Free speech vs. propaganda
Fad
between free speech and propaganda; rather, what is the difference? I've
been thinking a lot about whether Nishee's bid to inform is an example of
freedom of speech at its worst or if it is an example of propaganda at its
best. Not to invoke the philosophers again, but one in particular sheds
some light on this issue. According to Tocqueville, the range and vitality
of political and civil associations vary considerably. On American
democracy, for example, he states:
"Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches,
distribute books, and send missionaries to the antipodes. Hospitals,
prisons and schools take shape that way...if they want to proclaim a truth
or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of great example, they form
an association (Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, p. 662.).
If we take Tocqueville and apply him to this small NG, I would suggest that
Nishee (and sorry to talk about you in the third person but you happen to be
the indirect object of this discussion on free speech) is indeed exercising
his rights well within the confines of civil association. Civil association
takes place outside of public or political association, whereas political
associations have to do with "the public and formal support of specific
doctrines by a certain number of individuals who have undertaken to
cooperate in a state way in order to make these doctrines prevail."
(Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, p. 233.) So it is within that
framework that citizens learn to exchange views, organize, and place checks
on government, all of which depend on the free dissemination of news and
views through newspapers and other outlets (for example this newsgroup)-
this becomes crucial to the survival of such associations. So this leads
me to ask whether it becomes desirable to place checks on civil associations
since most public associations are borne of the private realm (the civil,
being the individuals here on this NG).
So is it possible/fair to say that Nishee is not propagating until he forms
an association large enough to enforce his views? Once he does form such an
association, since the association exists, does it necessarily follow that
the group he forms would be misinforming on a large scale or simply
representing its interests among a myriad other interests which may or may
not come into conflict with its agenda? Based on the above, I think Nishee
is exercising the right to exercise his freedom of speech. If he forms an
association to endorse those views publicly or politically, then that
association may still be considered a propagator of lies by some, but it
nonetheless belongs in the realm of democracy and it becomes the duty of
other associations, under the umbrella of democracy, to add legitimacy to or
deligitimize that association.
Take, for example, Hizbollah. They began as a military/terrorist
association, furthering their own interests and propagating their own views
(with the aid of onlookers of course). What started as a military/terrorist
organization eventually gained the political clout and social strength
necessary to endorse their platform in a political setting. How is
Hizbollah any different from Nishee? (Nishee, I'm NOT putting you in the
same camp, I'm asking a very broad question with similar implications) Is
Hizbollah any more legitimate now in 'parliament' than it was in the South?
I think the issues Nishee asks us to look at are connected to concerns of
legitimacy, checks and balances, democracy, pluralism - and tolerance within
pluralism. I'm not saying I want Nishee to be here simply because of the
differentiation between civil and political association as it manifests
itself here. Rather, I am in favour of Nishee's posts because they
represent a minority population (see Malik's piece posted by ElieCedar "Is
there still a Lebanon", especially section on 'Christians and Lebanese Civil
Society'), and because it is simply a form of association. I will say this
again for the sake of saying it so no one jumps on me...I don't agree with
the discussions that follow his posts nor do I read them. If anyone out
there has a post that conflicts with the historic representations Nishee is
bringing out about christians in the ME, then it should be posted. Some
might argue that this is not a religious NG, but a cultural one: this is
made clear in the rules of thumb for the NG. But in the real world,
religion and culture in Lebanon are all but synonymous...both for christians
and muslims respectively. So the argument that this is not the appropriate
forum for posting such material is less convincing to me, especially given
the very nature and contexts within which most discussions take place on
this NG; I think it would be unfair NOT to discuss such issues. Moreover,
the deconfessionalization of Lebanon and its subsequent democratization must
necessarily refer to questions of religion because it is an
institutionalized reality (therefore it is a political and social reality)
which the new writers/actors in Lebanon are attempting (rather lazily) to
address. The process of democratization (building democratic institutions)
should necessarily address questions of minority rights and political
association. In this way, Nishee's posts could represent a latent political
association or they can be taken for what they are at present...someone's
attempt to inform. Just some thoughts I wanted to share...blast me
(without the vagaries) or agree, hopefully you have something to share.
Fadia
P.S. I thought about leaving this NG, but I thought about it some more and,
I refuse. I initially joined this group to promote an organization that I
am trying to put together, but it seems I've bargained for a lot more. I
still plan to put together the organization and this experience has only
helped me in the process. I think we're lucky to have this forum where
we can get instant access to other people's opinions and to information.
We're the first generation to have this luxury and I think it should be
respected and used responsibly as a medium for exchanging information. I
think I can contribute positively to this NG so I'm staying. I also learned
how to use my newsgroup filter ;-).
Maan M. Hamze
take you seriously. I thought a lot about what made you get on my nerve. I
gave it a bit of thought. I thought: " Maan, what would it take someone to
get on your nerves; specially if that someone seems to be educated." It did
not take me a long time to get my answer. Here it is: Fadia, your problem
is that you toy with ideas. Toying with ideas, having read many many books
as I am sure you have done, is a very dangerous concept. For toying with
ideas is insulting on many levels. Also, you toy with ideas without
understanding their consequences. I believe that is what made me react so
strongly toward you. For from the start I could see a lack on your part of
seeing consequences in the ideas you present. Let me do my best at
addressing your points - not at length. I do not want to do that. Because
for starters, and I am sorry to tell you that, you do not sound sincere.
Fadia - it is a talent to present ideas with sincerety. It really is!
Sincerety is a refletion of passion and conviction. For when ideas turn
into something to toy with just because we can do it, then all Values fail.
And Ethics itself is drawn down a cheap stream.
Fad wrote in message <6q7upm$bq0$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Don't jump on me all at once, but I'd like to know if there is a difference
>between free speech and propaganda; rather, what is the difference?
At the outset (with permission from Heidegger who was fond of using that
term) there is NO opposition between Free Speech and Propaganda. On the
contrary, Free Speech is the atmosphere under which we can speak thereof of
something called Propaganda and something that is not propaganda. Free
speech is the atmosphere, the general condition, and the setting under which
propaganda and non-propaganda can flourish. To speak of propaganda and try
to differentiate it from what is not propaganda is not an easy subject and
is open to a wide interpretation. If the need arises and if you wishe me, I
can go into detail on the many interpretations concerning this
subject...................
>I've
>been thinking a lot about whether Nishee's bid to inform is an example of
>freedom of speech at its worst or if it is an example of propaganda at its
>best. Not to invoke the philosophers again, but one in particular sheds
>some light on this issue.
..........An issue that comes to us from Ancient Greece is the category
under which we can ascertain the validity of an argument, and under which we
can speak of being informed or being misinformed. In Athens, where a
politically democratic system had flourished, these issues were written
about and discussed at length. Many schools emerged. One of the most
important Thinkers (with a capital T) are Plato and Socrates (that we know
about from Plato's dialogues). Socrates waged a great struggle against the
Sophists. He, and his student Plato, could not stand the Sophists.
