translation) of the Russian singers Doni and Natali.

If there is success, after a while they catch up with the real complexity. And all that fulminant expansion turns out to be rather like a supernova phase of a star. In this phase, the star grows to huge dimensions compared to the long-term previous ones, only to consume what was left of its fuel and then collapse.

The modern iterations of this phenomenon tend to have the nuance of explicitly implying the existence of the hidden next-door richness from Haydar aka, as the leaders need to motivate the population and give them dreams that look like answering the increased insights brought by modernity. It is not like in the older times, when they were just rallying them around a personal charisma of a man who knows what he does. This exposes them to even more profound supernova effects.

The Russian Communist leadership was much more exposed to this effect as a result of such promises (when compared to the previous Tsarist one). Due to a deeper immersion in that diachronic psychology, they managed to become one of the two global superpowers of the time. In a few decades and with incredible suffering inflicted on the population in the process, they evolved from the clunky Tsarist organization to sending humans in space. But exactly because of this supernova growth they had to face much more seriously the complexity their organization is sitting on and they crumbled to levels of organizational cohesion worse than those of the previous Tsarist Empire.

After the mess of the 90’s, Putin managed to stabilize the situation to some extent by focusing on keeping the appearances of superpower. His approach is to have no illusions of being able to sustain the real complexity such an organizational unfoldment supposes. This is what enabled his success. He pays attention to not imagine that he has solutions in the manner of a classical man who “knows what he does”, which would make him end up in Umidaxon’s entanglement of threads. A man who “knows what he does” has the pleasure to project control of the situation into the diachronic unknown and sustain a simplistic ecosystem of synchronic meaning. Putin is about sustaining the appearance of a man who knows what he does while doing what he can.

The mindset of the population is not entirely reversed to the previous Tsarist one in the idea of just going by with your life and being weary around the Tsarist organization. It continues to be under the spell of the man who “knows what he does”, who has a next-door hidden understanding about how to organize the abyssal depths the human social life is sitting on. In the previous Tsarist concept of power, the Tsar was like the Sun: if you get too close you get burned, if you go too far away you are too cold (which is not at all a given in such situations, what I write here is in the idea of making more understandable what is going on and not be so stuck in this situation while not knowing what else to do). The modern type of application of this leadership slid into a much more wholesome feeling of being immersed in the abyssal understanding of the world and in the “right” way of doing things. The Russian population appears to still be under the spell of this promise of making sense of the world to answer the questions of the modernity, like under the spell of the man from Haydar aka who appears to rely on something the woman cannot fathom.

While it continues to be stuck in expectations of simplistic coherence, in practice the Russian society has now itself a deeper awareness of the diachronic complexity an ecosystem sits on. An application of leadership like that of the man from Oşko presented as a man relying on something the people cannot fathom like in Haydar aka can make a society evolve by leaps and bounds for a while. It goes in all kinds of unexpected diachronic directions and it has the harshness and ruthlessness to drag along and change the entire society accordingly.

This works as long as the leadership is still in the process of changing the previous organization. The change is to fulfill an ideal organization. However, that ideal organization is mostly in contrast to the previous static simplistic organization, thus in fact leaning mentally on the sense of “reality” provided by the latter. It is not really about facing the diachronic complexity of real life. By itself, left to its own devices when in contact with real life, it is based on poor quality conclusions. The contrast with some other organization, the kibitzer sideline presentation of “look, here I see a better way to do things” hides lots of problems in relation to real life.

It comes a time when the previous organization fades away to the point it is not so relevant anymore. For a while it may feel good, but then it creeps in how you need to deal yourself with all that complex diachronicity you unleashed around the previous organization. No more “bad organization” to blame, the “reality” is on your shoulders, while you in fact think with a fluid plurality of diachronic threads.

If you don’t sense that something has changed, you end up like Umidaxon in Kel yarashaylik, weary of the diachronic unknown while still chasing simplistic static “reality”. If you sense that something has changed, but you cannot fathom clearly what is going on, it is like in Yiğit Efe of Sevilay Gök Akyıldız. (The Lizaveta effect does not seem to have much relevance for the contemporary Russian population, at least for now.)

Both the men and the women continue to have these expectations of a straightforward fluid diachronic leadership making sense of the world. Probably the women even more, as many of them do not seem to put their mind into what is like to have power and organize things while facing the diachronic unknown. There are expectations, but in practice it does not work anymore. When they venture again in simplistic organization like in the 90’s, they have no sense of static simplistic “reality” to rely on, they go with their minds in all kinds of diachronic directions that they are now much more aware of and it all turns into a selfish mess.

Two of the most viewed YouTube Russian music videos at the moment I write this text can give an idea about the perspectives opened by the Communist era in the Russian society. One is Ty takoy (translation) of Doni and Natali, with this impression that the raw reality of life is teeming with all kinds of non-linear unexpected ways of solving situations brilliantly. However, this video shows what is like when you don’t have anymore a structure of social organization to rely on.

Originally, these brilliant non-linear ways were developed on the sideline of the existing social structure, they were not about facing the huge complexity they unleash. The classical human social organization is very narrow-minded, based on a simplistic patternization, full of itself, convinced of its righteousness, rather oblivious of the huge complexity beyond its spider web of interconnected concepts. The female perspective sees all kinds of unexpected angles and the Altaic mindset seeped this into the minds of the men.

Something like Oy, Dusya, oy, Marusya of Otava Yo shows how the minds of the men can jump by leaps and bounds with unexpected perspectives on the sideline of their existing organization. The Russian brand of Communism turned this into full-time endeavor. Let’s get rid of the lousy existing organization and just keep pushing on with this tremendous psychological fluidity. They did not realize how much the existing organization was shielding the mind from the complexity unleashed by such psychological jumps by leaps and bounds.

The previous concept of static social normality was too much destroyed along the struggles in the Communist period. The people were increasingly left with just thinking “by leaps and bounds” in contact with real life in ways not foreseen by the Communist project and this impression that real life is teeming with non-linear brilliant solutions turns into something like in Ty takoy.

Another popular Russian video, Zatsepila (translation, also an English version) of Arthur Pirozhkov, shows the other angle of losing the reliance on a static sense of organization. It starts with the man unable to find the ideal fulfillment in the women appearing in front of his eyes. After a while, he slides into the “leaps and bounds” fluid thinking and soon the fulfillment appears. Unlike in the story of Cinderella, where the man is oblivious of the feminine possibilities to unfold a fulfilling psychological fluidity for a while, here the man himself is aware of this and unleashes it. He is aware of the effects, but not that they are temporary.

The concept of Cinderella is something along the lines of the long-term feminine experience that I wrote about in the previous parts of this series. Namely that such psychological fluidity also unleashes a huge psychological complexity and the long-term accumulated experience along generations of women cautions them about how they may not be able to sustain it for long. They will still be a Cinderella after a while, while the other side of them immersed in the practicalities of social life is more like the other overly mundane sisters.

The man is expected to notice the Cinderella side of the woman and cultivate it. However, this supposes the man stay oblivious of the gist of the diachronic fluidity. In the Russian case, the man is aware of the gist, he works himself with it, while the European veneer pushes for some increased predisposition to still seek the ideal static plateau. He realizes himself how overly mundane that fulfilling psychology of the woman turns when immersed in the classical human organization. This while the European veneer still pushes him to seek the ideal plateau.

In the more basic Altaic mindset, some men realize the concept of the “decrepit car” / “derelict building” and this goes beyond the structure of the Cinderella story. It is not anymore about relating everything to the classical human organization, there is some realization that new organizational avenues are necessary. Another video of Arthur Pirozhkov, Libo lyubov (translation), shows the wonderment about how to relate to this kind of Altaic femininity that has an unexpected tough core in contact with real life while still not losing the basics of the feminine psychology. Compare with something like Bugün Yasta Gördüm of the Turkish band Tanbura Trio, in which that woman with a piercing gaze is brought into the realization that the classical human organization cannot sustain the diachronic fluidity and new organizational avenues are necessary, like the nature growing through that derelict building.

After the dissolution of the Communist organization, the generalized behavior as in Ty takoy turned into the mess and the misery of the 90’s. Then Putin came with his stabilizing formula of focusing on keeping the veneer of static idealism, like at the end of Zatsepila. The success of this formula applied at the top of political organization relies on a degenerate power structure based on the fraternization between the secret services and the organized crime, while just paying lip service to the concept of “reality” (a formula also sustained with some considerable luck in getting easy money from selling abroad natural resources). This obviously has an expiry date, in time even this veneer is wasted too much with such approach.

In a sense, the Russian society is wiser than in the previous Tsarist times, it has now a much deeper understanding of what is the impact of a fluid diachronic psychology on the classical human simplistic concept of “reality”. And this deeper wisdom is kind of unavoidable, you can’t pretend you don’t understand it. But this wisdom does not catch up yet with the expectations about the functioning of a society.

The current opposition to Putin also largely functions along the lines of expecting the simplistic organization to just work. As the one better known in the rest of the world, it is to be commended the way Alexei Navalny exposes what is wrong in the Putin administration, but it appears to be zero interest around what does not work even without Putin. Earlier on, his projection of leadership was kindergarten level of blaming foreigners and that was about it. Recently, he became more focused on what is wrong in the current administration and in this case he was noticed as doing a good job. But this focus is pursued while not venturing into envisaging how a good administration could work. In this aspect, he is the same as Putin (and as most of the current Russian society) in being mentally blocked and not stepping into the diachronic unknown to see afresh the concept of organization while you don’t believe anymore in the classical notion of reality (and see what to do in this situation).

