Postcard from Bishkek

A couple of weeks ago I was reminded of the classic Cold War spy novel, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, by John Le Carré - which is commonly known and referred to as simply,  Tinker Tailor, and is based, loosely, around the case of Kim Philby – the Russian spy who rose through the ranks of MI6 until he eventually defected to Moscow in 1963 – fifty years ago.

In it, the Head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, Control, is anxious to track down a “mole” – a traitor who has wormed his way into the upper echelons of the service and is giving away secrets to “the other side” – in this case to Moscow Center … the headquarters of the KGB.  Control has narrowed his list of suspects to just five officers … and when the chance comes to recruit a potential high ranking defector from Czechoslovakia who claims to have information about the double agent … he jumps at the chance, dispatching a trusted agent to interview the Czech General.  The agent is given instructions to – one way or another – do his utmost to  a message back to London … a single word … a code word, the significance of the two of them will know … the identity of the traitor in their midst.

The choice of code words was adapted from an old children’s rhyme: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor; Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggarman, Thief.  The first three codenames were assigned to three of his prime suspects, but Sailor, was rejected as could easily be confused with Tailor and Rich Man because it sounded Mercenary, so the final two candidates were given the code names Poor Man and Beggarman.

Thus the agent descends on Prague.  Unbeknownst to him, however, it is all a set up … the “other side” know he is coming and are ready and waiting for his arrival.  His capture creates an international incident and Control never gets the crucial code word – but is forced out of office and dies shortly afterwards.

Now, I would love to be able to tell you that some espionage skulduggery was the reason that the book came to mind … but I am afraid that it was much more mundane.

I was having dinner with a group of friends (… let;s call them by the codenames Ianbek - it should be obvious who that was - Klein, Kuryakin, Lionheart and Nomad),  and there was a surprising turn in the conversation.  One of the participants, (let’s call him by the codename Kuryakin), was being a little argumentative … I don’t think he will be offended if I say that there was nothing unusual in that, it’s part of his character and he does it all the time.

However, it led to the observation by another of the diners, (let’s call him by the codename Klein), that he always thought of Kuryankin as a Philosopher – because he was always ready to argue the point.  Klein went on to add that it often didn’t matter which side of the argument he was, Kuryakin was willing and able to support either side depending on the circumstances … the most important thing to him seemed to be the mental gymnastics of maintaining a conversation.  He was perfectly capable of producing supporting arguments for both sides depending on who else was present.

Now, I don’t think that was entirely fair … or logical.  Sorry Klein!

I thought, for example, that the description of Kuryakin was much closer to that of an Advocate – a lawyer – whose job to promote his client’s case regardless of his own opinions or the relative merits of right and wrong. For the benefit of one client, for example, he may argue the cause of being allowed to bear arms – and the next day, for the benefit of another he may pursue the case for greater gun control.

 

Klein then went on to say that he always thought of me, (let’s use the code name Ianbek), as a Theologian.  I presumed that was because Klein knew that I had in fact studied Theology at University … but, no … he said that it was because I was capable of doing exactly the same … but my motivation wasn’t to sustain a discussion, but rather that I was always in search of the truth … the logic, reason or ground of being behind the argument.

I’m afraid that I also questioned this designation.

As it happens, it seems to me that both the Philosopher and the Theologian are searchers after “truth” … but they come at it from different angles.

The philosopher works within a framework of rules to explore the issues before him and a history of different and conflicting world views on which to base his arguments.  He is constrained only by those rules and the world view with which he feels most comfortable.  Given sufficient cause, however, he may even come to question even the very premises on which his thoughts and view of the world are based.  

The theologian on the other hand comes to each question from a position of Faith and Conviction … he comes with a world view that doesn’t just colour his  thought processes, it actually defines and predetermines the eventual result – his truth.  If he approaches a situation or argument with the conviction that “God is Love”, then he will even be able to find evidence of this in the sinking of an Ocean going liner in which more than 1200 people died, a school shooting – such as in Beslan, Newtown or Sandy Hook, or in the mass slaughter of the Second World War.  ”Yes,” he will say, “God is omnipotent and could have prevented each of those from happening – but that would not have been the action of a God of Love – it would have been a spiritual dictator.”  A loving course of action, the argument goes, is to guide and encourage – not one of command and dictate –  leaving the individual the freedom to make their own choices … and accept the resulting consequences.”

Sorry Klein … but that’s not me … I may have studied Theology, but I am not a Theologian … at least, not in that cast.

I have said elsewhere that I do not believe in absolutes - which is a paradox because that is itself an absolute.  So, perhaps I need to rephrase it … how about: If there is an answer to “Life, the Universe and Everything”, then it might just possibly be 42 … but, then again, who knows?

I hope and trust that I am not so arrogant as to think that I “know it all” … that I have “all the answers” …  On the contrary, I recognize that what I do know is limited, and seen from a particular perspective.  It is better to think of this, not as “what I know” … but rather as “what I understand to be the case”.  

Someone else approaching the same situation, or question, from a different perspective may well have a different “understanding”. 

I saw an article the other day, for example, about how to better hotelier … and it listed some ten things to bear in mind … but, to me, they all boiled down to one thing – put yourself in the place of the guest … think like a customer; ask yourself “what are they looking for?“, “what will make them a satisfied customer?“, “what will make them a dissatisfied customer?” … and so on.

Now, whenever I come across a dilemma, or conflict, I always try to put myself “in the other person’s shoes“.  To try and see how they see the situation.  How likely is their point of view to be valid? 

There are, for example, people who believe that a Loving God would not allow people to make the “wrong” choices … and therefore suffer themselves … and cause others to suffer.  It seems to me that this is a perfectly valid point of view … it’s just not one that I feel that I can agree with.

Maybe it is because I was once a teacher, and I tend to see life as one long learning experience … but I tend to think of myself not as a Philosopher or Advocate, nor as a Theologian … but more as a Student.

For the record: I actually told Klein that I thought of myself more as a Scientist … but on further reflection I have chose Student as a better meme, monica or model.

I have in mind of the old adage that is attributed to Socrates: It is a wise man who knows what he doesn’t know,  (and, yes, I am aware that that’s yet another paradox), and Shakespeare’s, There is more in Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy.

It seems to me that the more we discover about our universe, the more we come to understand that not even the “laws” of Mathematics and Physics are immutable – they merely describe the current state of our knowledge … the situation as we understand it … at the current time.  As we learn more then we analyse and “refine” our understanding, “fine tuning” those laws …

Life, it seems to me is a search for knowledge and understanding … those arguments that Kuryakin and I engage in are not just arguments – they are part of a search for knowledge and understanding – a series of questions in search of an answer … if there is one … and, the questions, (and the process of questioning), are probably more important than the answers.

   

To be honest … I am not sure what Lionheart and Nomad made of this part of the discussion … if they actually registered what was being said.  They may well have talking among themselves at that point.  I am fairly sure, however, that they will be perplexed by this postcard … it’s not really about Kyrgyzstan or Life in Kyrgyzstan … but, then, I do call the site “observations of an ex-pat” … and I don’t always write about Kyrgyzstan.

But don’t worry – “Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible” … Tomorrow.

   

 

Tags: Expat