Socrates' concern is that Thinking is an encounter with life as felt in its
immediate impact on us. He felt that the Sophists in their capacity to
convince us of anything and everything through their Logic is dangerous.
Why? Because it destroys what Socrates was most concerned about: Justice.
To make a long story short: What validates an argument, as Socrates
discovered later in his life, are not Logic and not Reason. These are not
enough. For through the Platonic Dialogues, Socrates shows that Reason
carries the roots of its destruction. In other words, what appears as
Reason in
information at first, was shown by Socrates to be a bunch of nonsense. The
Validity of an argument is in its IMMEDIATE access to Justice and Ethics.
This must have been a revolutionary idea in Ancient Greece. How do you
determine that? The issue is still with us. As far as I am concerned, the
difference between information and misinformation is exactly in how a Speech
accesses our inner sense of Justice and our Ethical Responsibilities. Are
you following me?
To give you an example, in the Thirties of this century, a Philosopher with
name Edmund Husserl sprang on humanity the idea of Ideation. I will not get
into detail over Husserlian Philosophy, enough to say that a whole school
springs around this thinking (specially Phenomenology) where Knowledge is
equated with a sense of Decency and Ethical Responsibility that is based
initially on mere Intuition that can be the first step toward validating
knowledge
as far as Justice is concernced.
One of the lessons to be learned is this that may not be to your liking:
The issue of Justice and Ethics is a matter of CHOICE that can destroy
Tradition by the process of recreating this tradition. I really am trying
to simplify these points here, and I am hoping that I am not
oversimplifying. This means there is a moment in the life of an individual
where he/she can make a choice that puts that individual on the brink of
knowing what is information and what is misinformation. For this you have
to give yourself a deep look. For no science here will come to your aid.
No Epistemology will salvage you. You either see it or you do not.
Heidegger calls it in his own words in his great essay " Identity and
Difference": The springing across the Metaphysical Abyss. He certainly knew
what he was talking about for he was a wise man like Socrates before him.
They knew that more important than the mere division of an article into an
informational piece and misinformational piece is not in the SCIENCE of
Validation but is in its accessibility to Justice and Ethics. For this you
have to listen to yourself, and most importantly you have to quit toying
with ideas without the effort to understand their INNER consequences.
>According to Tocqueville, the range and vitality
>of political and civil associations vary considerably. On American
>democracy, for example, he states:
> "Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches,
>distribute books, and send missionaries to the antipodes. Hospitals,
>prisons and schools take shape that way...if they want to proclaim a truth
>or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of great example, they form
>an association (Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, p. 662.).
>If we take Tocqueville and apply him to this small NG, I would suggest that
>Nishee (and sorry to talk about you in the third person but you happen to
be
>the indirect object of this discussion on free speech) is indeed exercising
>his rights well within the confines of civil association.
No, you are not right! For I am quite sure that someone like Jurgen
Habermas and his ideas of Public Sphere and its Rationale, the issue of
association follows from the inner Ethical Responsibility of performing your
duties as a citizen. Also, you should know that Tocqueville meant it like
that also. They were not catering to every little guy with a piece of
misinformation to waste on humanity.
>Civil association
>takes place outside of public or political association, whereas political
>associations have to do with "the public and formal support of specific
>doctrines by a certain number of individuals who have undertaken to
>cooperate in a state way in order to make these doctrines prevail."
>(Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, p. 233.) So it is within that
>framework that citizens learn to exchange views, organize, and place checks
>on government, all of which depend on the free dissemination of news and
>views through newspapers and other outlets (for example this newsgroup)-
>this becomes crucial to the survival of such associations. So this leads
>me to ask whether it becomes desirable to place checks on civil
associations
>since most public associations are borne of the private realm (the civil,
>being the individuals here on this NG).
Again toying with ideas. There is no exchange with ideas with Nishee. Have
you read his articles on history?
I can not believe I am explaining this to you!
Quit toying with ideas Fadia!
Anyway, if there are any quesitons to clarify any of the points feel free to
ask.
Maan
Fad
Everyone talks gliberish in the academic world. Why don't you comment on
what I said instead. Read ElieCedar's post on Malik (the one on Is there
still a Lebanon) then see if my post makes sense. If you want to agree to
disagree that's cool too, but I'm still convinced by my own arguement that
Nishee should continue to post until someone convinces me otherwise. It
has more to do with a democratic NG than it does with the nature of his
posts. To answer my own question, I think the difference between free
speech and propaganda is education. Re-read my post, especially from the
second paragraph down...forget Tocqueville for a moment...what about
minority rights and freedom of association? Just take the glib right out
of it and you'll see the post for what it is...how to approach democracy
building in Lebanon and how pluralism fits into that formula. I'm a real
proponent of Malik...I referenced his work for my undergrad thesis and he
has a lot to offer on the subject.
Fadia
TahaK wrote in message <199808050212...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Fadia, I resisted so hard the urge to do this to you. Sorry, but I
couldn't
>come up with a more suitable response.
>
>Following is an entry from the American Heritage Dicionary for the word
"glib".
>
>That is what I think of your post, Glib. You yourself expected this kind
of
>response if not worse.
>
>Taha :<
>
>=====================================================================
>glib
>
>glib (glīb) adjective
>glibber, glibbest
>1. a. Performed with a natural, offhand ease: glib conversation. b.
>Showing little thought, preparation, or concern: a glib response to a
complex
>question.
>2. Marked by ease and fluency of speech or writing that often suggests or
>stems from insincerity, superficiality, or deceitfulness.
>[Possibly of Low German origin.]
>- glib´ly adverb
>- glib´ness noun
>Synonyms: glib, slick, smooth-tongued. The central meaning shared by these
>adjectives is "being, marked by, or engaging in ready but often insincere
or
>superficial discourse": a glib denial; a slick commercial; a smooth-tongued
>hypocrite. See also synonyms at TALKATIVE.
>
>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
>copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed
from
>InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
TahaK
Maan M. Hamze
Fad wrote in message <6q8l44$nsl$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Taha,
>Everyone talks gliberish in the academic world. Why don't you comment on
>what I said instead. Read ElieCedar's post on Malik (the one on Is there
>still a Lebanon) then see if my post makes sense. If you want to agree to
>disagree that's cool too, but I'm still convinced by my own arguement that
>Nishee should continue to post until someone convinces me otherwise.
Nishee is NOT interested in any discussion. His posts have been geared
toward repeating the same record over and over again. We are talking noise.
Not discussion in any meaningful way. Is this what democracy all about?
