Amin D

از مصادیق سریال‌هایی که نشان میدهد طبقه هنرمند غیرحکومتی ما خوب بلدند اعتبار برای خودشان بسازند و شهرتی دست و پا کنند و منابع جمع کنند. اما در نهایت کاری متوسط تحویل دهند و به اتلاف سرمایه های فرهنگی ادامه دهند. نه آن قدر کارشان بد باشد که دیگر سراغشان نیاید و نه آن قدر خوب که بگوییم به رسالت خودشان عمل کرده اند. در عمل کافی است کار متوسط داشته باشیم - گرچه باید از پایان بندی افتضاح صرفنظر کنیم - و به اندازه کافی به حاشیه بپردازیم تا توجه همگان جلب شود و کارمان دیده شود. این داستان غم‌انگیزی است که کارنامه کار هنری با ادعای حرکت روبه‌جلو یا روشنفکری ما را زیر سوال میبرد

As an introductory book, it is a short and useful text. Examples and graphics are fine, although sometimes repetitive. However, I was expecting to see more insights on how to understand our problem is approachable by this theorem or how the results can be updated by receiving more information. In addition, for evaluating everyday problems, it is not obvious how the provided solutions are related to this theorem's calculations. Finally, the author has just copied and pasted some text, a reason the length of the book is more than what it could be.

The first half is an enjoyable reading as a general science book, but it gets more and more academic, and less and less interesting in the second half; especially since lots of the examples and models described are too detailed to be interesting for general audience and not practical to be in an academic book, since they need more visual representation or simulation exercises to comprehend! For a better introduction to the subject "Complexity: a guided tour" is a better and well-written book. However, it is a book from a computer science perspective and I chose this one to have a better understanding of complex adaptive systems in social and political science, which at the end was a bit disappointing.

A very informative and easy-to-read book on complexity and complex systems. Although I learned a lot about the computer science and biological perspectives to complexity and I enjoyed it, but I think the focus on these perspectives is too much and very detailed which leaves very little space for equally interesting perspectives, such as socio-economic approach, or the so called complex adaptive systems approach. Therefore, the book on complex adaptive systems by Miller and Page might be complementary to this book, if we share the same concerns

The most important question this book does NOT answer is that when diversity "does not matter" in complex systems. Obviously, not all of diverse types are beneficial or harmful (in case of too much diversity) for complex systems, and based on functionalities, we can talk about lots of cases diversity is not relevant for analyzing complexity. Apart from this, when I compare this book to "Complex Adaptive Systems" written by the same author and John Miller, it becomes obvious Scott Page is such a brilliant author and teacher. So, in the first chapters I enjoyed a lot reading this book, and even used some ideas in my research. The general idea of considering diversity in complex systems is multifaceted and needs reflections and in-depth analysis, and Page is successful in explaining that. Later, it seems the primary focus turns toward the application of the concepts in the biological systems. Although the concepts look very relevant in more "creative" systems, and as the author says "community diversity" is very common in social and economic systems, but these interesting ideas are not really discussed. As a result, compared to the first chapters the middle ones are less inspiring. Unfortunately, the ending chapters are boring and less convincing. When talking about diversity in complex "adaptive" systems, especially social systems, it seems our knowledge is still very limited, and the author wants to cover many applications and the relevance of his own ideas, but the result is a confusing text full of self-serving bias to interpret all the complex patterns and emergent properties based on some simple ideas or classifications. It leads to interpreting quite different cases with the same logic and it seems this way of looking and classifying emergent properties is not really refutable, and it is hardly convincing to consider it as a scientific approach, in a Popperian sense. Another caveat is related to ideas and concepts that are reduced to simple and mathematical examples not very convincing or generalizable, but used to explain the most important parts of the book, in my opinion.

Too journalistic. At best, it is good for a little entertainment; however, by exaggerating, showing off and reflecting on only a small part of reality, it is impossible to picture the whole reality. In other words, by the same level of analytical depth and maneuvering on selected events, it is easy to refute any political figure or idea. To be more influential, the author puts too much focus on anger, violence and racism to denounce Trump's campaigns. At some point, he even criticizes a bunch of journalists for being drama-starving f***ing journalists. But the reader wonders whether the same logic more or less applies to this book. I also did not like the writing styles; very idiomatic and somehow jargonistic.