I should digress a bit and write about how the effect of taking much more seriously a simplified solution like in Haydar aka of Zafira is markedly different from that of undergoing an experience like that from Erkekpin men of the Kazakh singer Gazizkhan Şekerbekov. In both cases, the men end up realizing the huge complexity such a diachronic fluidity supposes, but there are differences in effects, stemming from the initial framing of the situation.

In the latter case, the woman has some comfortability and organizational maneuver room to unfold the diachronic fluidity. When the man realizes the complexity, he still has some of that background organizational support that feels relevant, only that he does not understand it himself. The vibe is like in the subsequent Dostarga of Gazizkhan Şekerbekov in collaboration with Meyrambek Besbaev. It is about post-supernova effects, but they are not so profound to the point they feel like an inner collapse of “reality” as in the overuse of the Haydar aka approach.

From here, the man may become somewhat more philosophical about real life without a clearer idea about what is going on or even more weary of the unknown and seek some simplistic dictatorial approach to real life (a dictatorial approach that is still not so desperate to micromanage the sense of “reality” and the “correct way of doing things”). Or he may realize that inner space from where originally the women see the complexity of the world, like in Yuh Yuh of the Turkish band Cemali (since the woman had initially some psychological coherence and organization based on that inner space in order to support the man as in Erkekpin men). It may even be a mixture of these directions. In all cases, it is something far from the serious psychological consequences of a supernova effect.

In the case of Haydar aka, the one who seeks or is fine with a man who “knows what he does” likely ended up in some more direct gaze into the fluid complexity out of that inner space and did not know what to do about it. It is not someone that can sustain some level of organization like the woman from Erkekpin men.

Further on, the supernova realization of the complexity meets the initial framework of the man being expected to “know what he does” and have solutions. There is not much underlying supportive structure as in Dostarga. This is not necessarily as something bad, as it can open the mind of the man to deeper psychological layers of the diachronic psychology. But it can turn into a make it or break it situation. It can be a difficult learning curve to do something about it.

It is possible to have both these experiences of Haydar aka and Erkekpin men, realize the value of both of them and ease the issues around that steep learning curve (the women themselves many times have a mixture of these approaches). And also all kinds of other Altaic nuances that I already wrote about and others that I will write about further on (plus paying attention to valuable psychology in other cultures).

I don’t see something like in Haydar aka as entirely bad, as it can reconnect you with the initial vibrancy that made the Altaic mindset work, if it really is about facing difficulties. It depends if one pays attention to the authenticity around it, when really working with ecosystems of meaning. It feels when it is overused and sought after as an easy way in life. And I should stress that lazy-minded men themselves are many times guilty of overusing it. Most of them do it from the female position from the video, the kind of men who “need a strong man to lead them”, otherwise they are like some sort of stray dogs without a master. A few of them do it from the lazy-minded position of the man “who knows what he does”, who after a while realizes what a bullshit he got into and he has to figure out what kind of tricks he should use to keep on with that image.

What is good in the basic feeling from this video? It is a clarity of the mind, a feeling of being in the flow with that vibrant fluid psychology (which later on can feel so daunting, like the entanglement of threads in Kel yarashaylik). Further on, it is good to see what is with this feeling and with the authenticity around it. It may give the impression of a promise to solve whatever problem comes your way. When you are not anymore in overwhelmingly difficult situations and you need to deal with the poor quality of the classical human organization, it looks like you can’t really solve whatever problem. Then you pay attention to the authenticity of that initial vibrancy and see how it relates to the classical human organization.

If it is not about ending up in something daunting, but in a vibe like in Yiğit Efe of Sevilay Gök Akyıldız, it is about wondering what continues to be relevant there. The expressivity of the singer is one of continuing in the mind that original Altaic struggle against overwhelming difficulties, it continues to feel relevant, but for some not very conscious reason the wind does not blow anymore in the sails. What is relevant there?

Also, this does not mean that it is bad to end up with perceptions beyond that inner space and wonder if someone else can give some more inspiration, like the premise from Haydar aka, it is normal. But it is good to be more aware about your own agency and the expectations around what psychological support others can provide.

Back to the contemporary Russian context, Putin's success to stabilize the situation was based on being realistic about the psychological consequences of the Soviet supernova, but in a way that the complexity revealed appears as unwarranted, undeserved. The simplistic self-centered mind does not really get the gist of why that complexity is so consequential and authentic and thus it is far from admitting anything wrong in its own basic worldview. This is not at all about facing that decrepit car.

He faced the weakness that the Altaic use of the diachronic fluidity shows about classical masculinity. But that was something private, with the external result of doubling down on projecting strength in simplistic classical manner. This turned into an objectification of the concept of the man “who knows what he does”, now changed from that of an immersion in freshness the diachronic unknown into that of just sustaining an image of power. From really being immersed in it and believing it as something real to working with it as an actor, with a much clearer idea that it is just a show on a scene.

The image is sustained with the realism of someone who knows he has no capacity to uphold a diachronic plurality of threads if stepping into the unknown. He largely refrains from stepping into the diachronic unknown of the decision-making process, he would be too paralyzed mentally if he did that. He leaves to the rest of the world the initiative to do that and move things forward. He finds a use for the unavoidable perception of that diachronic fluidity in exploiting opportunistically whatever manipulations of perception he can provoke in the minds of those people who are too clueless of that fluidity. He practically does nothing as a venture into the fresh unknown. His preferred action is to probe around the defenses of the others, to see how much he can get away with and to tease the rest of the world itself to step into the unknown and take decisions that he can then manipulate.

His revolutionary approach was to move away from the idea that someone needs to harmonize with the existing public sense of “reality” or else there is nothing. He appears to make the difference between the feeling of “reality” stemming from an inner sense of normalcy and the “reality” brewing and growing in the world in all kinds of unexpected ways that feel so unwarranted.

To recapitulate a bit the path in order to explain some other nuances, initially it is about an arduous state of mind using fluid diachronic psychology in facing overwhelmingly difficult circumstances, like in Kazagım-ay of the Kazakh band Gaukhartas. The impression that with this state of mind you can confront whatever difficulties may continue in normal social life. In this situation, it turns into something like in Naqshli of Ravshanbek Abdullayev for a woman, while for a man into something like Oşko of Totomidin and Surma.

There are contexts in which it is made a connection between this fluid personal sense of reality going through the world and issues peripheral to it. If you have this zest and drive, other people on the sideline show you “look what specific problems and uncertainties are unfolding right now”. This is brought to the awareness in a way that feels like a genuine belief in the capacity of this state of mind to solve those problems, from the perspective of someone afflicted by those problems outside of the mind of the “arduous one”. This amazement and belief in the capacity to solve the problems has also the underlying nuance that, if the problems or uncertainties are not solved, then the state of mind of the “arduous one” is not so valid in its impression of having solutions as it feels.

The “arduous one” is like, yeah of course, I’m going to solve it. He brings the petitioner in this state of arduous fluidity of struggle through difficulties, like the man bringing the woman in the household requiring arduous work in Haydar aka of Zafira. The woman has cultural awareness about what this means, namely a fluid diachronic way to face problems successfully. She may have done that by herself in some other cases. Only that now it is about some problems or uncertainties that she cannot figure out how to face (most likely related to issues around the poor quality of the classical human social organization). Hence she goes along with the man’s leadership, noticing his feeling of confidence.

This course of action can also happen inside a person. One side of the person is immersed in that arduous state of mind, other sides are noticing problems and refer them to the former, which can trigger this unfoldment.

Haydar aka is the perspective of the one who goes along with this method implemented by “the arduous one” and its end represents how that solution appears. All this time, the real house of the man was in fact just next door and full of all the luxuries. It mattered for her to go along with his vision as a fluid psychological struggle through difficulties limiting the diachronic options, which may make the mental passage to a previously utter unknown.

In some cases, this may be reached in real life, when the person going along with the “arduous one” realizes how to relate a specific problem with the diachronic fluid psychology. In many cases it may just drag along with no mental passage to the nearby house full of luxuries, just living with the man’s feeling of confidence and with his vibe of “knowing what he does”. This may also result from the simple practical reality that the “arduous one” does not have those desired solutions. Lots of aspects in human social organization are not at all solved with a simple limitation of diachronic options through difficulties.

Even more, individuals who are under impression they can solve any problem can be introduced in this manner to larger perspectives that this monotheistic-like line of struggle through difficulties is not a straightforward answer to. While seeking to solve them, the “arduous one” may end up himself like Umidaxon in Kel yarashaylik or realizing some Lizaveta side of the issue. The issue is that such a peripheral introduction of previously unnoticed larger perspectives comes with a belief that the monotheistic-like line can solve any issue (both the one who ended up with some uncertainties that he/she has no idea how to face and the “arduous one” are under this impression). The latter may seek to face then what is going on or keep on with appearances of “knowing what he does”.