Where do you get your concept of democracy as such. Counter points have
been made to Nishee and he did not take even one into account. He tried two
times to plunge this group into a Berber/Arab conflict! Where is the end of
it. Historical discussions are fine and should be encouraged, but not when
someone is not interested in any discussion. Democracy, from the spirit of
the Public Sphere, is valued for its Rational elements. Thinking should
flow, not be solidified toward throwing allegations without proof. Not
toward hurting others! This is the Athenian concept of Democracy that to
their mind differentiated them from what they took to be Barbarians. You
seem to be toying with an extremely dangerous ideal of Democracy that is
starting to resemble an Anarachy of thoughts without any form. A system
with a free flow of energy without order and without shape. Where anything
can be valued for the way it sounds, not for the embedded values of Justice
and Ethics. Democracy, first and foremost, concerns itself with the very
idea of Citizenry and Ethical Responsibility and a reflection on the idea of
Citizenry and Ethical Responsibililty. Nishee has not shown either of these
two.
Also, you are mistaken, not all Academics talk gliberish!
>To answer my own question, I think the difference between free
>speech and propaganda is education.
Many Propagandists are aware of their action as Propagandists. If by
Education you mean the ability to Validate something or another then see my
other post/reply to you. Or I'll ask you: well, what are the elements of
this education that allows any sense of validation. This is THE meat of the
argument here! Define then to me what Education will it take to validate
information and misinformation. Listen: In the novel 1984 the question is
this: Is 1+1 = 2 or equals 4. Both sides (the good or the bad) know, in
the novel that the answer is 2. When Justice fails then 1+1=4. The main
character in the novel will insist at the end that 1+1=2 NOT because it is a
problemin Arithematic. Orwell will not fail into the question due to its
scientific Mathematical level. I'll leave the answer of why the insistence
of 1+1=2 to your imagination.
>Re-read my post, especially from the
>second paragraph down...forget Tocqueville for a moment...what about
>minority rights and freedom of association? Just take the glib right out
>of it and you'll see the post for what it is...how to approach democracy
>building in Lebanon and how pluralism fits into that formula.
Then ask the question directly and lay it to us in intelligible terms
instead of this cyclic thinking.
Finally, any Democracy have checks and balances including the checks and
balances on Free Association that allows history to be monsterized and
massacred into a mumbo jumbo and hodge podge of ideas. When History is made
into radical absolutes. any thinknig of this sort is a direct aide in the
rise of Fascism. When History is delivered to us as SELF-EVIDENT then we
are indeed in trouble. Michel Foucault had the following to say:
"The historical sense can evade metaphysics and become a privileged
instrument of genealogy if it refuses the certainty of absolutes. Given
this, it corresponds to the acuity of a glance that distinguishes,
separates, and disperses, that is capable of liberating divergence and
marginal elements - the kind of dissociating view that is capable of
decomposing itself, capable of shattering the unity of man's being through
which it was thought that he could extend his sovereignty to the events of
his past."
It is only through lens that an "educational" liberation can take place.
not through the poison of historic Nishee poisons that you have wasted your
energies defending in the name of some Academic ideal that lacks any
experience, and that which you dare call democracy.
Also, do not forget that in addition to Physical Violence that you can view
as evil no doubt, there is also the issue of Linguistic Violence that is no
less dangerous than Physical violence. When the mere idea can violate
someone's being in the name of a historic absolute, then I do not think that
was the idea of Athenian democracy or the idea of the founding fathers of
this country or any thinking that has an inner respect for Truth and
Justice.
Maan
TahaK
>Taha,
>Everyone talks gliberish in the academic world.
Not me. I attempt to simplify concepts, not decorate them.
> Why don't you comment on
>what I said instead.
You mean take all my precious time to read your colorful words and meticulosly
respond to each point?
I knew that's what you wanted me to do; so I chose not to do it. But since you
insist here I go.
> Read ElieCedar's post on Malik (the one on Is there
>still a Lebanon) then see if my post makes sense.
Fadia, I have read that post. I hope you are not trying to compare Nishee's
posts with that one. I have no problem with that article - in fact I came back
with more sympathy for my fellow Christians. I disagree with some points but I
do not see in it the bigotry I get from Nishee. If Nishee was to express his
views in that manner, I will be all ears for him. This would bring increased
understanding between us.
> If you want to agree to
>disagree that's cool too, but I'm still convinced by my own arguement that
>Nishee should continue to post until someone convinces me otherwise.
Fadia, no one will convince you otherwise. And even if you were convinced, it
will have no bearing on what Nishee posts.
> It
>has more to do with a democratic NG than it does with the nature of his
>posts. To answer my own question, I think the difference between free
>speech and propaganda is education.
No dear, education only opens the door. It provides you the knowledge but it
does not make you a moral and ethical person. Propaganda stems from an
intention to black-PR and destroy - it is an evil. One can be very well read
but still bent on creating chaos.
>Re-read my post, especially from the
>second paragraph down...forget Tocqueville for a moment...what about
>minority rights and freedom of association? Just take the glib right out
>of it and you'll see the post for what it is...how to approach democracy
>building in Lebanon and how pluralism fits into that formula. I'm a real
>proponent of Malik...I referenced his work for my undergrad thesis and he
>has a lot to offer on the subject.
>Fadia
Fine. Below is your original post and my comments:
========================================
>Don't jump on me all at once, but I'd like to know if there is a difference
>between free speech and propaganda; rather, what is the difference?
First, free speech is a right while propaganda is an act. Propaganda can be
practiced in a free-speech environment. Too much propaganda and free speech
itself will inevitably suffer. For example, if the white extremists of the US
use propaganda successfully to create an environemt of hatred toward blacks and
other minorities, civil unrest may ensue. The government then has to interfere
to stop the unrest. The government may further legistlate policies that will
suppress freedom of speech.
To prevent the above the legal system gives room for one to file a Libel suit
against a publication that damages his reputation without evidence of wrong
doing.
Therefore, the difference between the two is that Free Speech is a right,
whereas propaganda is a specific kind of speech (act) and is a point of ethics.
It is a matter of right or wrong.
>I've
>been thinking a lot about whether Nishee's bid to inform is an example of
>freedom of speech at its worst or if it is an example of propaganda at its
>best. Not to invoke the philosophers again, but one in particular sheds
>some light on this issue. According to Tocqueville, the range and vitality
>of political and civil associations vary considerably. On American
>democracy, for example, he states:
> "Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches,
>distribute books, and send missionaries to the antipodes. Hospitals,
>prisons and schools take shape that way...if they want to proclaim a truth
>or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of great example, they form
>an association (Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, p. 662.).
Founding seminaries and churches, and Proclaiming a truth are a far cry from
Nishee's posts.
