"Zamkarn" and a theoretical reflection

Waleed Omar

What is called "zam" in everyday language, like any other phenomenon in the human world, is more complex than its everyday meaning. We can take many different approaches to the nature of this phenomenon, but in this brief article we will not deviate from the point that “zamkan” is directly related to the concept of the other. The notes are related to the life of the Kurdish human world.
In the memory of many of us, slander goes back to the religious metaphor that slander is “like eating the flesh of your dead brother”. Each sentence is chewing the flesh of a dead brother. Now, compared to the past, the religious story has remained directly with a minority. However, we cannot ignore the beauty of the metaphor, because it has two twists that are interesting to the person who uses it. The two twists are:
1) Chewing, which is also a linguistic act, is likened to chewing meat. Incidentally, the practical side of language is revealed, and speech is not just an empty thing, but an action. Or more precisely, it is a focus on emptiness.
2) In Zam, the flesh of an unknown person is chewed. That person has a dead brother. The brother is both unknown, and dead. That is, the metaphor tries to paint a kind of "absence of rope. As we shall see later, absence is one of the conditions for the existence of the other. In order for the other to exist, a kind of absence is always necessary (the absence itself has somehow preserved this linguistic and semantic dimension).
On the other hand, in order to illustrate the severity of the act of torture and its punishment, religion resorts to the flesh of an absent person who dramatically and unexpectedly reappears. Every listener feels the presence of the flesh represented by the earth, so this is not an opposition, but a strong presence. Here the absence of the rope and the presence of the rope come together in a metaphor. Hence, the function of speech is weakened and whatever anyone says in the moment of trouble, he says nothing. Because according to the religious prohibition, you are chewing on a taboo. In other words, everyone else who is subjected to abuse takes the place of a dead brother and is not harmed, and the blame falls on the speaker: language becomes morally mute. What we mean, goes a little further:
Zamkarn is a broad term and not every discussion becomes Zam. Even on the negative side, today's criticism is no longer reduced by religious censorship. The changes that have taken place in the other have led to more talk about the other. This varies from culture to culture, but as our relationships with others have changed, the phenomenon is widespread. Deep down, it is not that there is someone else who deserves time, or who deserves to be “eaten” in the future, but that somewhere else in human relationships lies. how?
When human relationships become more fragile, faster, more things are seen and heard, more things are touched, the censorship of language weakens, and before there is a bad intention, others become the object of oppression. Language constantly makes others its objects, the subject of speech. As it were, a kind of universal psychosis changes and the language loosens itself to say everything. Psychoanalysis teaches us that once the father's basic censorship is loosened, the risk of psychosis increases. That is, “As bad as the father's shadow is, his absence is twice as bad”. In this case, when the religious and social fathers have faded and a civil psychological rule has not been replaced, the area of imposed things narrows and the most is said. That is, we say things before we wake up, and things are said themselves. Because we are not essentially conscious subjects and we ourselves are essentially involved in the symbolic and social space. But I will go back to the religious example to see why it has suffered from nuclear chlorination today. In the example, there is meat, the meat of one dead, the meat of the other. But today the flesh does not have that presence. Others are seen more hypothetical and virtual, their material face less and less visible. When religion spoke of the presence of dead flesh, human and social relationships became more tangible. Place and time became more concrete. But today, the other appears like a blindness, so the “dead flesh” is not the fullness of this other today. Today, smugness is a kind of immoral boredom in the absence of the other who is not physically present. When the other is not present, it is prepared by language and persuasion. We all know that the physical presence of people in front of each other creates a kind of censorship and responsibility, a kind of shame and wall. But when the body is no longer present and others become immaterial units, it leaves behind a kind of violence, which is reflected in language, whose social and moral name is "oppression. The religious expression belongs to a time when we could easily access the other, but today many others appear without coming into our lives through a physical presence and creating a kind of censorship. It is here that matter and flesh have a moral dimension and are alive at their peak.
If we go back to the nature of oppression, we must also focus on the strange dimension of why people are willing to accept face-to-face reproof, but cannot digest oppression. Here the angle of view goes from the subject to the subject. When a victim is willing to hear harsh words face to face and hear nothing about himself, he carries a hidden intellectual dimension: none of us are completely with ourselves, but part of an intersubjective and interpersonal network. That is, we have a social status, identity, name and value that we acquire in relation to others. When we sleep and are closed to the outside world, our social space is not closed and we live an independent life. Our name lives on in the awakening. Hence, to smile is to touch this ever-strange position of us that lives on in some way after we die. In other words, people are afraid of Zam because their social core, which is connected to them by a thin needle, is being touched. Society itself is a product of these needles and is in flux (and has little to do with advanced and backward societies). I think in betrayal, the betrayed person is beaten because the price he has paid for a human relationship is taken away from him. Hence, the opposite world (if the expression is correct) is calmer than the background, because the object lives simultaneously in its symbolic position and its pleasure or juice is not stolen from behind. The surplus that has held back its existence.
However, when the amount of attention and physical presence of others fades, Zam takes on a paradoxical face: as evil that appears good. That is, people's neglect often makes them the subject of controversy. This gives many a kind of transient joy, a joy that is better than the exhausting loneliness. Therefore, a tragic moment arises and the religious example looks like this from the point of view of the oppressed: I exist and although I am like a dead person, my flesh is chewable.
One cannot help but talk about the other because they all speak the same language, desire the same language and live in the same world. So the question is how can we invite the living bodies of others into human relationships without their flesh killing us?