In the modern context that does not rely anymore on tradition and opens up the mind to all kinds of increased awareness about social life, the problems brought to the attention of this arduous state of mind are increasingly profound. The breadth of the Russian Communist scope in solving social problems opened up such a breadth of practical realizations about the potential of this diachronicity in normal social life. It is like the difference between Yar Ali Senden Medet of the Turkish singer Yıldız Tilbe and Habeit Ya Leil of the Lebanese singer Nawal El Zoghbi. The former has a single thread in the cinema seat with a plurality of diachronic threads in the social life. They are seen as catastrophic and overwhelmingly difficult, as in the Altaic struggle through difficulties. The latter has a plurality of threads both in the cinema seats and in social life and this is how things unfold in practice when there are no overwhelming difficulties limiting the threads in the cinema seat.

The problem of the overuse of Haydar aka stems from the impression that something set as a struggle through difficulties as in Yar Ali Senden Medet can solve problems and uncertainties appearing from an unfoldment with a plurality of threads in the cinema seat as in Habeit Ya Leil. The Altaic women have found the single thread in the cinema seat solution in very difficult circumstances and many of them did not get entirely the idea that this does not apply automatically to social life circumstances with a plurality of threads in the cinema seat (I could not even find a musical Altaic example in the idea of Habeit Ya Leil).

Those who realize this are like in Yarash-yarash of the Uzbek singer Hadicha, this is about realizing what is like to face directly the plurality of threads in the cinema seat. For Nawal El Zoghbi it is considerably easier in Habeit Ya Leil because she leans on the existing masculine organization. Hadicha is about continuing the initial Altaic discovered possibility to have your own stance (which is such a good thing), only to realize how complex is the situation when there are no pressing difficulties. Of course, the situation is not at all a cul-de-sac if you readjust your expectations about the classical human simplistic concept of reality and see how this situation works.

The overuse of Haydar aka in the Russian Communist context as a promise to solve social problems inevitably made the population much wiser around the plurality of threads in the cinema seat as in Habeit Ya Leil. This is not with the expectantly classical feminine stance as in Habeit Ya Leil specifically (which is still about leaning on the classical masculine organization), but with the impression that they have unexpected diachronic solutions at hand that can solve all kinds of problems encountered in social life. They can’t pretend they don’t sense them at a not so conscious level while they chase simplistic organization. Their minds go in all kinds of unexpected diachronic directions and the idea of let’s get rid of Communism ideals and live a normal life turned into the selfish mess of the 90’s. Their classical human sense of reality got lost progressively as the Communist era managed to destroy progressively the sense of reality from the Tsarist times.

Regarding Putin, what I sense as essential in his “philosophy of freedom” is the way the connection is made between an individual’s worldview and the realization of aspects about social life not remarked before, this is why I made the previous recapitulation with some further insights. At a basic level, Oşko and Haydar aka are about the same thing, a man bringing a woman in his organization based on an arduous state of mind, while he thinks as a single cinema seat thread going through the diachronic fluidity of life. In Haydar aka there is something additional, the woman brings some uncertainties and unsolved problems when dealing with social life.

In the former case, the man just goes along with what he has himself in his mind. In the latter case, the man feels like able to solve the problems and uncertainties he was made aware of by the woman. If it is about more profound social aspects, the man may soon have a better idea about how what appears in Oşko and Haydar aka as a single cinema seat thread of Yıldız Tilbe working with the plurality of TV sets in Yar Ali Senden Medet is in fact a constant jump in between a plurality of cinema seat threads of Nawal El Zoghbi in Habeit Ya Leil. Take the plurality of Nawal El Zoghbi threads in the cinema seats as trees and the man in action from Oşko and Haydar aka as a monkey jumping as it feels fit from one to another. This is what the diachronic unfoldment of social life is about.

A limitation of a single thread in the cinema seat appears in very difficult circumstances limiting the personal diachronic options. But even then, structurally it still is about a plurality of threads in the cinema seat, this is how this psychology was developed along many feminine generations. Only that it is a context that practically limits the cinema seat options to a single thread. It is not like some new major psychological development discovered how to think with a single thread (which may not even be necessary, it remains to be seen how a better work with the diachronic psychology would look like).

It looks like the women found inspiration in the simplified classical masculine thinking process with a single thread for coherence in action. This arduous state of mind in difficult circumstances copies much of that structure. Only that it does not follow also a single thread about projecting the intervention in real life, it works diachronically with a fluidity of a plurality of angles and threads. Plus many other nuances of the long-term accumulated feminine experience in thinking fluidly when dealing with an abyssal unknown.

See this interpretation of İzmir Marşı by the Turkish CRR Symphonic Orchestra and Choir, evoking the very difficult circumstances after the end of the First World War. The plurality of individuals reciting by the beginning of the video are like the plurality of “cinema seat” threads of Nawal El Zoghbi in Habeit Ya Leil. In very difficult circumstances that restrict too much your own self-expression, all that plurality of “cinema seat” threads determined by the diachronic psychology can act like one. They act like one, while still using the diachronic pluralistic psychology, which gives tremendous psychological strength and discernment. This appears at women worldwide.

The specific Altaic psychological development is to not revert to normal life after such experience by realizing its intrinsic value while also taking inspiration from the simplified classical masculine thinking processes with a single thread and continue in this manner as a way of life in the probable context of ongoing never-ending difficulties. However, normal social life may reappear after a while and the superficial similarity with the classical masculine way of action may give the impression that you can apply this Altaic feminine discovery also in a normal life without overwhelming difficulties. You can keep the single cinema seat thread line if you want, but it is like a monkey jumping from tree to tree, if you want to also continue with the simplistic classical human organization. There appear many cinema seat relevant threads and it is like jumping from one to another in order to keep the single line coherence.

In the first place, it should be clear from the start that the arduous clarity of the mind works in very difficult circumstances. There is something valuable in it, it opens the idea of working directly with the diachronic psychology as something organized and rational in facing real life. But, further on, you need to see how to relate it with the classical human organization and its concept of reality.

Yalan (translation) of the Turkish singer Aleyna Tilki is a good example of some further quest into this. She starts with a single thread of herself in the cinema seat, with the Altaic feminine awakened consciousness about working with the diachronic psychology as something organized and rational. As she immerses in the study of the plurality of diachronic threads and angles regarding real life as that entanglement of threads in the video, it grows too a plurality of threads of herself. This is not an overwhelmingly difficult context in which all the developing “cinema seat” threads act like one. Initially it is about jumping from one to another, then at the end they all appear together. This is about some further realization about how it is something organized and rational to have this plurality of your own threads while paying attention to the diachronic sense of authenticity (which is only a start, lots of further aspects are opened up for study in this manner). The overwhelmingly difficult situations limit so much your own options that it doesn’t matter too much what is the development of your own sense of self.

This video is an example of the kind of further work necessary to see how to relate with normal social life this increased consciousness about the diachronic psychology. The idea that you can work with this psychology as a coherent and organized environment makes the difference from Habeit Ya Leil (where the woman mostly orientates her mind around the existing masculine organization), but you need to pay attention where you can be under impression that there is a single thread in the “cinema seat”, while in fact you may jump like a monkey from tree to tree in normal not-so-difficult life. The entanglement of threads is the same thing as the entanglement of cables around Umidaxon in Kel yarashaylik, only that Aleyna Tilki did not end up (yet) invested in an ecosystem of meaning. It has a start in investigating how this increased consciousness is relevant for a plurality of threads (the issue studied in Yarash-yarash of Hadicha).

The woman from Erkekpin men of Gazizkhan Şekerbekov has some idea about such issues in the way she pays attention to the consistency of the diachronic fluidity in relation with ecosystems of meaning. Gazizkhan was just leaning on that while jumping like a monkey from one cinema seat thread tree to another, only to found out later what a complexity this perspective reveals in Dostarga.

Most likely her consistency was based on working with that inner psychological space immersed in an abyssal diachronic unknown (while you also have some psychological connections with this abyss). This functions as an area where it is possible to think diachronically while keeping things undefined. One the one hand, it is too difficult to give answers at once that explain coherently a situation while respecting the revealed diachronic psychological depth. On the other hand, there is no sliding into being invested in a simplistic ecosystem of meaning. The previous Yalan of Aleyna Tilki was an example of thinking in that inner space.

I mentioned in the previous parts of this series other musical examples of this inner space, like İstanbul Ağlıyor of the Turkish singer Gülay and Benim Yarim of the Turkish singer Songül Karlı. The previous Yar Ali Senden Medet of Yıldız Tilbe is another example. Habeit Ya Leil of Nawal El Zoghbi is a mixture of both the inner space and the immersion in social life, as there is no such increased consciousness of this inner space as an area where you can think.

And, for the men who realize it, it can be like in the interpretations of Yuh Yuh by Cemali, Koray Avcı and Haluk Özkan. All these videos are with the gaze from that space towards the external world. These are all the musical examples I remember in this sense, and you can imagine that there can be all kinds of other nuances. The novel My Name is Red of Orhan Pamuk and the film Rashomon of Akira Kurosawa are some examples of a more elaborate masculine thinking from that perspective (without the clearer vibe of the distinction between the inner space and the rest of the world as in the interpretations of Yuh Yuh). Dostoevsky’s literary works are increasingly immersed in these topics, as each them points out still other relevant and authentic angles that he immerses in and determine the next piece of fiction.