>If we take Tocqueville and apply him to this small NG, I would suggest that
>Nishee (and sorry to talk about you in the third person but you happen to be
>the indirect object of this discussion on free speech) is indeed exercising
>his rights well within the confines of civil association. Civil association
>takes place outside of public or political association, whereas political
>associations have to do with "the public and formal support of specific
>doctrines by a certain number of individuals who have undertaken to
>cooperate in a state way in order to make these doctrines prevail."
>(Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, p. 233.) So it is within that
>framework that citizens learn to exchange views, organize, and place checks
>on government, all of which depend on the free dissemination of news and
>views through newspapers and other outlets (for example this newsgroup)-
>this becomes crucial to the survival of such associations. So this leads
>me to ask whether it becomes desirable to place checks on civil associations
>since most public associations are borne of the private realm (the civil,
>being the individuals here on this NG).
>So is it possible/fair to say that Nishee is not propagating until he forms
>an association large enough to enforce his views? Once he does form such an
>association, since the association exists, does it necessarily follow that
>the group he forms would be misinforming on a large scale or simply
>representing its interests among a myriad other interests which may or may
>not come into conflict with its agenda? Based on the above, I think Nishee
>is exercising the right to exercise his freedom of speech.
No one can deny that Nishee is exercising his freedom of speech. I am asking
that he observes general ethical standards and be truthful.
>If he forms an
>association to endorse those views publicly or politically, then that
>association may still be considered a propagator of lies by some, but it
>nonetheless belongs in the realm of democracy and it becomes the duty of
>other associations, under the umbrella of democracy, to add legitimacy to or
>deligitimize that association.
Take the case of the KKK. Under the US constiution they have the right to
assemble and make whatever speeches they want, but that does not mean they are
not propagandists and racists.
>Take, for example, Hizbollah. They began as a military/terrorist
>association, furthering their own interests and propagating their own views
>(with the aid of onlookers of course). What started as a military/terrorist
>organization eventually gained the political clout and social strength
>necessary to endorse their platform in a political setting. How is
>Hizbollah any different from Nishee? (Nishee, I'm NOT putting you in the
>same camp, I'm asking a very broad question with similar implications) Is
>Hizbollah any more legitimate now in 'parliament' than it was in the South?
When Hizbollah is involved in acts of terrorism and kidnapping, its people are
violating common sense ethics as well as the teaching of their own religion.
It is wrong either way.
When Hizbollah refrains from acts of terrorsim and attempts to work within the
democratic means of the system, they do become more legitimate.
Your understanding of association (as you describe it) is like I said 'glib'.
You are basically saying, that any movement in history is a legitimate
movement, its beliefs should be accepted and its actions validated just because
it has the backing of the public by association. Based on your understanding
if Nazi Germany existed today it should be considered "legitimate".
>I think the issues Nishee asks us to look at are connected to concerns of
>legitimacy, checks and balances, democracy, pluralism - and tolerance within
>pluralism.
You are covering up for him again.
>I'm not saying I want Nishee to be here simply because of the
>differentiation between civil and political association as it manifests
>itself here. Rather, I am in favour of Nishee's posts because they
>represent a minority population (see Malik's piece posted by ElieCedar "Is
>there still a Lebanon", especially section on 'Christians and Lebanese Civil
>Society'),
Fadia, as I said above, there is no comparison bewteen Nishee and Malik. Their
viewpoints may both stem from their need to survive as Christians in the realm
of the islamic/arabic ME, and be the fruit of past aggression and the fear of
present and future aggression, but I draw a line where I see someone just
bashing Islam/Arabism (Nishee) vs. someone who is expressing his fear of their
expansion and his call for the Lebanese moslims to land a helping hand so as to
keep harm from falling upon their fellow Christians. Malik may get somewhere
with his compaign. He is after all appealing to the good senses in people.
Nishee uses a negative approach and brings out the worst in people.
>and because it is simply a form of association. I will say this
>again for the sake of saying it so no one jumps on me...I don't agree with
>the discussions that follow his posts nor do I read them. If anyone out
>there has a post that conflicts with the historic representations Nishee is
>bringing out about christians in the ME, then it should be posted. Some
>might argue that this is not a religious NG, but a cultural one: this is
>made clear in the rules of thumb for the NG. But in the real world,
>religion and culture in Lebanon are all but synonymous...both for christians
>and muslims respectively. So the argument that this is not the appropriate
>forum for posting such material is less convincing to me, especially given
>the very nature and contexts within which most discussions take place on
>this NG; I think it would be unfair NOT to discuss such issues.
Nishee did not attempt a discussion of issues. He lashed out on Islam in the
most general terms. That is why I referred him to a religious NG where he can
battle out his views with someone who's got the time and the desire to deal
with Nishee.
>Moreover,
>the deconfessionalization of Lebanon and its subsequent democratization must
>necessarily refer to questions of religion because it is an
>institutionalized reality (therefore it is a political and social reality)
>which the new writers/actors in Lebanon are attempting (rather lazily) to
>address.
Fine, but this was never an issue raised by Nishee. He keeps quite when SCLers
talk about deconfessionalization of Lebanon. The problem with Nishee is that
he is not raising such issues for discussion, he is only interested in bashing,
and creating chaos and division.
>The process of democratization (building democratic institutions)
>should necessarily address questions of minority rights and political
>association. In this way, Nishee's posts could represent a latent political
>association or they can be taken for what they are at present...someone's
>attempt to inform.
Minority rights do not include the right to spread propaganda, vicious lies and
generalizations. Just because someone is a minority it does not mean he/she
has some extra rights.
>Just some thoughts I wanted to share...blast me
>(without the vagaries) or agree, hopefully you have something to share.
I disagree, but I won't blast you :)
>Fadia
>P.S. I thought about leaving this NG, but I thought about it some more and,
>I refuse. I initially joined this group to promote an organization that I
>am trying to put together, but it seems I've bargained for a lot more.
Do you care to tell us about your organization at this point?
>I
>still plan to put together the organization and this experience has only
>helped me in the process. I think we're lucky to have this forum where
>we can get instant access to other people's opinions and to information.
At your service.
>We're the first generation to have this luxury and I think it should be
>respected and used responsibly as a medium for exchanging information.
I hope you understand the meaning of these words as you type away on your
keyboard, especially the "responsibly" part. Responsiblity carries a lot with
it. It is not a lite word by any stretch of the imagination.
>I
>think I can contribute positively to this NG so I'm staying. I also learned
>how to use my newsgroup filter ;-).
In closing, I will quote Maan Hamzeh (if I may), "Sincerety is a reflection of
passion and conviction".
Well said, Maan. And BTW, I am happy to see you (Maan) writing such a cool
post :)
Taha
Fad
Ya, I am toying with ideas, and I'm doing it to 1) work out an idea that I
am toying with; and 2) generate discussion in melding out that idea. Why
does that offend you? Actually, never-mind, I really don’t care if it does.
