BANDUNG2 is a global movement of individuals committed to replacing all man-made forms of supremacy with a non-system of justice based on The Qur'an. The dominant contemporary form of man-made supremacy is the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy).
When we eliminate uncertainty, we forfeit the human replenishment that attaches to the challenge of asserting predictability in the face of an always-unknown future in favor of the blankness of perpetual compliance with someone else’s plan.
Heidegger thought that history eventuated as a poem of the world. He believed that he could recognize the trace or the origination of this poem in errancy. He thought that he had found the source of the poem. (p.81)
[Yet consider] what the philosophical fetishism of the poem ultimately produced … namely the failure of thinking in respect to its engagement with National Socialism. (p.80)
Extracts taken from Trawny, P. (2015) Freedom to Fail: Heidegger’s Anarchy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Now consider the following signs/indicators (ayaat) from Surah (chapter, enclosure) 26 of The Qur’an [=Final Testimony of God/Allah to humanity]:
221. Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend?
222. They descend upon every sinful liar.
223. They give ear, and most of them are liars.
224. And as for the poets—the deviators follow them.
225. Do you not see how they ramble in every style?
226. And how they say what they do not do?
227. Except for those who believe, and do good deeds, and remember God frequently, and defend themselves after they are wronged. As for those who do wrong, they will know by what overturning they will be overturned.
Because of the accessibility and durability of digital memory, information power not only shifts from the individual to some known transactional party, but to unknown others as well. This solidifies and deepens existing power differentials between the information rich and the information poor, and may even deny the latter their own conception of their past. Equally problematic, it creates a climate of self-censorship through the perception of panoptic control that constrains robust and open debate … not simply in the present but long into the future [emphasis added]. (p.112)
Extract taken from Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009) delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
In this connection, see the following earlier blog post:
[The normative hierarchical binary associated with the Westphalian conception of the world] has been used to justify the notion that Western states should follow different norms and principles toward non-Western societies as these societies have different norms, principles, and institutions. While non-Western societies were gradually admitted into international society, international society continues to expand its normative scope, reaching higher levels of religious and political tolerance. Paradoxically, the Westphalian international society has deepened more rapidly than it has widened: the normative gap in the origins of the emergence of international society between Western and non-Western societies and the disparities of progress between them means that non-Western societies must perpetually chase the progress of Western states and the European order.The normative divergence will persistbecause Western societiescontinuously evolve faster than the non-Western states are socialized by adopting the existing norms, principles, and institutions. Perpetual progress of the Western normative order will continue to sustain a normative hierarchy in which the non-Western tortoise will never catch the European hare. (p.196)
Extract taken from Kayaoglu, T. (2010) Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review 12: 193–217.
Futurity is a register of freedom, while The Future is another prison-house built to confine it. I describe as futurity the openness in the present arising out of the ineradicable diversity of calculating, contending, and collaborating stakeholders who struggle to make and remake the shared world, peer to peer. Futurity cannot be delineated but only lived, in serial presents attesting always unpredictably to struggle, collaboration, and expression. The Future, to the contrary, brandishing the shackle of its definite article, is always described from a parochial present and is always a funhouse mirror reflecting a parochial present back to itself, amplifying its desires and fears, confirming its prejudices, reassuring its True Believers that the Key to History is in their hands. (p.62)
Extract taken from Carrico, Dale (2013) Futurological Discourses and Posthuman Terrains. Existenz 8(2): 47-63.
There are all sorts of limits that liberalism imposes and all sorts of exclusions it secures. Modern liberal society does claim to value multiplicity and variety of experiences, which seems attractive until you look carefully at what this means. Indeed, it justifies certain kinds of arrangement as being more open and tolerant when it isn’t. The mere fact that there is supposed to be a multiplicity of views and preferences in modern society is given as the reason for the moral and political superiority of the market: because the market is the mediator among people who have very different preferences, it is the best possible arrangement for our egalitarian, plural world; that is what the market is—a way of responding equitably (neutrally) to the fact that people want different things, physical, intellectual, spiritual. So the market comes to be seen as the supreme value rather than merely a dispenser of multiple values. It creates a particular kind of society in which wants are generated and increasingly monetized, and so only certain kinds of social relations can flourish. The liberal-secular prescription is that one must accommodate every sort of experiences and belief, and one must value them all, but it ends up encouraging a specific kind of experience typified in the consumption of commodities. The market is not a neutral mediator of multiple values; it is an active constructor, a re-former of specific values [emphasis added]. (p.79)
Extract taken from “Interview with Talal Asad” by Ovamir Anjum. The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 35(1), 2018, pp.55-90.