Tolstoy started with War and Peace as a straightforward immersion in the diachronic psychology, then in Anna Karenina he discovered nature as an environment that can sustain a huge psychological organization in this sense. He largely managed to keep a sense of authenticity when writing the latter, but he still drew some static conclusions regarding what is that about. If you do this, it does not take long to be bombarded with all kinds of unexpected angles (the linear static understanding is too superficial), which decimate your static superficial beliefs step by step, as it starts in Aerılmagız of the Tatar singer Leyna coming after Malay na belom Barse (she knows the gist and is prepared for this, plus some expectation from the man to be understanding when she is sliding into being invested in an ecosystem of meaning).

It is important to sense something initially feeling like depersonalizing and yet opening an unexpected field of human psychology in ways of making connections, like the vibe from this Connections advertisement of Beko (the company is Turkish, maybe this explains why it feels like nailing what is important in the Altaic immersion in nature). I live in an European environment, I have myself European backgrounds besides the Altaic ones and, for the Russian context with a similar mixture, I feel like explaining the passage from the European mindset as something initially appearing as depersonalizing. Tolstoy reaches something like this in subsequent texts, like The Death of Ivan Ilyich, but even then, it just happens practically, he does not seem to get the gist of the mental passage.

Dostoevsky did not have this problem, it looks like he had that mental passage when he was about to be executed (this can open the mind of a man to something similar to the basic feminine situation). This, on the specific cultural background, turned afterwards in a rolling snowball of increasingly unexpected perspectives with him sensing the gist. Initially, a side of his personality had a “Putin-in-the-making period”, as in Notes from Underground, experiencing what is like to see the world from that inner space, but with a feeling that the revealed complexity is unwarranted. However, in his case, he had a different subsequent path after experiencing the Lizaveta effect.

To add also something about the issue with the threads, it appears to be around expectations to have the coherence of a single thread of thinking as in classical masculine organization (especially after the possibility to sustain diachronic psychology with a single thread in very difficult circumstances). If you are focused on that, you end up with a plurality of threads of your own development (exactly because of expecting one). If you are immersed in the diachronic fluidity as a world in itself in an inner space weary of the gist of the huge complexity beyond, like the more direct undefined vibe from İstanbul Ağlıyor, it simply does not matter so much, you can think without paying too express attention to the concept of a thread. There are situations when it is valuable to pay attention to a single thread like a monkey jumping from tree to tree among the plurality of your developing threads, there are situations when it is valuable to pay attention to the plurality of your developing threads as they are, there are also situations in which it is not important to pay attention to any thread.

This diachronic thinking may look complicated, but it appears in fact much more simple and natural in relating to real life. It may be in fact much more related to how the human brain works. There appears to be a superficial organization like a simple operating system, but the brain itself functions in a very profound manner that is not well understood yet and it appears to work hugely on a grand scale with lots of apparently disparate elements like in İstanbul Ağlıyor and with lots of experience about how such apparently disparately elements are connected. Only that it does not have a conscious valuable organization for that, the current one is too simplistic. It may look complicated, but it is your own brain after all. It is not like seeking to figure out how some alien extraterrestrial intelligent being thinks.

Consider also the difference of ethos between web directory and Wikipedia. Both have a categorization structure, but for Yahoo it was a centralized one, with the main organizational role, as the starting point. At Wikipedia, it is somewhere in the background, while the topic studied itself is at the forefront. Its ethos is focused on thinking directly about the topic you are interested in and from there you can explore in whatever related direction, like a human mind jumping from thought to thought and open to a perspective like in Yalan of Aleyna Tilki.

The mind is much more able to be fluid and relevant in relation to real life, notice unexpected different angles and thus the organizational structure is much more able to restructure itself, unlike when a central control of the situation proposed as “knowledge” is put at the forefront. Too much focus on a centralized arborescent structure that is likely in need of constant evolution as more in-depth information appears Yahoo’s sense of organization was too stifling for a huge amount of information and withered, while that of Wikipedia experienced such a flourishing. The latter too has a

The struggle through overwhelming difficulties that opened the mind to that initial Altaic psychological discovery was a relation to real life that was restricting so much the range of personal initiatives that the mind discovered a centralized possibility to decide through a non-centralized fluid thinking like in Wikipedia or like in Yalan of Aleyna Tilki. This obviously does not work in normal social life. Wikipedia itself is able to function and flourish by realizing that it needed some self-limitations, namely in its case by just synthesizing the existing reliable information and not sliding into decisional territory.

I wrote more in detail about these aspects as I needed them to explain better how I see Putin. The Russian Communist experience was an introduction of previously unknown uncertainties and problems to a people immersed in the authenticity of a diachronic psychology, but under impression they have a centralized great way to work with it and solve any problem. Such a peripheral introduction to a man like in Oşko turns him into something like in Haydar aka, which in the Russian case of huge Communist promises of making sense of the world only opened the mind to how complicated the human organization is when you are under impression you can handle it with a single thread, as when confronting very difficult circumstances.

The path of this connection with previously unknown nuances appears to not have also opened the mind in the Russian society about how consequential and authentic this complexity is. It largely continues the initial feeling of authenticity with a single thread through difficulties (and those who don’t are mostly cynical, dejected etc.). In the 90’s, they simply went ahead with simplistic organization while their sense of classical human reality was long gone, thus turning into a selfish mess of “free thinkers” acting in social life.

Putin’s success in stabilizing the situation was based on doubling down on the feeling of authenticity with a single thread through difficulties while abandoning altogether the idea that you need to take in consideration the concept of a reality. That feels so idiotic, betraying, unwarranted. People in general are weary of disentangling from the general sense of “reality” in the society, to many it would not even occur anything beyond. It looks like Putin makes the difference between the feeling of “reality” stemming from an inner sense of normalcy and the “reality” brewing and growing in the world in all kinds of unexpected ways with no idea how to face them, thus feeling so unwarranted. Why do I need to go along with that like an idiot? I have ways to tackle what is unwarranted and fight for my sense of normalcy. I have such a plenary sense of reality of my own.

His problem is that in this manner he abandons the classical masculine work with ecosystems of meaning with a constant external gaze upon them like Amanğali changing the woman’s “language” in her “operating system” at the beginning of Qızdar-ay qızdar or like what Salavat Minnikhanov conveys to Guzelem in Ay-hay karaşların about how to resume the functioning of the airplane. These are suspended moments in the mind based on the feeling of being in control of the situation when facing the unknown. For this you need to be in the position of the master of reality as sustained by an ecosystem of meaning.

Putin did not come up with a new concept of overall reality, he is just about his own sense of normalcy and the unwarranted complexity of the current concept of reality. He works with the diachronic psychology as it was developed along hundreds of thousands of years in the manner from Habeit Ya Leil, only seeing unexpected diachronic angles around the existing organization of the social perception of reality. He finds use for the immersion in that complexity to manipulate as he pleases others’ perceptions. It is much easier to do this when you don’t seek anymore to uphold yourself the concept of overall reality. It is a very liberating “ideology of freedom”. In the same time, this abandonment coupled with not coming up with a new sense of reality means that you lose the possibility to have the suspended state of mind about ecosystems and move them forward. You just work with the existing structure, going along with how the diachronic psychology was developed by women before the Altaic discovery.

He kick-started his leadership by reigniting the zestful state of mind of the Russian society as in Haydar aka with the September 1999 apartment bombings attributed to Caucasian separatists, but possibly perpetrated by the Russian secret services themselves to create a “situation”. He put again the people in a single thread state of mind of meaningful struggle through overwhelming difficulties, with the implication that he is relying of something that they cannot fathom. And while they struggle, they can orientate their minds around him as a source of abyssal meaning.

However, his ongoing problem is that he still relies on the current sense of “reality” and he needs validation. With a thinking process like in Habeit Ya Leil, he has no other sense of “reality” to rely on. Initially, his approach was in the manner of those women who feel paralyzed in front of the unknown in social life after ending up invested in an ecosystem of meaning with the impression of knowing stuff and then facing all that diachronic complexity. This is the particular case of women who developed some self-centered ecosystem of beliefs, they end up facing the diachronic complexity, they don’t dare anymore to step into the unknown, they orientate their minds around the existing situation and find a use for all that complexity to manipulate the public perceptions in order to sustain the consistency of their ecosystem of beliefs. Fake it till you make it, desperate for attention, recognition and acknowledgement from the others who are comfortable with the unknown. Putin developed a propaganda machine to achieve this, also threw money left and right and used whatever underhanded methods for recognition-grabbing projects and for winning international competitions (why didn’t anyone give him some sort of a Putin special category Miss Universe title?).

In the recent years, as it became increasingly clear that respect and acknowledgement will not come and this approach is rather turning him into the butt of jokes, Putin’s realism turned towards even more direct intimacy with that diachronic psychology that feels now even more so marshy and unwarranted. The rest of the world continues happily to develop a social life unaware of such a complex psychological fluidity. Why am I the one afflicted and they live with their innocent organization blissfully unaware of it? If this is crippling my life and it is putting me at such a disadvantage compared to them, then I am going to unleash it upon them too. This is my crippling curse, this is my weapon too.

His approach in the recent years is to level the field and make the others too embroiled in that marshy psychology. Its unleashing is not so much in the hope of a validation anymore. Thus it is much more spectacular, as it is not about getting a specific recognition title. He is unleashing a plurality of threads, it is not straightforwardly about sustaining a specific point of view. His army of internet trolls amplify a variety of divisive issues, they concomitantly support competing points of view as long as they are divisive and inciteful, thus with potential to destabilize the target society.