I won’t take up your time with sincerity and passion, I’ll just state the
case as I see it. But before I do, I’ll say this. I told my friend what
happened here in the last couple of weeks and he said…just get off those
things (meaning NG’s), they're for losers anyway and who has time to go back
and forth on those things with strangers. He has a very good point, but
there is some constructive dialogue taking place here, some very
unconstructive, but still, there is some meaningful dialogue. That tells
me that there is some small corner where one can say hope exists. Hope for
Lebanon, not for you or for me, for Lebanon you arrogant, egotistical,
intellectual-inferiority-complex driven boy. Don't freak out, I'm being
sincere and honest with you. Anyone can read Malik, I want to discuss the
implications of his writings. Anyone can see that Hizbollah is sitting
comfortably in parliament and killed (literally) to get there, I want to
discuss what that means for democracy in Lebanon. This NG isn’t just for
the pis@ers amzir…I mean rizam… I mean marzi, sorry…zamri? I guess with
all the pis@ing around you were doing I forgot your name. Oh, now I
remember, it’s zmarta_ s (joke :-), joking; I really like what you wrote).
Now, on to the discussion:
> Also, you toy with ideas without understanding their consequences. I
believe that is what made me react so
>strongly toward you. For from the start I could see a lack on your part of
>seeing consequences in the ideas you present.
What do you mean consequences? If you mean that I thought everyone was on
the same wavelength as I was, then you're right, I had no idea of the
backlash I was creating. But if you mean someone trying to provoke others
and get on their nerves, then you're way off. Some people should just
agree to disagree sometimes and not take things to their highest possible
limits, especially if they don't ask people to clarify first. Besides, who
gives you the right to be so protective and defensive of the various ideas
that I’m toying with? What consequences? Silence carries with it the worst
consequences of all, worse than toying with ideas ever could.
Consequences…you were the only consequence of my having voiced my opinions.
And you are of no consequence to me. Don’t get all excited again, I am
being sincere and honest with you.
>Fadia - it is a talent to present ideas with sincerety. It really is!
>Sincerety is a refletion of passion and conviction. For when ideas turn
>into something to toy with just because we can do it, then all Values fail.
>And Ethics itself is drawn down a cheap stream.
Don't tell me anyone can possibly come off on this medium as sincere and
bearing passion and conviction. In person, yes, but not here where most
posts are written within the period of five minutes and posted in what
oftentimes appears to be in haste (except for zamri…darn! rizam? ). But
that is probably one of the most eloquent things I've ever heard. Besides,
you mistook my sincerity of wanting to have a discussion for something else
from the outset, remember.
>At the outset (with permission from Heidegger who was fond of using that
>term) there is NO opposition between Free Speech and Propaganda. On the
>contrary, Free Speech is the atmosphere under which we can speak thereof of
>something called Propaganda and something that is not propaganda. Free
>speech is the atmosphere, the general condition, and the setting under
which
>propaganda and non-propaganda can flourish. To speak of propaganda and try
>to differentiate it from what is not propaganda is not an easy subject and
>is open to a wide interpretation. If the need arises and if you wishe me, I
>can go into detail on the many interpretations concerning this
>subject...................
I think if we substitute the word propaganda for truth then this opens up a
whole new or extended dialogue. I don’t have the patience to go into it
that deeply. We could get into a discussion on truth through symbols, art,
ideas etc. etc., but that would bring us right back to point A.
>To make a long story short: What validates an argument, as Socrates
>discovered later in his life, are not Logic and not Reason. These are not
>enough. For through the Platonic Dialogues, Socrates shows that Reason
>carries the roots of its destruction. In other words, what appears as
>Reason in information at first, was shown by Socrates to be a bunch of
nonsense. The
>Validity of an argument is in its IMMEDIATE access to Justice and Ethics.
>This must have been a revolutionary idea in Ancient Greece. How do you
>determine that? The issue is still with us. As far as I am concerned, the
>difference between information and misinformation is exactly in how a
Speech
>accesses our inner sense of Justice and our Ethical Responsibilities. Are
>you following me?
I have a picture that sits by my desk of Socrates guiding Plato down a
chaotic corridor. Socrates is pointing to the earth and Plato points toward
the heavens. It means Socrates seeks truth and justice not through the
mythical or through what he thinks man CAN be, he seeks truth in action,
through what man IS – the rational real-world interactions of men are what
guide Socrates. Plato took Socrates’ teachings a step further and raised
man’s awareness of justice and ethics to a higher level of rationale…that is
where irrationality, science, and a higher orders step in. Socrates
teaches that only a man who masters the desires of the body can see the true
human situation and come to terms with it…such a mastery is the precondition
of living a rational and satisfying life. This is getting off track
slightly, but where Socrates is useful for this discussion is in pointing
out that justice (as socrates understood it) didn’t require knowledge
(except for the philosopher kings who were not culpable on any level and who
operated above justice-seekers); justice to socrates really meant going
against the grain of one’s DESIRES. There is something very basic and
innate about justice that invokes the most basic of man’s senses, his
desires and his rationale. So, point of message, if you are saying that
the way in which speech accesses our inner sense of justice (in a socratic
sense I assume?) determines whether we think something is just or unjust,
then I agree with you only to the extent that our inner senses (our desires)
can only take us so far, and they could easily take us down the path to
injustice. Rationality must be able to take us further yet still. Also,
this isn’t just about how speech accesses our inner sense of justice, it’s
more about how the actions of other men appeal to that sense of justice.
This is where the civil society proposed by Socrates comes in…according to
him, a noble lie is the only way to insure that men who love the truth will
exist and rule in a society. So Socrates’ version of justice is the most
unjust of all, the most realistic yes, but there is no justice in a city of
lies ruled by philosopher kings. This is where citizen responsibility and
duty comes into the picture. You know, civil society. Like there’s
anything to bash in civil society.
>To give you an example, in the Thirties of this century, a Philosopher with
>name Edmund Husserl sprang on humanity the idea of Ideation. I will not get
>into detail over Husserlian Philosophy, enough to say that a whole school
>springs around this thinking (specially Phenomenology) where Knowledge is
>equated with a sense of Decency and Ethical Responsibility that is based
>initially on mere Intuition that can be the first step toward validating
>knowledge as far as Justice is concernced.
>One of the lessons to be learned is this that may not be to your liking:
>The issue of Justice and Ethics is a matter of CHOICE that can destroy
>Tradition by the process of recreating this tradition.
Yes, I’ve heard of Husserl’s Ideation and I've seen phenomenology referred
to, though I haven’t read anything on either. Well, Socrates tells us
otherwise; he says that desires guide man’s drive for justice. Rationality
comes in second. So, how can anything be just if desire is the guiding
force; not unlike ‘intuition’ is it. Even if justice were a matter of
choice, then irrationality would preclude justice.