At the first glance, it looked very encouraging to read the dialogues between a famous philosopher and an intellectual prisoner. However, such a feeling didn't last for a long time! Zizek's letters look like misuses of the situation to propagate his own ideological reflections on capitalism and most of his elaborations are not quite relevant to the context! Nadia's letters are more relevant although sometimes it seems they are both showing off! The situations becomes better in the last letters, although I had the feeling Zizek was talking to 'the others' and not necessarily to Nadya, and directing attention towards the context by referring sporadically to Nadya's points. However, it was quite impressive to what extent an activist can be knowledgeable and Zizek couldn't easily refute her arguments. Apart from these points, there are some ideas and arguments for further thoughts and reflection.

An easy read and like an experimental psychotherapy course from a great teacher. Each story has something related to facing death, but the heterogeneity of the issues is interesting. I can summarize the take-away lessons and the main points of each story as the followings: 1. Living our lives instead of interpreting and examining 2. Thinking more about death 3. Not getting stuck in our past 4. Close encounters with death and revealing the complexity of human feelings and thoughts 5. Facing the reality of getting old and avoiding an instrumental mindset towards the others which can harm social abilities or lead to underestimating the others 6. Not being too offended by death, which may make us aimless, instead we can think about our real contributions 7. It's never late to be courageous and hopeful. Sometimes thinking about our short lives, death and daily problems can be inspiring 8. Instead of regretting our past behaviors towards someone dead or dying, think deterministic about the past and accept our limitations and know our assets for devoting our time to understand the truth about each other 9. Not to reduce complex human being to one simple dimension. Instead, enjoy life at the moment and don't regret the past. 10. Looking at the ideas and thoughts of philosopher and great minds in the past. However, sometimes peaces of the puzzle easily fit together, without any attempt from Irv and looks like a good luck and something Godsend at the right time. The same thing for the case of the patients' dreams that look very strange, especially when a patient dreams for the first time just the night before the session. There are a few weaknesses in storytelling, for instance what is Andrew's problem in the last story?

The first half was disappointing, and I was not expecting such a well-known and influential author attributes all good to liberal democracy and renounces the others as the barbarians. To me, only an unsystematic evaluation of the political regimes can easily divide them without paying attention to the side-effects of interventions by liberal democracy leading to the emergence of new barbarians. He talks about nationalism as the most horrific problem in Latin America, and again does not talk about the forces reinforcing pervert nationalism, by political and cultural interventions, and the ones benefiting from selling weapons. It was unbelievable to read that he has asked the world to punish the Peruvian government, and other countries including Iran, by economic and political sanctions, and to me it seems he does not care about his own people. Look at the case of Iran for instance, and one can easily see sanction for the regime, is not different from sanction for the public, and their lives. He also mentions dictators in these counties should be fought with ALL means, and again such a reaction is simply another source of extremism, and the main reason behind the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. He even talks about the Spaniards, and the culture they brought to Peru, and mentions Spain and Peru are two sides of the same coin; it is the first time I see such an appreciation of colonialism! So, his approach towards politics looks quite naive way and his linear view of the modern political problems are even dangerous. He provides examples from Cuba, Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, but forgets to reflect on the cases such as the Gulf war, Iran/Iraq war or Afghanistan. In addition, he surprisingly evaluates his situation as a celebrity and well-known author living abroad and concludes he feels home everywhere, thanks to liberal democracy, but forgets the fact that it is not the situation for all expats and neglects the fact to evaluate a political system, the situation of the most vulnerable group should be seen, and not a celebrity. However, the last pages have some inspirational paragraphs about the role and the necessity of fiction and literature in the modern world, and the reason why should everyone read literature, and how it is important for the emancipation of man.

The general idea of addressing "innocent frauds" in the modern world is quite interesting. He challenges the distinctions between corporate management/bureaucracies, capitalism/corporatism, public/private sectors, shift of power from shareholders to managers and their self-compensation among the others. One main flaw is the focus on the side-effects or dark sides in the existence of the main pillars of current political and economic systems, without enough elaboration on their "raison d'etre"; except for the case of corporations and their contribution to organizing modern economic activities. In this respect, this book reminds me the recent works of Noam Chomsky such as "Because We Say So".