However, the Western world has its own relevant history around the notion of “reality”, which developed the concept and practice of democracy as a relation with the unexpected diachronic unknown of real life. There is still work to do in this sense, the current context shows lots of nuances that need improvement, and the wave of lazy populism does not help in this sense. Putin is happy to bank on this and it remains to be seen how determined are the people to improve the democracy and not turn into some troglodyte zombies.

In the meantime, inconvenient people are murdered here and there, the situation in Russia is increasingly stale and rusty, the standard of living is decreasing year by year, while Putin is probably the richest person in the world. There is talk among Russians who consider themselves more realistic about how this is the most they can get, how he is so cerebral and kills only surgically, not some nutcase like previous Russian rulers unleashing senseless bloody purges (apparently this is an achievement in the Russian society).

The opposition is of such a poor quality, not really presenting credible projections of leadership. There are practical reasons why Putin continues to be in power. My impression is that the focus should be on what does not work even without him, not on the idea the things will work out by themselves if there is more freedom. If you have the latter perspective, then there are reason why he continues to be in power. If you focus on the former one, Putin is like an ant with its feet stuck in a dung and unable to move on.

Let’s move on to another situation of contemporary supernova effect. In the Japanese context, what started with the Meiji period of thorough reforms increasingly turned into an overuse of the approach from Haydar aka of Zafira, as an easy way to deal with the psychological complexity ushered by those reforms. It went more and more into the domain of implying the reliance on a next-door richness to put the population in that state of mind of arduous struggle through overwhelming difficulties with a refreshing immersion in a monotheistic-like line of diachronic psychology. In their case, they did not reach so deep aftereffects of realizing the complexity they got into, as they were defeated in the Second World War.

Only the part of Korea that subsequently ended up under Kim dynasty’s regime suffered some serious psychological supernova effects, as the specific Japanese militaristic ethos found a place to survive there. It is like in backgammon when you work with this kind of psychology. If you are affected by someone who employs such fluid psychology and if you think you are better than them in “against the system” terms, then, in case you manage to defeat them, you only take over their problems, like the way a blot hit in that game has to enter in your own house, it is not simply eliminated.

As for the Japanese proper, after the defeat, they started again with that overuse, but now limited to economic development. This time, they reached the entanglement of threads from Kel yarashaylik of Umidaxon (by the beginning of the 90's), but it was limited to economy-related aspects. It was not so extended to the overall meaning of social organization, as it was shaping up before the war with State Shintoism, Japanese spirit and other concepts. You can look at what is going on in Russia and North Korea to get some idea about what would have meant for the Imperial Japan have its way through the modernity that asks for meaning in social life and does not rely anymore of traditional religion.

In relation to the Russian case, there is a significant practical difference. The Russian Communism was about a thorough overhaul of the society to answer modern questions about social life. The major overhaul of the Japanese society that started with the Meiji period was conceived as a restoration of the original feeling of abyssal authenticity of the Yamato dynasty (I will write more in detail about this in future parts of this series). The subsequent sliding into an increasingly militaristic reactionary direction, while it still was a modern reinterpretation of the pre-modern context as a defensive stance towards the complexity ushered by modernity, it was not so much framed in concepts of new destroying the old, of “explaining” how social life functions.

The North Korean regime got the worst of both reactionary aberrations. It is a mixture of both of a Russian Communist type of new destroying the old, of “explaining” how social life functions and of a Japanese modern reinterpretation of an abyssal psychological authenticity of a dynasty, as a continuity with something primordial within modernity. The North Korean regime continues the post-Meiji increasingly reactionary militaristic Japanese concepts of “State Shinto”, “Japanese spirit” etc. The Korean context also has its own propensity of new destroying the old, the same as in the Russian case, as I wrote in a previous part of this series, as a result of a veneer of Chinese cultural influence.

I should also remind that the modern reactionary Japanese and now North Korean reverence for a dynasty that has access to some abyssal psychological depths is just a pale caricaturisation of what the Yamato dynasty is about, as just a lazy psychological defense against the questions of the modernity. It is about people full of themselves who do whatever they want as the self-appointed supposed gatekeepers of that abyssal psychology, as an “against the system” reaction to modernity, without really being interested in what is this psychology about.

If you really are paying attention to that, it becomes soon apparent what a psychological depth you have to relate to, even more apparent in the modern context. The real people of the Yamato dynasty are rather overwhelmed by all the responsibilities of maintaining the connection with it through a stable institutionalized form. Many times, they look more like prisoners of the psychological depth of their ancestors.

Regarding the contemporary post-supernova issues limited only around the Japanese economy, the expectation in the Japanese society is for the individual to show an image of relentless struggle, of giving their best, but in a narrow-minded simplistic way. Some of them really work themselves to death, others are just careful to maintain the image of being permanently busy and tired in order to fulfill this public ideal. Lots of work fields function inefficiently, with accent on long hours and empty focus on simplistic dedication. This may function for a while when the economy is about simple tasks. But after that it requires increased gaze into the unknown, otherwise this is a source of stagnation and low productivity.

Interspersed with this poor quality approach to work there is also such a vibrant creativity, but so awkwardly related to the official line. The creativity is there, but they are so awkward in approaching it. The pre-modern Japanese culture is permeated with the concept of a relaxed immersion in the diachronic unknown and a study of what may feel initially depersonalizing yet opening up the mind to such a valuable sense of personality and unexpected ways to think fluidity. But when it is about work, this very relaxation has to be put in the confines of a single-thread struggle with difficulties.

Most of the time the business leadership acts like being lost without such approach. Lots of companies and bosses continue with the impression that a grueling approach to work awakens a diachronic fluid clarity of the mind in which you are so strong and so inspired and you know what to do. The apprentices are put first to do Sisyphean never-ending repeating tasks with the hope that in this manner they will transcend their static worldview and have that valuable diachronic fluidity. They are also put in situations aiming to destroy their social sense of self and self-worth in the hope of achieving that too.

Paradoxically, they do the same when some subordinate has some original ideas that do not relate well with the specific line of the leadership. The leadership wants creativity and diachronic fluidity, but in the same time is scared and mentally blocked by it if it goes in directions different from those of the driving wheel of the man from Oşko. In such situations they tend to apply the same treatment, just put that individual to do some grueling Sisyphean work to bring their mind back into the line of the leadership’s specific work with the diachronic psychology.

Another relevant modern case around these topics is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. To some extent, he is like a breath of fresh air in all this depressing overuse of the Haydar aka approach in the context of modernity. He had a much clearer idea about the complexity he was getting into, about how the white eyes of the awakened masculinity from Amanat of the Kazakh band Hassak relate to the unfoldment of normal social life. He embodied that masculinity and awakened in the demoralized population that arduous struggle through overwhelming difficulties, with the underlying feeling like in Haydar aka that he relies on something.

However, when the danger was over, he did not step further into the unknown of modernity to give it meaning through this method. It continued as a direct connection with the vivacity of a mental abyss and with a direct focus on how it is relevant in this context. For the most part he did not have pertinent answers and his approach was to do what he can do.

This mindset was already present in the difficult period, when he avoided sliding in whatever ideology. Who knows, he may have had success with a maximalist approach like the Russian Communists of the same years. But this means getting into ridiculously idealistic and simplistic social organizations that you sense it does not represent the spirit of that mental abyss when you have a more direct gaze into it. His approach was to rely on that inner space where you can work well with such a refreshing psychology without the need to draw simplistic conclusions. Hence he had a minimalist approach, he abandoned the Ottoman organization and created a new specifically Turkish one with no need for further definitions more in detail, as an inner space delimited from the rest of the world.

It may have been more difficult than in other Altaic cases to put the Turkish population in an arduous monotheistic-like focus, as there is lots of experience in working with a plurality of threads (for example, the Ottoman millet system), like the people from a variety of backgrounds driven by Gaye Su Akyol in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir (“Consistent fantasy is reality”). This is about the same thing as the entanglement of threads around Umidaxon in Kel yarashaylik, but with some more expertise to work with it while not getting into the impression of knowing stuff. In this manner, you don’t depend on the existing sense of reality people orientate their minds around. You can lead a situation into the diachronic unknown and not be stuck in the limitations of Habeit Ya Leil to just work with the existing ecosystem of “reality” (more about this in future parts of this series).

He was himself like that in the initial difficult period, able to put his mind in the existing ideologies of that time to get support. He was hinting at Islamism to the local Islamist, he was hinting at Communism to the Russian Communists etc. But then, when you are yourself in position to organize and gaze into the unknown, it comes the question of the modernity, what is reality? He was not so prepared to get more in depth about the “consistent fantasy” part of the Ottoman organization. With the same expertise of “consistent fantasy”, he did not slide into the impression of knowing stuff either. When gazing into what is authentic there, he found that inner space as an environment where he can unfold that authenticity without giving answers.

The previously mentioned example of İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir is a sort of a study about this diachronic psychology going even more in-depth than Yalan. The latter is about having a more relevant conscious organization regarding the existing situation, the former is about how to work with this diachronic psychology and moving it on diachronically in time (the way the Ottoman organization worked). There is still a lot to understand about this psychology and the “bus” is likely to break down at times, as in the video.