>This means there is a moment in the life of an individual
>where he/she can make a choice that puts that individual on the brink of
>knowing what is information and what is misinformation.
I Disagree. I think ‘moments’ are just as easily followed by other ‘moments
’ which may or may not (but they have the capability) help an individual
make a rational choice. For example, if communism was a moment in history,
well it proved to be permeable to other moments in time didn't it. It’s
not as though one moment predicts whether or not a person will accept or
reject an information campaign, and from there tradition is wiped out. No,
one moment builds upon another, sometimes constructively, sometimes not.
But when it isn't constructive, sometimes it can nevertheless be beneficial.
Communism is a case in point.
>For this you have to listen to yourself, and most importantly you have to
quit toying
>with ideas without the effort to understand their INNER consequences.
What? What are you talking about? So you’re the one who has all of life’s
answers huh. I see, pass them along will you.
>No, you are not right! For I am quite sure that someone like Jurgen
>Habermas and his ideas of Public Sphere and its Rationale, the issue of
>association follows from the inner Ethical Responsibility of performing
your
>duties as a citizen. Also, you should know that Tocqueville meant it like
>that also. They were not catering to every little guy with a piece of
>misinformation to waste on humanity.
Oh yes Maan, they were catering to those outside of the mainstream, because
the mainstream never places checks on itself. You should know that because
you seem to be a critical theorist. Habermas is a huge proponent of civil
association (civil society) and civic engagement. That’s all he writes
about. How is Nishee failing to perform his duty as a citizen? How are
you performing yours any better or worse? You can’t put Nishee under the
banner of ethics and say that he must be silenced! Indeed, if you put him
under the banner of Habermas, he would be the first to say Nishee must stay,
and he would be first to put Nishee under the banner of civil society -
because that then attaches a precondition to citizenship and the
precondition is duty. So this turns our attention to, well, is the state
doing its duty and obligation, fulfilling its role, because this is not a
one-way relationship. Citizens have a reciprocal relationship to the
state.
>So it is within that
>>framework that citizens learn to exchange views, organize, and place
checks
>>on government, all of which depend on the free dissemination of news and
>>views through newspapers and other outlets (for example this newsgroup)-
>>this becomes crucial to the survival of such associations. So this leads
>>me to ask whether it becomes desirable to place checks on civil
associations
>>since most public associations are borne of the private realm (the civil,
>>being the individuals here on this NG).
>Again toying with ideas. There is no exchange with ideas with Nishee. Have
>you read his articles on history?
>I can not believe I am explaining this to you!
>Quit toying with ideas Fadia!
>Anyway, if there are any quesitons to clarify any of the points feel free
to
>ask.
Maan, do you think any one party in Lebanon doesn’t have racist/bigoted
members? No, but the party goes on, right. So in your logic, Americans
wouldn’t be able to have an American presidency…the institution would have
to be scrapped because someone abused it. Last time I looked humanity had a
long way to go before it could stop 'toying' with ideas. Come on, that
would be like having freedom of association and not using it. What a waste
that would be.
Fadia
Fad
TahaK wrote in message <199808050649...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Not me. I attempt to simplify concepts, not decorate them.
Whatever. That's the way I talk.
>Fadia, I have read that post. I hope you are not trying to compare
Nishee's
>posts with that one.
Nope, I'm pointing out that there is a minority population in Lebanon who
needs representation.
I have no problem with that article - in fact I came back
>with more sympathy for my fellow Christians. I disagree with some points
but I
>do not see in it the bigotry I get from Nishee. If Nishee was to express
his
>views in that manner, I will be all ears for him. This would bring
increased
>understanding between us.
Absolutely. So he would be part of a party that represents minority
Christian interests but he wouldn't necessarily be their spokesperson.
>
>No dear, education only opens the door. It provides you the knowledge but
it
>does not make you a moral and ethical person. Propaganda stems from an
>intention to black-PR and destroy - it is an evil. One can be very well
read
>but still bent on creating chaos.
That's very true...that came out in my post with Maan in the discussion on
justice and desire.
>First, free speech is a right while propaganda is an act.
I don't think so. Propaganda is, as much as we hate to admit, a right until
someone comes along and legitimately proves that it is a hurtful act.
>Therefore, the difference between the two is that Free Speech is a right,
>whereas propaganda is a specific kind of speech (act) and is a point of
ethics.
> It is a matter of right or wrong.
Right, so what measures right and wrong? Checks and balances. Where do
they come from? People - in groups or individuals. The civil engagment of
individuals.
>
>No one can deny that Nishee is exercising his freedom of speech. I am
asking
>that he observes general ethical standards and be truthful.
So am I, and so would any other members of his association. That would only
be fulfilling both of our roles as civil actors.
>Take the case of the KKK. Under the US constiution they have the right to
>assemble and make whatever speeches they want, but that does not mean they
are
>not propagandists and racists.
I know, but that doesn't mean we have a right to shut them down either. We
only have the right to form an association called the anti-KKK alliance and
debunk their myths.
>When Hizbollah is involved in acts of terrorism and kidnapping, its people
are
>violating common sense ethics as well as the teaching of their own
religion.
>It is wrong either way. When Hizbollah refrains from acts of terrorsim and
attempts to work within the
>democratic means of the system, they do become more legitimate.
Sorry, but the means don't always justify the ends. I feel the same way
about the IRA. My personal opinion. I do not condone violence as a means
for political gain, I will never condone violence as a means for political
gain. When I have children, I will not condone violence as a means for
political gain.
>Your understanding of association (as you describe it) is like I said
'glib'.
>You are basically saying, that any movement in history is a legitimate
>movement, its beliefs should be accepted and its actions validated just
because
>it has the backing of the public by association. Based on your
understanding
>if Nazi Germany existed today it should be considered "legitimate".
I am saying any association is legitimate if 1) it has members that support
it; and 2) there are no voices of opposition. You invoked Nazi Germany
once before to prove your point, but it's place is not here. We could get
into the strategic considerations of WW2 and all that, but in our discussion
on civil society, not the state, Germany doesn't belong here. Germany
belongs in the realm of dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and the like,
not on any discussion of civil society because none existed in Nazi Germany.
The state turned on them, and that is much different than a mom and pop
organization that developed to defend human rights somewhere in south
america. No Taha, Nazi Germany belongs to the realm of totalitiarianism
and its impact on society.
>>I think the issues Nishee asks us to look at are connected to concerns of
>>legitimacy, checks and balances, democracy, pluralism - and tolerance
within
>>pluralism.
>
>You are covering up for him again.
Nope, I'm being as straight forward as I can be on this NG. I really
believe that we should be looking at those issues.
