The methodological structure for reading the thought of Prince Mohammed bin Salman (1): Is there an idea behind the achievement? 23

After the articles of this series expanded and its titles multiplied, there became an urgent need to review its structure, arrange its topics, and control the connections between them. So I stopped to review, and I found that there is a methodological question that should confront this series, after the previous articles. This is the question that should have preceded them all: Do we read the thoughts of His Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or do we read the achievements of the Saudi transformation, and then give them, through our efforts in interpreting them, an intellectual structure of our own? Is the multitude of achievements, the breadth of their scope, and the greatness of their effects sufficient to say that there is a perception behind them whose features can be revealed, whose logic can be understood, and whose presence can be traced in speech and decision? This is a question on which the legitimacy of reading itself depends; The writer can collect facts under an attractive title, connect them with precise phrases, and make them appear as parts of a single system, while the connection is more a creation of his language than the nature of his material. Then the writer’s language becomes a veil that prevents understanding, and what he thinks is a discovery becomes a projection of his perceptions onto his subject. Hence, this series needs a pause to clarify what it is looking for, in what sense the word “thought” is used, and what it considers a witness to, which is a pause at the heart of the work. Reading, whose topics are broad and whose titles are numerous, needs to review its basis, so that the questions remain able to guide the writing, and so that successive writing does not turn into a justification for its continuation. The thought intended here is: “a set of perceptions that relate to understanding reality, estimating the possible, arranging priorities, choosing means, and determining goals.” These perceptions may appear in explaining a problem, explaining a decision, comparing two paths, or stating what should change and what is worth staying, and they gainIts explanatory value extends beyond a single occasion, and its extension is inferred from multiple pieces of evidence, each of which has its own context and limits. The existence of this thought does not require that its author have formulated it in a theoretical book, or arranged it into chapters and terms, as political and development practice produces its questions in the face of reality, and the principles of considering it may be revealed from the way of dealing with the facts. However, the absence of a theoretical book doubles the responsibility of the author of the reading; Because he collects and classifies the material, proposes links between its parts, and must clarify where the text ends and where its conclusion begins. Therefore, the occurrence of an achievement alone is not sufficient to prove the idea with which we explain it, as a single result may be achieved through different motives, and a single action may serve multiple goals, and the opening of an institution, for example, proves its existence and declared function; As for its indication of a more comprehensive vision of the state’s relationship with society, it requires something that goes beyond the news of the opening. And here begins the difference between recording the event and building knowledge about it: which interpretation is supported by evidence, and which interpretation was added by the desire of the writer? Accordingly, a distinction must be made between what was achieved, the declared interpretation of it, and the significance that the reading derives from it. These levels are related, but they do not coincide, as what is achieved is a fact that is examined, the interpretation is a statement that is read in its context, and the significance is a conclusion that needs an argument. The more these levels are mixed, the easier it becomes to attribute to facts what they did not prove, and to statements what they did not say, and then we treat our conclusion as an established fact. When we read the thought of His Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman, his speeches and direct statements in interviews, words and statements are essential material for understanding his way of looking and reasoning, and documents, programs and decisions help to examine the connection between...Visualization and its applications. Each subject has its own weight. A statement explaining the reason for choosing a certain path provides understanding that does not provide for news announcing the completion of a project, and a document that specifies a goal provides evidence of intent, while an estimate of achieving that goal requires other evidence. The conclusion is strengthened when we find logic repeated in different issues: How is the problem defined? What is considered an obstacle? On what basis are priorities arranged? How do you estimate the cost of postponement? These questions allow searching for what connects decisions, without assuming that all decisions stem from a single reason. Economic, social, and security considerations may combine in the decision, and their weights vary according to the circumstance. This is what the reading should expand upon, rather than summarizing it into a comprehensive statement. The reading also needs to examine what contradicts its conclusion; If it seems to her that a certain principle governs a number of situations, she must search for situations that cannot be explained by this principle, determine the limits of its application, and consider the possibility of another explanation that is more capable of understanding those situations. An exception may reveal the weakness of the hypothesis, it may reveal a condition that we overlooked, or it may indicate a change in assessment. In all cases, preserving the event as it is is more effective than interpreting it forcibly to protect the structure that we have proposed. Time is part of this examination; It is not correct to combine two statements that are separated by years, and then examine the connection between them while ignoring what changed during them. The goal may remain and the means may change, knowledge may expand and the priority changes, and experience may reveal a need for revision. Therefore, the search for thought in practice requires tracking its movement, distinguishing between the development of perception, the change in its tools, and the response to a passing circumstance. As for assuming its completion from the beginning, it carries the beginnings.Knowing the endings, and this is not justified by systematic reading. Here the responsibility of this series is determined: to provide a reading in which the reader can identify its evidence, discuss its transitions, and distinguish between the degrees of certainty in it. Admiration for an achievement is an understandable reason for contemplation, but it does not replace proof, and appreciation gains its depth when it is able to explain what it appreciates, and as much as we care about the value of our topic, we should be careful not to say more about it than its material allows. So: Is there an idea behind the achievement? It is a question open to research, the answer to which is formed to the extent that the evidence is supported, the reasoning becomes clear, and the connections are established, and the task of this reading is to make its transition from achievement to thought an understandable and examineable transition. An idea that deserves to be attributed to its owner first deserves to establish evidence of its existence.