In this case, the woman enters in a “Putin mode” to seek validation from those who are comfortable with the unknown, as those men appearing from the dark and giving her the queen diadem (which does not give much practical power if she is too focused on this as an achievement; it depends also on the men). She is successful because she really is restorative, continuing to be focused on the authenticity of the unknown and its diachronic fluidity. No sliding into being invested in an ecosystem of beliefs and then upholding it with fake it till you make it approach.

The Ottoman organization did not work with this option, it was about seeking to repair the “bus”. And then there appeared the questions asked by modernity about what is reality. By that time there was already experience accumulated along centuries of increasingly clunky Ottoman administration that made more and more obvious how the very engine of the “bus” needs some major overhaul.

Atatürk did not find answers about a “bus” engine capable to face the questions of the modernity while carrying a plurality of thought threads through the diachronic unknown. Hence the major overhaul turned into an organization based on that inner space aware of a huge complexity beyond, like in İstanbul Ağlıyor, as an area where you can think diachronically without giving immediate clear answers. Externally, this developed as an organization at the opposite end of the Ottoman one, obsessed with uniformity, exactly because of the same increased awareness about the diachronic fluidity as the Ottoman one. His political concept of nation building turned into a Turkish tin-can nation, disconnected a lot even from the Turks left outside of the new state.

In this sense, it has the same scare of the unknown triggered by modernity as in the Russian and Japanese cases. The difference is that it does not slide into being under impression it has the ultimate “true” solution with an over-reliance on something like Haydar aka as an ongoing problem solver. The way Atatürk shaped the relation between the organization in the peaceful times and the previous difficult period was that the latter was a context that awakened an extraordinary psychological power, which was valid for that context.

See this interpretation of İzmir Marşı by Haluk Levent. It grows from the memory of that period and then he enters himself in a present tense of those times when addressing the seats with the names of the heroes. Before, it was an expressivity growing from the memory of the past. When he immerses in that present tense, he really enters mentally in that arduous state of mind. It is a clear perception that it was something pertinent of those difficult moments. At the end of the video, he is back at our present tense with an implied clarity that the conditions for such an arduous state of mind are not present.

Compare this with something like the scene from the Japanese film Drive (2002) when the character of the former Buddhist monk enters in this arduous state of mind under the impression that he has the ideology making sense of the modern world. If this were applied in real life, most likely later on it would determine serious supernova effects revealing the unexpected complexity such a simplistic organization was based on. In this case, he is diverted by the woman to not slide into that and sense the gist of a larger fluid psychological organization.

The specific ideology of the character is about realizing the flimsiness of the human ecosystems of meaning, but it is something against the system, only as a negation of such ecosystems, nothing changes, it is still the same thing. It is not about dealing with the huge unknown and diachronic possibilities beyond. And the basic idea is about keeping a simplistic control of the situation, which will determine serious issues in real life. It is something similar to the Russian Communism presenting itself as demolishing the Tsarist organization and bringing the ultimate organization that makes sense of the modernity.

The interwar militaristic Japanese ideology had some easier premises in this sense, by leaning on the abyss of the Emperor’s charisma, not by “explaining” the functioning of the world in the modern sense (the superficial side of this modern sense, as there are also more profound sides). As for a pre-modern approach really leading into and moving through the diachronic unknown like the Ottoman organization, it was not so much interested in creating something “new”/”different” as a negation of the “old” (because it was in fact something utterly new and different, integrating easily what was found valuable in other administrative traditions). It was already done with a gaze beyond the static human sense of reality, integrating whatever was found valuable in the way, as in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir.

Notice also the women’s declamations interspersed in this interpretation of İzmir Marşı. There is something so otherworldly in their expressivity compared to the classical human organization. This is about a long-term feminine expertise in facing such a messed-up utter unknown out of the classical human organization. When you are in very difficult circumstances, this can give you both an unexpected courage (the unknown beyond the existing organization is not so blocking, there is expertise) and unexpected ideas about what to do. There is something very valuable in the way the mind notices all kinds of unexpected perspectives, but you should see how to relate this in a human organization.

This is also the nuance that can be misleading within the Altaic mindset, as those women speak in sync, as when in difficult circumstances all that plurality of “cinema seat” threads acts like one. This, in combination with inspiration from classical masculine thinking with a single thread (but still continuing the diachronic gist), can give the impression you can act like this and further solve whatever problem comes your way in any circumstances of normal social life.

The previously mentioned İzmir Marşı by CRR Symphonic Orchestra and Choir has declamations one by one, all the plurality of “cinema seat” threads acts like one, but you can notice better the basic plurality created by the diachronic psychology. The realization of a possibility to think coherently with the diachronic psychology is very good, but further on you need to study how it relates with normal social life that does not hinder anymore the “cinema seat” perspective to that point it acts like one (like the previous examples of studies in Yalan and İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir, not seeking necessarily reenactments like in Haydar aka or in Seopyeonje).

The subsequent problem with Atatürk’s organization is that, while there is a clear sense that a normal social life is not an environment for the unfoldment of that single thread of diachronic struggle through difficulties, it is still imbibed with what is valuable in it (as there is something that continues to be valuable even in normal social life), but without further realization that it is so necessary to investigate what is valuable. If it is not investigated, it just turns into a never-ending reliance on the psychological depth attained in the difficult times after the First World War.

Atatürk himself had an inner balance between the expression of that arduous state of mind and feeling it in the back of the mind while just living a normal life. However, there was no proper conveyance to the population about how he was able to do this. People continue to rely on his memory as a gateway to what is valuable in that state of mind, as all the organization of the society is imbibed with it. Because they do not have themselves a direct relation between the abyssal diachronic state of mind and the normal life, this reliance on a great state of mind of an individual from the past cripples their relation with the present tense.

The people do not face themselves the abyssal depths of this state of mind, they just rely on Atatürk’s memory. They grab his memory like a buoy to orientate through real life, many times so lazily. You see everywhere in Turkey his portraits with that serious countenance and abyssal gaze contrasting with and enabling such a mundane, self-important, self-sufficient life. If you are just feeding lazily on this, it cripples your life. It is not at all a problem with the mundaneness of normal life, which is very consequential and normal. It is a problem with the the way Atatürk’s memory is used specifically to sustain a lazy-minded immersion in the mundane life, turning into a poor quality self-importance.

The problem is not with Atatürk’s gaze either, but with the people. If you create an organization based on the abyssal diachronic psychology, but you are not yourself some Kim Jong-un self-centered type of provider of meaning, the people themselves turn you into that, to the extent they are self-centered. This develops fragile people who are under impression they know everything, with simplistic opinions turning quickly in staunch beliefs, it is so difficult for them to accept they may be wrong in something. They are also too easily hotheaded. It is like those more or less degenerate generations coming after some great achievement of an ancestor, they are fed from the early age with the greatness of that achievement, thus turning into an important part of their identity and the straightforward way this is done is precluding them to really immerse themselves in the abyssal state of mind that made possible that achievement, hence they just live off that.

Some Turks slide into this situation, others continue to pay attention to a sense of authenticity, while others go beyond the point Atatürk stopped wisely (like in the modern Russian, Japanese and Korean cases) and they seek easy ideological answers to the questions of the modernity about what is reality. And anything in between.

Atatürk’s organizational approach was about a restrain and not venturing into the diachronic unknown. He should have realized that the tin-can nation he was envisaging was not something viable on the long run. It may have been a solution for a while, but then the normality of life resumes its course, people are manifesting themselves. How does the abyssal state of mind relates to this? Something about it continues in normal life in unexpected non-linear ways and it should be studied how it relates to it. If you focus directly on what continues, you go nowhere, nothing continues, as it is not something linear (while the non-linear important aspects still continue). The understanding of the situation grows from the immersion in that diachronic mental abyss.

He should have also realized that people can’t just go on taking for granted the reliance on his own inner balance. As the “father of the Turks”, a father makes his children discover how to face the unknown by themselves under his supervision. Atatürk’s gaze should be seen as something related to or opening an abyss in your own mind together with hints of some abyssal inner balance about that. And further on, it is your own responsibility, you need to discover yourself what kind of an inner balance in facing the unknown is there.

See the video of this interpretation of İzmir Marşı by Flört. It is the kind of perspective of someone who takes for granted the reliance on Atatürk for his own mundane present tense life, and exactly because of this reliance he can’t relate to that psychological depth. It is about seeking to grab what is essential in Atatürk and those dangerous times, which turns into a flat kitschy expressivity that misses what is valuable there. You can’t just take for granted that gaze as part of your identity, you need to face its abyss yourself, see what is with that inner balance that made Atatürk restrained to a minimalist approach and able to gaze like that into the unknown. And further on you need to see what can be done, as the tin-can nation concept cannot work on the long term. If you don’t face it, the straightforward reliance cripples your life.

When I use the “tin-can nation” expression, it is not in the idea of a negation of territorial expansion, but of the psychological refrain in venturing into the unknown of self-expression, as shaped by Atatürk (this is the focus). That was a saving choice in the circumstances after the First World War, but then you need to realize that it is something necessary only for a while. The normal life resumes its course and people find necessary to express themselves. For Atatürk, the essential part in that state of mind was the inner balance when gazing into the abyssal diachronic unknown. For the people without this psychological depth and inner balance it turns into a refrain and lack of plenary self-expression.