>Fadia, as I said above, there is no comparison bewteen Nishee and Malik.
Their
>viewpoints may both stem from their need to survive as Christians in the
realm
>of the islamic/arabic ME, and be the fruit of past aggression and the fear
of
>present and future aggression, but I draw a line where I see someone just
>bashing Islam/Arabism (Nishee) vs. someone who is expressing his fear of
their
>expansion and his call for the Lebanese moslims to land a helping hand so
as to
>keep harm from falling upon their fellow Christians.
I understand that.
>Nishee did not attempt a discussion of issues. He lashed out on Islam in
the
>most general terms. That is why I referred him to a religious NG where he
can
>battle out his views with someone who's got the time and the desire to deal
>with Nishee.
I don't see Nishee here anymore.
>Minority rights do not include the right to spread propaganda, vicious lies
and
>generalizations. Just because someone is a minority it does not mean
he/she
>has some extra rights.
That's what I'm trying to explain...they aren't extra rights to the person
spreading the information, they are only extra rights to the person who
disagrees with the information being spread.
>Do you care to tell us about your organization at this point?
Not really, but I can email you in private if you'd like to know more about
it.
alum...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>Nishee is NOT interested in any discussion. His posts have been geared
>toward repeating the same record over and over again. We are talking noise.
>Not discussion in any meaningful way. Is this what democracy all about?
I agree. I might add he is charged with racist and hateful
propaganda.
TahaK
>TahaK wrote in message <199808050649...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
>>Not me. I attempt to simplify concepts, not decorate them.
>
>Whatever. That's the way I talk.
Wow! I think you haven't understood what 'glib' means. You think it's a
conversational style. Now that is glib!
>>Fadia, I have read that post. I hope you are not trying to compare
>Nishee's
>>posts with that one.
>Nope, I'm pointing out that there is a minority population in Lebanon who
>needs representation.
Fadia, even I, a non-christian, serve better as a representative for the
minority than Nishee. If you argue that the minority needs representation and
you agree that Nishee is bent on spreading Chaos, then what is the logic in
picking him to represent the minority.
What you don't see is that Nishee does more harm to christians than he himself
could realize. Using simple logic, his attacks on arabs and Islam alienate
arabs/moslims who would then dismiss any of his allegations as lies. He is
then dividing - that is the name of his game, to divide - the people along
confessional lines. That is all he does. According to your philosophical
understanding, he can form the Association for a Divided Lebanon, and this
would be a legitimate association.
>>Therefore, the difference between the two is that Free Speech is a right,
>>whereas propaganda is a specific kind of speech (act) and is a point of
>ethics.
>> It is a matter of right or wrong.
>
>
>Right, so what measures right and wrong? Checks and balances. Where do
>they come from? People - in groups or individuals. The civil engagment of
>individuals.
What measures right and wrong is first and foremost the individual himself. I
look at Nishee and I see a wrong. So, exercising my freedom of speech, I voice
what I see.
>>Take the case of the KKK. Under the US constiution they have the right to
>>assemble and make whatever speeches they want, but that does not mean they
>are
>>not propagandists and racists.
>
>
>I know, but that doesn't mean we have a right to shut them down either. We
>only have the right to form an association called the anti-KKK alliance and
>debunk their myths.
>
So I am debunking Nishee's myth. Why are you objecting to that? Do you not
recognize my right to the freedom of speech?
>>When Hizbollah is involved in acts of terrorism and kidnapping, its people
>are
>>violating common sense ethics as well as the teaching of their own
>religion.
>>It is wrong either way. When Hizbollah refrains from acts of terrorsim and
>attempts to work within the
>>democratic means of the system, they do become more legitimate.
>
>
>Sorry, but the means don't always justify the ends.
First, you have your statement in reverse - are you doing this on purpose?. I
guess the Academic Glibness is getting to you. You mean to say "the ends don't
always justify the means".
My statement was very clear. I did not imply that the ends justify the means.
However, by using the word "always" in your statement - and from your other
posts - it seems to me that your idea is "The ends can sometimes justify the
means". Tell me if I am reading you wrong.
In any event, I am simply making a statement of how I view Hisbollah based on
their actions.
>I am saying any association is legitimate if 1) it has members that support
>it; and 2) there are no voices of opposition.
So you are saying that in the case of Nishee since 2 fails (i.e., there are
voices of opposition), his association is not legitimate. But all this time
you have argued for its legitimacy. Don't you see a glib contradition in your
statements?
What about Democracy? There are voices of opposition against it - even within
the US. So it must not be legitimate (sarcasm).
You see where glibness leads? - Ilogic!
>You invoked Nazi Germany
>once before to prove your point, but it's place is not here. We could get
>into the strategic considerations of WW2 and all that, but in our discussion
>on civil society, not the state, Germany doesn't belong here.
Only Academic Glibness could dictate that what we learn from Nazi Germany is
the " strategic considerations of WW2". When I invoked Nazi Germany before, I
provided an example of where propaganda leads. Simple Example: If you had a
child and you always told him how "stupid" he was and how "he's never going to
amount to anything", you destroy him with propaganda, and he's likely to not
amount to much.
The Nazi movement and operated for years under the umbrella of Democracy in
Germany. They were perfectionist at Propaganda; they did it so well they
eventually rallied a large segment of the German population. For many years,
they had very low turnout in the poles at election time. They were even
attacked by the government and jailed for causing disturbances. But they
capitalized on the deteriorating state of economics and convinced people,
through their propaganda that Germany needed "strong leadership" that will
fight the "enemies" and rid the Germans of the "conspirators", namely the jews.
The next thing you know, they were voted in by the unsuspecting public who'd
been sufficiently brain-washed by propaganda.
It all happened in a "civil society", which through propaganda turned Europe
into a blood bath.
>Germany
>belongs in the realm of dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and the like,
>not on any discussion of civil society because none existed in Nazi Germany.
Academic Glibness strikes again. Lah ya Fadia! Your logic is working against
you once more. According to you, the same could be said of Syrian Regime. You
can even stretch it to cover the Lebanese government, the "puppet" to the
Syrian regime. So based on that, we can't discuss Lebanese government or the
presence of Syria in Lebanon since we are in the realm of "civil society"
(sarcasm). I hope Nishee reads this.
And by the way, there was a lost of "civil society" in Nazi Germany, but it was
suppressed.
>>Nishee did not attempt a discussion of issues. He lashed out on Islam in
>the
>>most general terms. That is why I referred him to a religious NG where he
>can
>>battle out his views with someone who's got the time and the desire to deal
>>with Nishee.
>
>
>I don't see Nishee here anymore.
>
Oh, he's back. He won't go away. He takes time off to find more research
"lies" about Islam and Arabism to post on the NG. Whenever he gets stumped he
goes back to his mentors for a another racist brain-wash so that he's prepared
for his next "discussion" - or should I say, lack thereof.
