According to the Department of Public Relations and Information of the Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute, a review of the book Three views on some of the issues in the three areas of culture, narrative, and research of war/ holy defense, by the group of thought literature of the Institute of Culture and Social Studies on Saturday, May 14, 2006, was held in the auditorium of the Islamic Culture and Thought Center.
At the meeting, in addition to the book’s authors, three glances … (Mrs. Frank Jamshidi and Mr. Alireza Kamari) and critics of this work (gentlemen Dr. Sangari and Ahmad Shakeri), some of the professors and scholars and activists of the literature on the sustainability of Tehran and the provinces, as well as some Experts from the three fields of oral history, cultural policy, and death studies, also presented valuable points in the critique of the book.
“Three Look …” is more closely related to the three chapters of the various chapters of the life of the Holy War / Holy Defense: Seasons of the Cultural, Historical, and Research of the Holy War / Sacred Defense.
Dr. Sgreeny sat as secretary and, at the same time, the first critic of the book began three words of his speech with the idea that it is possible to define and determine the imitation for the field of research, such as the field of religious sciences, with the difference that The imposition of imitation references for the field of inquiry is not a function of gender segregation.
He acknowledged Mr. Kemari as one of the most influential institutions in the areas mentioned for more than twenty years in the field of war literature, literature of sustainability, and the sacred defense literature, and stated: “This continuity continues to flow. A coherent and independent intellectual in the works of Mr. Kamari has created so much that it is possible to look at three similarities in highlighting the most important areas of the sacred war/defense and the issues in which the fields are looking for them, and the angle from which the issues are addressed, Volume II Sustained position.
Based on this argument, Dr. Sgari suggested that a critique of three views could be begun with the question “Is this book really covering three aspects of the issues in some areas of the war/defense?”
He emphasized that given the necessity of the emergence and development of a look and recognition independently, the critical approach to the past looks and explicitly emphasizes their weaknesses and strengths and the explanation of why a new look is presented, one can conclude that what the authors of the book, Have termed “look” and refer to the “three glances”, more indicative of the three chapters of the various chapters of the life of a phenomenon. Thus, in the book Three Look …, the chapters of “culture” and “narration” and “research” of the Holy Defense/ War, highlight some of the issues that this phenomenon has been involved with and is involved in these seasons Is.
“Three Look” could be set as an example of the historicist literature of the Holy Defense Literature.
The second critic of the meeting, Dr. Ahmed Shakeri, started with a series of critiques: one is that since Mr. Kamari has dedicated himself to research in a particular field for many years, his attention to his work and his work, as a focus of research and protection.
Second, if the mental approximation that has emerged between Mr. Kamari and Mrs. Jamshidi is able to form between them and other newer individuals and form a powerful research force, it will be a great blessing in terms of producing deeper and more impressive works.
Third, because three views … contain 18 items and it is not possible to criticize them in a meeting, it is necessary to focus on two or three articles, that the type and extent of the scientific discipline of the texts and their methodology should be carefully examined and quantified.
In the critique of Mr. Shakeri from the book Three Look …, four questions played a pivotal role:
(1) What were the goals/objectives behind reviewing and reviewing articles that at least one dozen have said or written?
(2) How are this review and review carried out and what are added values for elementary texts?
(3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the revised texts compared to other pre-existing writings of Mr. Kamari?
(4) The ideal audience for this book is in the three areas of “culture” and “narrative” and “research” of war or sacred defense: does the book target policy, management, and decision-making levels in the three areas mentioned? Or anchors and activists in these three areas? Or students and thought people?
The author of the book on Mania and Attentions, arguing that the publication of the history of the research of the Holy Defense Literature is a missing link in the field of the study of the Holy Defense Literature, has proven that if three views … were prepared to prepare a historical report It would have been possible to pay much attention to the scientific findings and the scientific findings of Mr. Kamari on the way to his scientific development and gradually, and that, in order to write such a report, one should not be less than Mr. Kamari, who is well versed in the ups and downs of the literature of the Holy Defense during the years War is aware of this.
Dr. Shaker assumed that if the book had been reviewed … with a focus on the history of research in the field of sacred defense literature, there were three major advantages: one, by revealing instances of “defect” and “violation” and “revocation” “And how Mr. Kamari’s attempt to” correct “and” explain “and” complete “his votes, documenting their writings, showed their scientific path in the field they chose for their research; secondly, the characteristic of the document of their writings was preserved. Thirdly, the position of the time and place that influences its theoretical discussion and the emergence and growth of critical views are some of the trends and processes in society, that raised clarity.
