A Peer Between the Remote and adjacent Pair : (A Logical Essay in a Time of Intellectual and Political Blockage ) _Captain Mohammed Hassan Al-Tahir

 

_Date: October 29, 2025_

 

In a time when crises intersect with predicaments, and truths entangle with illusions, Sudan stands as a “peer” between two peers:

– One distant, seeing only through the maps of others,

– And one close, suffocating within the boundaries of crisis.

Between the two, logic is lost, and willpower is hijacked.

 

It is said that King Louis XIV was a model of governance because his rule was not shaped by external desires, but born of his own ideas. How accurate is this claim?

 

*🔥 Absence of Vision or Will?*

 

A crisis is not a passing event—it is a persistent state of blockage, fed by the predicament and reproducing it.

– A crisis is born from the absence of vision,

– A predicament is born from the absence of will.

And when both draw near, the nation becomes hostage to:

– Those who do not know what they want,

– And those who know but dare not act.

 

*🧠 The Logic of Crisis and the Crisis of Logic*

 

In Sudan, the crisis no longer needs explanation—logic itself is in crisis.

– When chaos is justified in the name of realism,

– And dependency is legitimized in the name of wisdom,

You are not living a political crisis, but a logical one.

 

Logic, once meant to be a tool for understanding, has turned into a tool for justification. And here arises the question:

*Are we using logic to understand reality—or to distort it?*

 

*🔲 The Square of Logic: Universal and Particular, Affirmation and Negation*

 

In classical logic, there are four corners:

1. Universal Affirmation

2. Universal Negation

3. Particular Affirmation

4. Particular Negation

 

But in our reality, we possess only a fifth corner: *the illogical*.

Using the square of logic:

– Universal Affirmation: “Sudan is a free nation.”

– Universal Negation: “Sudan belongs to no one.”

– Particular Affirmation: “Some Sudanese are free.”

– Particular Negation: “Some Sudanese are not free.”

 

All these statements are used, yet none are truly upheld. Logic is employed as rhetorical ornamentation, not as a tool of liberation.

 

*🧭 Sudan Between the Universal and the Particular*

 

Sudan as a _universal_ is a homeland for all, but in _particular_ practice, it becomes a homeland for some.

– The universal is raised in slogans,

– The particular is enacted in policies.

Thus, the homeland becomes a peer between two peers:

– A distant peer seen by outsiders as an opportunity,

– A close peer seen by citizens as a wound.

 

*⚔️ Incitement to Logic*

 

We do not need a political revolution alone—we need a logical revolution.

– To redefine the crisis,

– To break the predicament,

– To use logic not to justify paralysis, but to spark action.

 

This incitement is:

– Not toward chaos, but toward thought.

– Not toward destruction, but toward rebuilding from the ground up—

With logic, homeland, and dignity.

 

*🧩 Conclusion: Do We Want to Be a Peer or an Origin?*

 

Sudan must not remain a peer among others—it must be an _origin_ in itself.

– Not to be compared, but to be emulated.

– Not to be replicated, but to be created.

But this will not happen unless we free ourselves from the crisis of logic, redefine the crisis, and refuse to be merely a peer between two peers.