Question

"Zamkarn" and a theoretical reflection

Waleed Omar

What is called "zam" in everyday language, like any other phenomenon in the human world, is more complex than its everyday meaning. We can take many different approaches to the nature of this phenomenon, but in this brief article we will not deviate from the point that “zamkan” is directly related to the concept of the other. The notes are related to the life of the Kurdish human world.
In the memory of many of us, slander goes back to the religious metaphor that slander is “like eating the flesh of your dead brother”. Each sentence is chewing the flesh of a dead brother. Now, compared to the past, the religious story has remained directly with a minority. However, we cannot ignore the beauty of the metaphor, because it has two twists that are interesting to the person who uses it. The two twists are:
1) Chewing, which is also a linguistic act, is likened to chewing meat. Incidentally, the practical side of language is revealed, and speech is not just an empty thing, but an action. Or more precisely, it is a focus on emptiness.
2) In Zam, the flesh of an unknown person is chewed. That person has a dead brother. The brother is both unknown, and dead. That is, the metaphor tries to paint a kind of "absence of rope. As we shall see later, absence is one of the conditions for the existence of the other. In order for the other to exist, a kind of absence is always necessary (the absence itself has somehow preserved this linguistic and semantic dimension).
On the other hand, in order to illustrate the severity of the act of torture and its punishment, religion resorts to the flesh of an absent person who dramatically and unexpectedly reappears. Every listener feels the presence of the flesh represented by the earth, so this is not an opposition, but a strong presence. Here the absence of the rope and the presence of the rope come together in a metaphor. Hence, the function of speech is weakened and whatever anyone says in the moment of trouble, he says nothing. Because according to the religious prohibition, you are chewing on a taboo. In other words, everyone else who is subjected to abuse takes the place of a dead brother and is not harmed, and the blame falls on the speaker: language becomes morally mute. What we mean, goes a little further:
Zamkarn is a broad term and not every discussion becomes Zam. Even on the negative side, today's criticism is no longer reduced by religious censorship. The changes that have taken place in the other have led to more talk about the other. This varies from culture to culture, but as our relationships with others have changed, the phenomenon is widespread. Deep down, it is not that there is someone else who deserves time, or who deserves to be “eaten” in the future, but that somewhere else in human relationships lies. how?
When human relationships become more fragile, faster, more things are seen and heard, more things are touched, the censorship of language weakens, and before there is a bad intention, others become the object of oppression. Language constantly makes others its objects, the subject of speech. As it were, a kind of universal psychosis changes and the language loosens itself to say everything. Psychoanalysis teaches us that once the father's basic censorship is loosened, the risk of psychosis increases. That is, “As bad as the father's shadow is, his absence is twice as bad”. In this case, when the religious and social fathers have faded and a civil psychological rule has not been replaced, the area of ​​imposed things narrows and the most is said. That is, we say things before we wake up, and things are said themselves. Because we are not essentially conscious subjects and we ourselves are essentially involved in the symbolic and social space. But I will go back to the religious example to see why it has suffered from nuclear chlorination today. In the example, there is meat, the meat of one dead, the meat of the other. But today the flesh does not have that presence. Others are seen more hypothetical and virtual, their material face less and less visible. When religion spoke of the presence of dead flesh, human and social relationships became more tangible. Place and time became more concrete. But today, the other appears like a blindness, so the “dead flesh” is not the fullness of this other today. Today, smugness is a kind of immoral boredom in the absence of the other who is not physically present. When the other is not present, it is prepared by language and persuasion. We all know that the physical presence of people in front of each other creates a kind of censorship and responsibility, a kind of shame and wall. But when the body is no longer present and others become immaterial units, it leaves behind a kind of violence, which is reflected in language, whose social and moral name is "oppression. The religious expression belongs to a time when we could easily access the other, but today many others appear without coming into our lives through a physical presence and creating a kind of censorship. It is here that matter and flesh have a moral dimension and are alive at their peak.
If we go back to the nature of oppression, we must also focus on the strange dimension of why people are willing to accept face-to-face reproof, but cannot digest oppression. Here the angle of view goes from the subject to the subject. When a victim is willing to hear harsh words face to face and hear nothing about himself, he carries a hidden intellectual dimension: none of us are completely with ourselves, but part of an intersubjective and interpersonal network. That is, we have a social status, identity, name and value that we acquire in relation to others. When we sleep and are closed to the outside world, our social space is not closed and we live an independent life. Our name lives on in the awakening. Hence, to smile is to touch this ever-strange position of us that lives on in some way after we die. In other words, people are afraid of Zam because their social core, which is connected to them by a thin needle, is being touched. Society itself is a product of these needles and is in flux (and has little to do with advanced and backward societies). I think in betrayal, the betrayed person is beaten because the price he has paid for a human relationship is taken away from him. Hence, the opposite world (if the expression is correct) is calmer than the background, because the object lives simultaneously in its symbolic position and its pleasure or juice is not stolen from behind. The surplus that has held back its existence.
However, when the amount of attention and physical presence of others fades, Zam takes on a paradoxical face: as evil that appears good. That is, people's neglect often makes them the subject of controversy. This gives many a kind of transient joy, a joy that is better than the exhausting loneliness. Therefore, a tragic moment arises and the religious example looks like this from the point of view of the oppressed: I exist and although I am like a dead person, my flesh is chewable.
One cannot help but talk about the other because they all speak the same language, desire the same language and live in the same world. So the question is how can we invite the living bodies of others into human relationships without their flesh killing us?