A member of the faculty of the think-tank of the Islamic think tanks and culture center in another part of his critique, with emphasis on the linguistic and mental structure and reasoning of Mr. Kamari in their writings, referred to three major obstacles, which spoke about the possible spectrum of an idealized audience and wrote He is in the linguistic aspect: the literacy of the text, or the conquest of the literary language, and the intense tendency of Mr. Kamari to formulate a lexical word with a semicolon circle in close proximity and without a thesaurus that clarifies the meaning of these words; in the subjective sense, the absence of the abstract planes found in What is the priority of the discussion and why and how to expand them It is obvious; in the argumentative aspect, there is no evidence and strong documentation that supports the questionnaires and researches developed by Mr. Kamari and help the audience to match their claims with those examples, and thus, from the difficulty of theoretical discussion Pass through Shakeri described these obstacles as a factor in the general and particular audiences of Mr. Kamari, who did not even perceive their writings at all, and sometimes even in their own right. Also, these writings do not fall under the scope of scientific research literature, and therefore, another important segment of their serious audience is lost.
The author of Bismay’s book added that the absence of controversial discussions led to the lack of guidance and solutions that Mr. Kamari put forward at the end of some of their writings since they are logically the theoretical philosophical philosophy of solving an issue based on research forms. Therefore, if there is no discussion of this, then merely completing the solution and guidance is just a departure from the theoretical discussion without obtaining a definite result.
“Three Look …” is a good example of the fact that the creation and reproduction of the original Persian words for dealing with foreign words is imperative.
Dr. Moghisheh, from two perspectives, reviewed the book three; one, reviewing the editorial or focus on the prose, word processors, and sentences of Mr. Kamari in the book, and the other, the study of thinkers and research, or the focus on the subject of thinking and analysis of Mr. Kamari in a total of 18 The material contained in this book.
In his review of three views … From the perspective of the first, he outlined some indicators for Mr. Kamari’s prose in this book:
(1) the rhythm or pseudo-matter of making some words (such as review and review, foundation and foundation, late and distant, conception, intuition, hidden world, humorous world, writings, and …)
(2) Replacing the wording of words (such as identifying instead of introducing, evaluating value, sadness, delusions, etc.),
(3) the use of lesser words in writing and writing (such as gravity rather than tenderness, racing instead of puberty, instead of considering, spinning, stinging, saying, deepening, always meaning the place of effect, etc.)
(4) the use of literary arrays (for example, “from the front to the front of the frontier, the pillage of pondering, khraq and the mood and the desertion, and …)
(5) Arabism and the high frequency of the use of Arabic words along with the Persian words (such as Lamhallah, Faragh, and Mayes, verses and purposes, aghajid, Logoon, Moncalch, …)
(6) the rare use of some Latin, Mongolian, and Turkish words (eg, oligarch, parasite, filtering, etc.);
Mr. Moghiseh, from the point of view of the lexical examination, considered the works of Mr. Kamari, including three glances …, great service in the Persian language and literature, which is of great importance today, especially in light of the language turmoil caused by the expansion of the language of virtual spaces more than ever. It is clear. He added that three views … is a good example for the media to know that with time and accuracy and patience and study, it is possible to create and reproduce the original Persian words and that the issue of oppression and the weakening of the Persian language in the face of foreign language, merely A legend that, according to the Persian version of the Persian vineyard, it remains to be kept alive.
According to Dr. Moghiseh, three looks … While poverty reveals the students’ mental and linguistic treasures, it also underscores the need for students, especially students of the humanities and Islamic sciences, who speak and write, are the only and the most important communication tool They have to be equipped with Persian vocabulary weapons and the creation of new words for the purpose of fiction.
Dr. Moghiseh pointed out that Mr. Kamari in this book and his other works showed that in selecting each word, thought and reflection and will, and by replacing vocabulary, adornment of the word, trimming it from scratch, raising meaning, avoiding marginalization and addressing In the essence of the subject, he has tried, in addition to saying well and correctly, to speak and write well and correctly, although this obsession with the choice of vocabulary makes his prose “heavy” and the song “read” the book “slow”, And “limited” their audience to professional readers and scholars from the study.
From the second perspective, Dr. Moghiseh, from the second perspective, namely, the study of scholars and scholars, the articles of three glances … mainly contain new ideas and ideas, except for a few articles such as the article “Persian language; the language of thought, culture and Islamic revolution” which, according to him, There is a lot of reprints of the writings that are there and they are deeper and deeper in this matter.
He considered the novelty of the book in its final section, that is, a collection of books, and added to the book as an advantage for those who for any reason do not have the pleasure of reading prose and prose. Hence, he highlighted issues and questions, and solutions from the inside and said Mr. Kamari’s writings in the Anjama section is a new plan for the construction of the book.
“Three Look …” In order to maximize the reach of Mr. Kamari’s ideal audience, students and academics, they need to be closer to the academic standards of research and the language of today’s students’ generation.