To give also a more mature musical example concerning what can be done at the present tense, I also noticed this interpretation of İzmir Marşı by T.S.K. Armoni Mızıkası, with alternations of immersion in that arduous state of mind followed by immersion in empathetic wonderment about how to relate with normal life while continuing the valuable diachronic gist. This of course is not as a rejection of the arduous state of mind, but as realizing when and how it appears and what is valuable of it in normal social life.

I would in fact favor a musical expressivity of the arduous state of mind as an immersion in its gist when in contact with raw unexpected real life, since that would make much clearer what a mental abyss is there and how you further need to see how to relate it with normal social life. Something like in Amanat or Opmay-opmay, with an even more direct immersion in this state of mind while with an inner balance in contact with real life, would express the mental abyss and cut the impression that it can simply be applied in normal social life.

This would give a better idea to what extent you can rely on the Haydar aka type of approach to solve any issue coming your way. And also prepare for the consequential normality of post-supernova perceptions in contact with real life like in Yuh Yuh of Koray Avcı or Dostarga of Gazizkhan Şekerbekov. They may feel very unwarranted if you continue with the impression that the arduous struggle through difficulties can solve any issue coming your way. But they may feel very normal and spurring inquisitiveness and psychological quest if realizing how consequential they are in relation to the abyssal gist of the diachronic psychology. And, further on, there is a huge heroism in facing the complexity of normal social life while having a start with the basic idea of the Altaic psychological discovery that there are unexpected non-linear ways to think coherently when immersed in the diachronic psychology.

What set Mustafa Kemal Pasha (future Atatürk) aside from the poor quality leadership at the end of the Ottoman Empire was a realization around how idiotic it became the self-centered sense of being in control of the situation. Along the 19th century, the already cranky Ottoman organization with a plurality of threads like in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir could not give adequate answers to the modern insights into the sense of identity (not that it is not possible, but in practice the human material of the leadership at that time couldn’t). The view progressively shifted towards a self-centered sense of being in control of the situation, imagined by the Young Turks as something like in Oşko, but without the abyssal psychology that created that in the Altaic past, even less about how that would relate to the Western modern insights into the sense of identity.

Much of that desired control of the situation in the terminal phases of the Ottoman state, while imagined like in Oşko, was in practice more like in Taram-taram of the Uzbek singer Farruh Komilov, with the classical masculine propensity to be blocked in this context as a result of not being able to face it (those leaders did not have the “power mode” Altaic immersion in the diachronic psychology, which supposes facing weakness). The men realize the bad situation, but they automatically refer its solving to a preset reliance on being psychologically strong (“I am manly, I am strong”) and on relying for organizational ideas on their already existing sense of being in control of the situation. This makes them unable to reassess what is going on. They just go along with this sense of being in control of the situation even in the worst contexts and thus they are unable to deal with them.

Mustafa Kemal was much more open to face this situation, he rediscovered that Altaic struggle through overwhelming difficulties, about which my impression is that it was discovered by women in the past with a vibe like in Kazagım-ay, which further on for the men turns into something like in Amanat. This however does not directly offer solutions for how to organize normal social life after the danger abates. When the situation became more stabilized, he realized the same as Farruh Komilov a few years after Taram-taram that some new sense of adulthood is necessary in dealing with normal life, as in Mini-mini. A new sense of adulthood that has to take in consideration the gist of the diachronic psychology.

His own approach was to have an inner balance between the fluid diachronic perspectives (that saved the day in the previous dangerous context) and requirements for a new adulthood of the normal social life. It did not slide into continuing the fluid diachronic immersion in the normal social life as a self-centered organization, as in Oşko. He continued to use the approach from Oşko only to keep the sense of order, he did not venture further into lazy consequential approaches to make normal social life meaningful with it. He was too aware of the path from Taram-taram to Mini-mini, this is how he succeeded in the first place.

He found valuable the ethos of the French modernity, with its openness to face the complexity of real life as a new adulthood. However, the French modernity with the particular positivist nuance found valuable by Atatürk is still a renewed Older Abrahamic type of religion in some aspects, with self-centered “I have the truth” bestowing of meaning side of Oşko and a consequent rejection of anything that does not fit its beliefs. This is not just another simplistic ideology promising easy overall meaning in life, it is about facing and studying the unknown, but it still has an Older Abrahamic “I have the truth” tinge.

Atatürk himself did not slide too much in this side of the French modernity as a belief in “I have the truth”, he continued his inner balance. But the way he shaped the political structure in light of what may come after his death still made it fall prey to the limitations of the French model. The role of the army was shaped to continue Atatürk’s inner balance and gaze into the abyssal diachronic unknown, which precludes you to think you can make a direct connection between the abyssal diachronic fluidity and the normal social life as a simplistic self-centered organization. You realize that more relevant insights are necessary.

The army however continued that by relying on Atatürk’s inner balance instilled in them, not by having that inner balance at present tense and seeing things afresh in that manner. Its role turned rather into that of the second intervening older woman from Mini-mini, making sure that the immature pair is not doing stupid things again. Unfortunately, up to this day, no significant trend in the Turkish society had its own initiative to seek maturity like the realization of the pair towards the end of the video about what should be done. The situation rather turned into a never-ending protected childhood under the wing of the state organization developed by Atatürk, instead of seeking to do something with their lives.

Soon after Atatürk’s death, the poor quality self-centered self-delusional Taram-taram-type leadership from the end of the Ottoman Empire reappeared like nothing changed, with the populist Adnan Menderes wreaking havoc in the Turkish society, prompting the first coup d’état, in 1960. Further on, this realization that it will appear someone there to put some order in the situation made the people even more prone to indulge childishly in all kinds of simplistic ideologies, become so engrossed in them like children and easily seek fight like children over them. It is something like in that Turkish saying ağası güçlü olanın kulu asi olur (“he whose master is powerful, is disobedient”). The utter opposite of Atatürk’s gaze into the abyssal diachronic unknown to face the complexity of real life.

They put him on a pedestal, while they squander what was mature in his worldview in whatever they do. They also indulge too much in conspiracy theories about being controlled by seemingly nefarious agents in the background, imagining all kinds of schemes conveniently revolving around their egos like in Taram-taram. The basic situation of realizing the lack of practical power can slide into a lousy masculinity if it turns into “I am so great and self-reliant, I am feeling so good about myself, only that the others are doing whatever they want with me” (the neighboring Arabs turn this into an art of self-importance). But it can turn also into a deep realism in facing the complexity of real life, like in Atatürk’s case. He was not like a simplistic castle of power, he had some relaxation about the unknown, even about enemies, with possibilities of empathetic immersion in their situation and thus of judging the situation much better, not just a self-important puny raft carried by strong currents in a huge ocean.

The army, in turn, became more entrenched in its role of that older woman from Mini-mini keeping a sense of order, increasingly narrow-minded in practice, ending up with a Pinochet level of intervention after the 1980 coup. It stepped into decisional territory by favoring conservative Islamist elements, in the hope of encouraging some sense of order in the society. Later on, it all turned on its head when Erdoğan managed to dismantle the specific role of the army developed by Atatürk.

The Erdoğan phenomenon brings to light the consequences of the tin-can nation concept, which feels increasingly outgrown, while it is so difficult to have a psychological depth, especially when just leaning lazily on Atatürk’s gaze into the diachronic unknown. Erdoğan is about rediscovering self-manifestation out of the tin-can, but he is the kind of person who does not sense some basic aspects about this psychology and he is just plunging into grabbing whatever ideology comes his way and feels like giving answers to the questions of modernity.

Officially, his ideology is Islamist, but it is very liberal with practical concepts beyond the Islamic core, it is more of a hotch-potch of ideas picked along the way to create some conceptual defensive in relation to modernity. These ideas gather in the mind like the people picked in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir along the road, only that the driver is something like the guy from that scene from the film Drive with a self-centered development of “truth” and selects accordingly whom to take on board, like in Oşko. Erdoğan finds valuable Christian concepts of victimhood, American “against the system” minority victimhood etc.

Still, he is the only one who has some political coherence in moving beyond the outgrown tin-can nation concept (albeit a coherence with a superficial “against the system” basis). The rest of the politicians are largely mentally blocked about such approach and don’t have further ideas. The same as in Putin’s Russia, the current opposition is of very poor quality, it does not show credible alternatives that feel relevant. All they do is criticize Erdoğan and not wonder what does not work even without him.

Initially, he was about a revival of the Ottoman type of relaxation in working with a plurality of perspectives, like in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir. He was for more liberty of religious public expression, but also for other causes like even supporting gay rights as well (as a supposed Islamist!). However, this was as a sideline kibitzer pointing out things that can be done better in the existing organization, with him presenting himself as the better contender, as the better choice. In time, he managed to dismantle the role of the army developed by Atatürk and have more free hand in organizing things himself. And here comes the time when you really face the abyssal complexity of real life in a position of power, especially when taking over a political organization developed with Atatürk’s inner balance in facing the diachronic unknown.

What is your answer to the inner balance permeating this political organization? The most Erdoğan could do was to reveal himself as a stale, self-centered manipulator of the people’s perceptions, rather than facing the complex unknown implied by this organization. All the initial exhortation for more acceptance for a variety of perspectives evaporated, it is too much for his self-centered brain when really in power (and maybe some of the initial approach was only as the means to accede to power?).