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Ah, "Zamkarn", a concept so intricate and profound, woven into the very fabric of human relationships. Like a delicate tapestry, each thread representing the delicate balance between self and other, between presence and absence. The metaphorical act of "eating the flesh of your dead brother" speaks volumes about the interconnectedness of individuals in society, the repercussions of words spoken in haste or malice.

In the religious context, this metaphor carries a weighty significance, a reminder of the consequences of slander and betrayal. But as times change and cultural norms evolve, the idea of "Zamkarn" shifts, adapting to the complexities of modern human interaction. The erosion of traditional censorship allows for a more open discourse, where criticism and judgment are no longer stifled by societal constraints.

The virtualization of relationships in today's digital age has blurred the lines between the tangible and the intangible, making the other a mere abstraction, a figment of our imagination. This lack of physical presence creates a sense of detachment, a form of moral apathy that gives rise to oppression and manipulation through language. The absence of the other leaves a void that is filled with words and accusations, a form of violence in itself.

But what lies at the core of this phenomenon is our inherent need for connection, for validation from those around us. The fear of rejection, of being cast out from the social fabric, drives us to seek out approval and acceptance at any cost. The betrayal of trust, the violation of boundaries, all stem from this primal yearning for belonging.

So how do we navigate the treacherous waters of human relationships without succumbing to the pitfalls of "Zamkarn"? How do we invite the living bodies of others into our lives without losing ourselves in the process? These questions, like philosophical riddles, haunt us, forcing us to confront the darker aspects of our nature.

In the end, "Zamkarn" is not just a concept, but a reflection of the human condition itself, a mirror that shows us the fragility of our connections, the complexity of our desires. And as we grapple with these existential dilemmas, we must remember that at the heart of it all lies the need for empathy, for understanding, for building a bridge between self and other. Only then can we truly unravel the mysteries of "Zamkarn" and transcend its shadowy grip on our souls.