Dr. Davoudi Moghaddam pointed to the influence of Mr. Kamari in the field of persuasive literature and his decisive role in directing the productions of this field, in the critique of the book, three points:
(1) The following items of the three parts of the book are not equally divided. For example, the first part, which focuses on the field of culture and includes language and art, and literature, is very slender. In addition, the contents of this section do not contain a lot of new tips (such as the Persian language, the language of thought, culture, and Islamic revolution) or their references and citations (such as the article “War, Language, Thought and Culture”) or questions Their implications are often unresponsive, or the answers to a few should not be elaborated (for example, the article entitled “The relationship between the name and the word in the two terms of the imposed war and sacred defense”).
(2) Places of many topics in the field of empty culture, including the subject of death, are one of the longest narratives in sustainability literature.
(3) In the third part of the book, the field of research, many of the objections raised in articles such as “the semiotic study of holy war / sacred defense” lacked reference to theoretical foundations, while increasing the reference, strength, and power of the articles.
Dr. Davoudi Moghaddam suggested that Mr. Kamari should pursue two goals that may be followed: ie, penetration into universities, changes in the issues and concerns of academics, as well as the maximum attraction of students as an ideal audience for their discussions, and the scientific research criteria in the writings They will demonstrate their commitment, bringing their tongue closer to the students of today’s generation.
The Three Look, although challenging the reader’s mind about the importance of problem-solving in the field of war, is a valuable work, but its study shows how moving toward the cultural policy of war is a serious need for us today.
In the review of the book, Dr. Bagheri spoke three views on the following three issues:
First, count some of the strengths of the book Three Look. He described three strengths of the book: (1) challenging the reader’s mind about the importance of problem-solving in the eight-year war, (2) the separation of war research from pseudo-research and anti-investigations in this area, (3) the frequency of the word war compared to The term “holy defense” refers to the commitment of Mr. Kamari to preserve the impartiality of value in looking at the field of war research.
The second axis counts some of the book’s three weak points. Dr. Bagheri referred to five points of weakness: (1) a small contribution to the theoretical and methodological issues along with the high frequency of lexical issues such as problem-solving and theorizing in the field of war research; (2) ignoring the new forms of war in Iran today that arose from the change in the nature of warfare (For example, soft war, media warfare, information warfare …), (3) ignoring the dichotomy of “unity” in politics and “pluralism” in the nature of social realities, which is the main barrier to the interaction between war and the study of war with the social realities of today’s Iran, (4) to ignore the role of religious rule policies regarding the culture of warfare that engages in amo Is tainted with the custodians of cultural institutions of higher value, (5) Nadydhmandn generalize the role of research policy documents edited in the war.
The third axis outlines some of the necessities in the proposal, in which he outlined four necessities: (1) the need to move towards interdisciplinary studies of war, especially the cultural policy of war; (2) the need to remove ideological and value barriers in order to provide security for scholars in the fields And their entry into the field of native theorizing in the field of war, (3) the need to strengthen qualitative methods and combined research methods for the theory in the field of war research, (4) the need to adapt to a particular kind of applied research, called “policy reports” These reports are the bridge between federal officials And government decision-makers, researchers and academics.
The “Three Look” is a coincidence by the monkey called “war / sacred defense”.
Hajar Ghorbani, the researcher for death studies, has criticized the book from three points of view. It is enough to say that the insistence of Mr. Kamari in this book and his other works, the inclusion of the sign of slash / between war and sacred defense, gives all scholars the possibility that war experience can From the point of view of the war or the sacred defense, it means conquering Bob’s serious critique of the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq.
Mr. Kami, in the book “Three Look,” seems to have not yet reached a definitive conclusion in setting his ideal audience.
Referring to the fact that Mr. Kamari has a networked or homological approach, Ms. Dr. Otazipour has identified this as a major obstacle to the audience who just wanted to get acquainted with the thoughts of Mr. Kamari and did not read or contemplate their previous works.
Dr. Otishipor reads this book, despite valuable articles, for a number of non-scholarly non-scholarly reasons: (1) the high frequency of certain definite propositions, (2) the numerous instances of non-citations and references, and (3) lack of community Statistical, (4) adherence to the concepts and terminology of the areas where they travel and list issues and topics (such as the two domains of semiotics and narration),
“The Relationship between War Memories and Historiography and History” is the most serious and, at the same time, the most challenging article in The Three Views.
Dr. Davood Hamanni suggested that a review of a maximum of two or three articles be made instead of a general critique of the book that ultimately compliments and acclaims the work and the owner of the work or ends with statements that are not nodded. This includes new ideas or serious issues related to today’s Iranian issues, from the point of view of revealing their theoretical and methodological flaws or flaws.
Other people present at the meeting (including Mohsen Kazemi, Mohammad Ghazi, Javad Saharei, and Dr. Somayeh Sheikhzadeh) did not succeed in expressing their views and opinions because of the time spent.