Necessary and Contingent

In short, every intellectual and thinker – when creating an edifice or system of thought – has to step back at times and assess where the contradictions, errors, and flaws are in one’s edifice and system of thought and then correct and rectify them. And if I were to step back and assess the basic or fundamental changes or evolutions which have taken place in the edifice or system of thought which I have sought to create and develop since the end of my student days, in sum, there would be two important or major changes and evolutions in this edifice or system of thought. 

For one, there is the change and evolution of my basic approach and understanding vis-à-vis Israel. At first, I did not assess or consider the actual or fundamental role which Israel plays in the formulation of foreign policy or foreign relations in the United States. The actual or fundamental role which Israel plays in American foreign policy and in turn has an impact on the world as a whole is in essence the reversal of ‘necessary and contingent.’

In other words, in Washington, we have violated the one all-important, basic, and singular rule of logic and reason and the rule of logic and reason which is at the apex or summit of the hierarchy of the rules of logic and reason which in turn has an impact on everything else in our lives and on the world as a whole due to our conventional or traditional approach towards Israel. This was something which I did not comprehend or know in the initial stages of building my edifice or system of thought which began right at the end of my student days. But in recent months and in sum over the last couple of years, it was a contradiction, error, and flaw in my edifice or system of thought which I have sought to rectify. In turn, the rectification of this contradiction, error, and flaw leads to the overall balancing and rectification of the edifice and system of thought as a whole. 

The second important or major change and evolution which has taken place in my edifice or system of thought is my view of inter-western or intra-western relations. At first, I assumed that “Western unity” was a real possibility. But in recent times, I arrived at the conclusion and result that the appearance of “Western unity” is actually undergirded by perpetual conflict and social strife. The reality is evinced by the state of affairs in Washington today, as well as by the phenomenon of “Brexit” which we discussed recently, along with European and Russian relations. However, the exchange of the appearance of Western affairs with the reality amidst my edifice or system of thought led to a complementary or supplementary change and evolution as well, and this complementary or supplementary change and evolution is contingent upon the major change, which is that I became less critical of British foreign policy than before. 

Although the past does define the present and the future to a certain extent, it does not define everything wholly. Brits of the past are quite different than today’s Brits, and in essence, a “colonial and imperial” Britain is becoming a more “cosmopolitan and global” Britain as a result of globalization and technology. In fact, London has made the leap from the “old to the new” faster than any other Western metropole. And this sudden leap is something which I can relate to on a personal level.