I’d like to begin by addressing the first of Said’s three pillars of his ‘reality’. He discusses in some length the difference between ‘pure’ and ‘political’ knowledge, as well as the challenges and inconveniences of telling the two apart. Personally, I think Said was a little hasty in passing over circumstances where pure knowledge is politicized and visa versa. One pertinent example is the survey of Mt. Everest which first claimed it’s tippy top to be above all others. It is a topological and pure fact that Mt. Everest is the tallest pile of rocks, but this designation was most certainly a political process. Even the name, “Everest”, reeks of the political possessiveness felt by the English for ‘their’ mountain. This points out the unfortunate truth that when culture is involved, ‘pure’ truth is very hard to come by, be this due to some language barrier or preconceived stereotypes.

Ah, a perfect segue into Said’s second big point; methodology matters! One must approach an issue from a known and developed starting point, and follow that issue from a particular (and consistent) point of reference. For instance, the English approached their Trigonometrical Survey from a colonialist pedestal. With their starting point so skewed toward Euro-centrism it is hardly surprising that their perspective on Mt. Everest ended up dramatically different from that of the Tibetans or Chinese. In a certain sense, these first two of Said’s principles for an accurate and objective world are linked. Political knowledge, for example, can establish a certain point of view for the holder (“We’re England! England is awesome and owns all the stuff! This mountain is tall, it must be ours.”) ; while pure knowledge will (ideally) provide the foundations for a more realistic worldview (“We’re England! England is pretty cool but everybody probably doesn’t want to be us. This mountain is tall, let’s see what the locals think…”). The source and nature of your starting knowledge is therefore instrumental in guiding any following conclusions or discoveries. Along these veins, the method with which information is presented can lead us back to the proverbial other end of the circle. Particular methodology often casts the light in which material will be interpreted (much the same as, “Have a nice day.” can sound a lot like, “Fuck off.”). We’ve seen this before when Krakauer’s rants got in the way of his often very valid points. In other words, he turned facts into opinion and discredited himself and his material in the process.

Said’s final point is summarized well by the quote that he leads with:

“The starting point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is…as a product of the historical processes to date, which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving you an inventory…therefore it is imperative at the outset to compile such an inventory.”

To me, this suggests that any honest scientist, historian, or author must first take stock of themselves and their components before beginning to understand and describe that which is around us. Hence, we can understand the ways in which our own motivations and possible biases could affect the material we wish to present or answers we wish to pose.

The different uses or misuses of these three concepts (or ignoring them completely) seems to have had an especially long lasting impact on the Oriental world, which is so different from ours in culture, language, and history.