Kingdoms of Heaven - Fate and Choices
Just caught 55 days in Peking, which was very interesting, and it occurred to me, that in many ways, the plot is quite similar to that of Kingdom of Heaven.
In both cases, 1) the kingdom were weak and fractured 2) there was a stronger enemy from outside, and it was about the way, rulers chosing to react to a similar situation; the difference being not spatially, but the path that was chosen.
In Jerusalem, the king chose to not provoke, and to sustain the kingdom; and in China, the dowager took the gamble and provoke the enemy.
In a way, one would never really know, what the outcome will be, if another path were chosen, but what it shows, in that whether in prospect of retrospect, it is not difficult to say that something is not right, but it is not neccessarily the case that a clear alternative is available too.
In a rational choice framework, we tend to assume that by reason, we can determine what is best, and what is not. Yet, what we may believe to be beat, may not neccessarily be so, and what we may think as bad may be a blessing in disguise. Although Einstein says that God does not play with dice, rationality in people constantly demand a leap of faith in what we believe to be reasons, and is in many way a gamble.
Clearly, there are far too many uncertainties that we have to cope with, and at times, it is our lack of imagination to think that something of the sort could be better, or could be most ideal. We just never know, not in prospect, and not even neccessarily in retorspect.
It is far too easy to say, that the way people used to perceive things as being unreal, unrealistic, ambitious, ignorant, arrogant; but, can we really say even in retrospect, how history will be different, if they were anything else. Can we confidently say, that had the colonial attitude not been as it was, Africa, Asia, or Latin America would be in a certain way? Similarly, in criticising the US, Europe, Chinese, Russian or any other foreign policies today, can we confidently describe the future if they were to do otherwise?
Would the kingdoms of Jerusalem or Qing China not have fallen, if their rulers had chosen different paths? We will never know.
It was interesting that after this thought, I came across Nicolas Kirstof's piece in NYT comparing New York to Kaifeng, and suggesting that there is much that cities of today have to learn from those of the past.
1)Implement Sound Economic Policies
2)Sustain Technological Advantage
3)Be environmentally conscious
4)Remain intellectually curious
While I agree with him, that this is definetly the case, for any city today, that wants to remain relevant tomorrow; yet, these are extremely general themes and what exactly should we be doing practically is not so very clear. How does one achieve any of these, when there are so many other factors which play a part. Are cities and countries of today, still kingdoms and empires of the past? The boundaries today are far too young, to compare to the hundreds and thousand of years of former glories, where is it yet uncertain how long they will stay in its current form.
Everyday, everyone is faced with a tension between fate and choice. While some may say, that rationality offers us a choice, and others saying that limited choice is n choice at all, that is where the tension lie. Do we decide what our lives will be, or it is decided for us; further more, can we decide the lives of others, or do others decide our lives? More leaps of faith, more questions without answers.
Are the countries or cities of today, that different from the Kingdom of Heavens of the past? Are the successes and failure comparable across space and time? Are the live of people better or worse through our history? What is the future that we seek, and what basis do we have to believe that such a future will, should and can exist? What foundation do we draw upon, to know with such certainty that this is the future that we seek?
Perhaps these are questions which are far too open, but there are good questions that we should be asking. Greek democracy, Roman civil society, Swiss standards of living, American prosperity, English tolerance, etc etc... all these come at a price, a price which we often prefer not to see, and always believe that we can have the good things without paying for it. I guess we could always try, to prevent paying that price that we know, but is there then another price that we have yet to know?
Whether it is fate, or whether it is choice, bounded we are forever, to the tensions of these two. Is that fate or choice?
In both cases, 1) the kingdom were weak and fractured 2) there was a stronger enemy from outside, and it was about the way, rulers chosing to react to a similar situation; the difference being not spatially, but the path that was chosen.
In Jerusalem, the king chose to not provoke, and to sustain the kingdom; and in China, the dowager took the gamble and provoke the enemy.
In a way, one would never really know, what the outcome will be, if another path were chosen, but what it shows, in that whether in prospect of retrospect, it is not difficult to say that something is not right, but it is not neccessarily the case that a clear alternative is available too.
In a rational choice framework, we tend to assume that by reason, we can determine what is best, and what is not. Yet, what we may believe to be beat, may not neccessarily be so, and what we may think as bad may be a blessing in disguise. Although Einstein says that God does not play with dice, rationality in people constantly demand a leap of faith in what we believe to be reasons, and is in many way a gamble.
Clearly, there are far too many uncertainties that we have to cope with, and at times, it is our lack of imagination to think that something of the sort could be better, or could be most ideal. We just never know, not in prospect, and not even neccessarily in retorspect.
It is far too easy to say, that the way people used to perceive things as being unreal, unrealistic, ambitious, ignorant, arrogant; but, can we really say even in retrospect, how history will be different, if they were anything else. Can we confidently say, that had the colonial attitude not been as it was, Africa, Asia, or Latin America would be in a certain way? Similarly, in criticising the US, Europe, Chinese, Russian or any other foreign policies today, can we confidently describe the future if they were to do otherwise?
Would the kingdoms of Jerusalem or Qing China not have fallen, if their rulers had chosen different paths? We will never know.
It was interesting that after this thought, I came across Nicolas Kirstof's piece in NYT comparing New York to Kaifeng, and suggesting that there is much that cities of today have to learn from those of the past.
1)Implement Sound Economic Policies
2)Sustain Technological Advantage
3)Be environmentally conscious
4)Remain intellectually curious
While I agree with him, that this is definetly the case, for any city today, that wants to remain relevant tomorrow; yet, these are extremely general themes and what exactly should we be doing practically is not so very clear. How does one achieve any of these, when there are so many other factors which play a part. Are cities and countries of today, still kingdoms and empires of the past? The boundaries today are far too young, to compare to the hundreds and thousand of years of former glories, where is it yet uncertain how long they will stay in its current form.
Everyday, everyone is faced with a tension between fate and choice. While some may say, that rationality offers us a choice, and others saying that limited choice is n choice at all, that is where the tension lie. Do we decide what our lives will be, or it is decided for us; further more, can we decide the lives of others, or do others decide our lives? More leaps of faith, more questions without answers.
Are the countries or cities of today, that different from the Kingdom of Heavens of the past? Are the successes and failure comparable across space and time? Are the live of people better or worse through our history? What is the future that we seek, and what basis do we have to believe that such a future will, should and can exist? What foundation do we draw upon, to know with such certainty that this is the future that we seek?
Perhaps these are questions which are far too open, but there are good questions that we should be asking. Greek democracy, Roman civil society, Swiss standards of living, American prosperity, English tolerance, etc etc... all these come at a price, a price which we often prefer not to see, and always believe that we can have the good things without paying for it. I guess we could always try, to prevent paying that price that we know, but is there then another price that we have yet to know?
Whether it is fate, or whether it is choice, bounded we are forever, to the tensions of these two. Is that fate or choice?
posted by city_walker at 5/22/2005 10:47:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home