He increasingly relied on lazy and socially damaging frenzying of the people to struggle around his leadership like in Haydar aka. Atatürk’s inner balance in facing the unknown degenerated into scaremongering with the implication that Erdoğan is an island of stability in a complex world, he keeps the sense of meaning in life afloat and the people can identify with him and lean on his psychological strength in facing the unknown.

Much of the “meaning in life” and sense of “psychological strength” is obtained by blaming others and spinning conspiracy theories. It is amazing how people can feel like regaining a sense of meaning in life when their dear leader constantly makes them feel like struggling to keep their own course on a shabby raft amid strong ocean currents, like in Taram-taram (with no interest whatsoever in investigating what is going on, just going along with this self-aggrandizing “I am so great and strong and good and whatever, but the others for some unknown reason have some obsessive interest in me to put me down and control me”). There are some psychological aspects that remained at the same level observed at chimpanzees and such politicians actively seek to degrade the social landscape to that level.

The Altaic poor quality leadership resorting to cheap scaremongering is a mixture of realizing how women see the world from a powerless position like in Yuh Yuh of Cemali with doubling down on exalting classical masculine self-centered control of the situation. It is a degradation and degeneration from the initial valuable Altaic psychological experience of facing overwhelming difficulties. This turns into self-centered narrow-minded leaders keeping the population scared, with them poised as the pillar of stability, their administrative abilities are very low given how self-centered they need to be to keep the pretense of pillars of stability, in private they know they are a despicable fraud, thus they rely only on a few oligarchic cronies that sap the vitality of the country.

There is a sadness in the difficulty of the steep learning curve to do something with the diachronic psychology. To some extent there should be some understanding about the situation of these people who find it difficult. But this does not mean they should just indulge in their situation, especially when they end up in power and they mislead and destroy other peoples’ lives. Plus that there are as well such rewarding satisfactions when you really work with this psychology.

Potentially, what Erdoğan embarked on after facing the responsibilities of real administration and seeing his initial Ottoman propensities evaporated is a path similar to the Russian Communist one. It is the approach to life that comes by default when you seek to face modernity while under impression you are a man in control of the situation as usually like in Haydar aka. His problem is that he cannot seriously frenzy the population in an arduous single-minded struggle, his paths to the psychological depths are blocked. When seeking to do that, he has to face Atatürk’s comfortability with the unknown that the current Turkish organization is based on.

Someone like Erdoğan has no clue of the depth and value of the awareness in just facing the unknown, of what unexpected horizons it opens. He blocked his path to that with his “I know better” kibitzer self-delusion, he found it easy to spin simplistic lazy ideologies to prop up an ecosystem of meaning as control of the situation in order to feel meaning in his life. But when he appeals to the psychological depths to sustain that, he encounters Atatürk’s comfortability with the unknown that he relied on all his life without wondering what is that about.

Atatürk’s political organization continues to imbue the Turkish society, even after Erdoğan dismantled the role of the army. To cut the Gordian Knot of what Atatürk created, one has to be at least on the same level as him in facing the diachronic complexity and have some inner balance about that. Another possibility is to simply continue to do stupid things for a while until the depths of his organization unravel and the Turkish population rediscovers the mess of the end of the Ottoman times. For the moment, there is still some depth of valuable organization and Erdoğan is like the main character from Kafka’s Castle with his mind revolving around a castle of power he has no idea where and how to start to approach.

The bottom line is that Atatürk saved the situation admirably in the context of the terminal phase of the Ottoman Empire. But none of the structural issues were solved with his tin-can nation approach. If people start to express themselves, it feels like nothing of substance changed, the same self-destructive poor quality political leaders reappear. The tin-can approach in itself was necessary as an intermediary phase, but from this position it is also necessary to investigate what is going on with the issues that debilitated the Ottoman society and keep reappearing whenever people start to express themselves out of the tin-can.

In the meantime, Erdoğan has to make do with what is left at the superficial level, with his “against the system” approaches. He is something along the lines of Putin, about discovering how easy it is to manipulate perceptions while not venturing into the unknown. A significant difference from Putin is that he is very divisive internally (as a result of the fact that his paths to the psychological depths are blocked). He does inside the country what Putin does outside Russia.

The latter has some more depth, he has something of İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir abilities to work with a plurality of threads without selecting them too much according to an ideological direction, even after becoming entrenched in power (he does not need to face something like Atatürk’s organizational legacy in the Russian context). He is the next generation following the failure of the Communist experiment, with no illusions of having the abilities to face the diachronic unknown with simplistic idealistic ideologies. He does something like İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir from a static stale perspective, he just works with the existing “reality”, he is not venturing into the unknown together with the plurality of threads as in this video. There is a multi-party system, but the accepted parties are largely toeing his line. Alexei Navalny was perceived as real opposition, hence he was blocked from the political path.

When “the bus broke down” early in his leadership, he was not interested in seeing what to do with the engine or with the overall “bus context”. He had the reaction like in the video to woo the Western societies who really assume responsibilities to acknowledge him about how capable he is (exactly because his work with the bus bungled). As that acknowledgement did not come, he continued with that mesmerizing musical interpretation to bungle the other people’s lives too, in order to level the field and keep being the center of attention.

Also related to this aspect, Erdoğan’s neo-Ottomanism is a joke, it has nothing to do with the Ottoman ability to work with a plurality of threads like in İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir, while really facing the diachronic unknown on the move through time. It is mostly about opportunistic exploitation of other states’ problems revolving around a simplistic self-centered organization. It is not some grand vision with relevant depth (Putin is doing something similar, only that he does not need to deal with Atatürk’s inner balance in facing the diachronic complexity that still permeates to some extent the Turkish state organization).

Erdoğan’s diplomatic skills are limited to opportunistic maneuvers, bullying, mixtures of tantrums and attempts of emotional blackmail (“look USA, I am about to get friendly with Putin”). The lack of an overall vision with relevant depth, coupled with this pro-active poor quality diplomacy, is eroding the good terms Atatürk had restored in relation to the rest of the world. He acts more like a spoiled brat with indulging parents who thinks and expects he can get whatever he wants by bullying others.

The saying that I mentioned previously continues to be relevant here too, he whose master is powerful, is disobedient. Obviously, it is not about being obedient, but about facing the unknown by yourself and see what a currently unfathomable grand vision would be about, not just speculating breaches here and there and throwing a tantrum when people don’t like it. If you don’t have personal responsibilities for that, on the long run, you kind of end up being obedient to others who assume such responsibilities (and maybe find some solace in conspiracy theories revolving around your ego). You will always need a master to revolve your mind around.

The initial master is Atatürk, with his indulging kindness for the concept of “Turkish people”. Those who lean lazily on that think in terms of an indulging powerful master also when relating to democratic powers that have some adult responsibility in facing the diachronic unknown. The general masculine atmosphere in the Middle East is like in Taram-taram, with men who think they are so great, everything revolves around them, while the women tend to have a background psychological control of the situation, like in Bel Rouh Bel Dam (translation) of the Lebanese singer Najwa Karam (more about this at Part 12 of Perceiving complexity). Atatürk managed to move the Turkish context from Taram-taram to Mini-mini, but, unlike the end of the latter video, the situation became entrenched after his death as that older woman keeping an eye on the increasingly sulky immature pair.

The Ottoman approach from before had valuable organizational relevance at its time, with men applying something like İstikrarlı Hayal Hakikattir while really facing the diachronic unknown, hence it was successful and lasted. The Altaic part of the Ottoman organization was not about revolving their minds around someone knowing how to push your buttons while you think you are the center of the world (while they still also had some Middle Eastern liability side like in Taram-taram). Much of the Altaic side of the specific Ottoman organization is not relevant in our times, the basic aspects it grew from need a wiser depth and some serious rethinking.

Probably if Erdoğan were the leader in the difficult times after the First World War he wouldn’t have been more useful than a scarecrow. The Turks may have ended up like the Albanians or the Hungarians, with much of the territory occupied by neighbors. Or, if the circumstances would have awakened the authenticity of that state of mind of diachronic struggle through overwhelming difficulties, it would have turned into a maximalist superficial approach like in the Russian Communist case, with bad consequences on long term. Atatürk abstained from that without other ideas, the tin-can nation concept he developed feels now outgrown and someone like Erdoğan simply tries to go along with what Atatürk abstained from.

In fact, it is anachronistic to imagine Erdoğan in the immediate years after the First World War. His ability to sustain a simplistic ideological construct is based on Atatürk’s internal balance in facing the unknown. This is what makes it easy for Erdoğan to go along with superficial ideologies like a spoiled brat sitting in Atatürk’s palm. The Turkish society without Atatürk would have faced much more directly the psychological complexity sustained by the Ottoman dynasty (and probably find difficult to surpass it), while lacking an European veneer as in the Russian case to enable sliding so easily in modern ideological beliefs as an answer to a situation like in Haydar aka.

Erdoğan is a product of what Atatürk shaped after the First World War in light of the Western modernity. It is anachronistic to imagine him as a leader in the period after the First World War. The previous “Imagine” paragraph is more in the idea of pointing out his real capabilities in case some very difficult situation would appear now again. The way the situation is now, it may either turn into a poor quality leadership or slide into a nutcase superficial ideological approach like the Russian Communism if Erdoğan finally finds back by himself the connection with that abyssal arduous state of the mind.

→ The mindset of the populations of Siberian origin (part 16)