>>Minority rights do not include the right to spread propaganda, vicious lies
>and
>>generalizations. Just because someone is a minority it does not mean
>he/she
>>has some extra rights.
>
>
>That's what I'm trying to explain...they aren't extra rights to the person
>spreading the information, they are only extra rights to the person who
>disagrees with the information being spread.
>
I lost you on this one. What do you mean? That I have extra rights over
Nishee because I disagree with the "information" (misinformation really) he's
spreading? Is this Academic Glibness at work again?
>>Do you care to tell us about your organization at this point?
>Not really, but I can email you in private if you'd like to know more about
>it.
I prefer that you post it on the NG, that is only if you wish.
Taha
Maan M. Hamze
TahaK wrote in message <199808060444...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>once before to prove your point, but it's place is not here. We could get
>>into the strategic considerations of WW2 and all that, but in our
discussion
>>on civil society, not the state, Germany doesn't belong here.
>
>
>Germany. They were perfectionist at Propaganda; they did it so well they
>eventually rallied a large segment of the German population. For many
years,
>they had very low turnout in the poles at election time. They were even
>attacked by the government and jailed for causing disturbances. But they
>capitalized on the deteriorating state of economics and convinced people,
>through their propaganda that Germany needed "strong leadership" that will
>fight the "enemies" and rid the Germans of the "conspirators", namely the
jews.
> The next thing you know, they were voted in by the unsuspecting public
who'd
>been sufficiently brain-washed by propaganda.
>
>It all happened in a "civil society", which through propaganda turned
Europe
>into a blood bath.
Gramsci, and, later, the Frankfurt School along with Louis Althusser will
argue that Civil Society is the skeletal bullwark that exposes the European
Order into what it is really about: Totalitarianism in disguise. Heidegger
when asked in 1968 to apologize for his _initial_ support for the Nazis
answered: "By apologizing I would have removed Nazism from the general
movement of Western history. Nazism is the product of Western Metaphysics.
By condemning the Nazis you have to condemn the whole of Western Tradition
of Metaphysics and Reason." In the first instance with Gramsci et al, the
attempt is to turn attention, in addition to many things, into something
that is always forgotten in the _glib market_ of Academic Research on Civil
Society; namely, that IF we agree that Civil Society is a byproduct of
Capitalism THEN the very notion of Civil Society is based ultimately on the
appropriation of capital.....remind you of something: Yep! Colonialism!
With Heidegger the project is different: He can not apologize because IF we
have to overcome Metaphysics with its notions of bankrupt European Reason,
THEN we have to work on the _Destruction_ of European Metaphysics.
Destruction? A huge subject! Enough to say that it is what reaches us
later as the Postmodern concept of Deconstruction. In both cases, the issue
is to redefine our encounter with social structures but NOT complacently.
Finally, It was from a convergence of the above ideas that Faucoult will
redefine Nietzsche: History itself is the Metaphysics that create the
structure by which a Civil Society is drawn! A _Genealogy of History_ is
the attempt at uncovering the values of this Civil Society: Punishment and
Violence!
The above are remarks to note that the discussion of Civil Society is far
more involved and far from over as to attempt a functional definition of
what a Civil Society is! In other words: Give me your concepts of what is
a Civil Society and I'll tell you what is your Political Agenda.
Remind me, personally, of what I think of Habib Malek and his idea of what
is a Civil Society!
Hope these comments compliment the many other notions of Civil Society that
had been drwan already around the place.
Maan
alum...@hotmail.com
>Fadia wrote in message <199808050649...@ladder03.news.aol.com>:
>
>>TahaK wrote in message <199808050649...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>
>>>Not me. I attempt to simplify concepts, not decorate them.
>>
>>Whatever. That's the way I talk.
>
>Wow! I think you haven't understood what 'glib' means. You think it's a
>conversational style. Now that is glib!
>
>>>Fadia, I have read that post. I hope you are not trying to compare
>>Nishee's
>>>posts with that one.
>>Nope, I'm pointing out that there is a minority population in Lebanon who
>>needs representation.
>
>Fadia, even I, a non-christian, serve better as a representative for the
>minority than Nishee. If you argue that the minority needs representation and
>you agree that Nishee is bent on spreading Chaos, then what is the logic in
>picking him to represent the minority.
>
>What you don't see is that Nishee does more harm to christians than he himself
>could realize. Using simple logic, his attacks on arabs and Islam alienate
>arabs/moslims who would then dismiss any of his allegations as lies. He is
He certainly has done that very well to the point where we tune him
out.
Fad
>
>Nishee is NOT interested in any discussion. His posts have been geared
>toward repeating the same record over and over again. We are talking
noise.
>Not discussion in any meaningful way. Is this what democracy all about?
I'm not here to argue, I'm here to present my points.
>Historical discussions are fine and should be encouraged, but not when
>someone is not interested in any discussion.
You can't be serious. Any bells ringing? The first time I came onto this
NG, I asked you to post your questions to the entire group. What could be
more democratic than that? Post your questions and you will get answers. I
have been trying to elicit discussion ever since I joined this NG. You sir,
are not amicable to dialogue.
>You seem to be toying with an extremely dangerous ideal of Democracy that
>is starting to resemble an Anarachy of thoughts without any form. A system
>with a free flow of energy without order and without shape. Where anything
>can be valued for the way it sounds, not for the embedded values of Justice
>and Ethics.
You might call it anarchy but I call it democracy. Ask me questions before
you try to falsely categorize my ideas...ideas that I never communicated to
you. And no, you insist on pointing out the way I speak, I take it for
what it is and you don't. If anything could be taken merely for the way it
sounds, then Fairuz would be the best politician around.
>Democracy, first and foremost, concerns itself with the very
>idea of Citizenry and Ethical Responsibility and a reflection on the idea
>of Citizenry and Ethical Responsibililty.
Yes, exactly. You would prefer to silence and think of it as ethical
whereas I would prefer to allow one to speak and I call it ethical.
>I'll ask you: well, what are the elements of
>this education that allows any sense of validation. This is THE meat of
>the argument here! Define then to me what Education will it take to
validate
>information and misinformation.
You tell me. I'm talking about informing; campaigns to inform. I don't
believe ANY state has the right to inhibit its citizens from associating for
the purpose of informing; why, that would be a dictatorship (not unlike
certain strong hands in the ME). The educative function of various civil
organizations, therefore, is partly in their very ability to organize and
coalesce, and also in the information that the organization provides to its
members.
>Then ask the question directly and lay it to us in intelligible terms
>instead of this cyclic thinking.
Intelligible terms...what! Whatever. How do you think I've been speaking
all along? This is the way I speak. If you want me to clarify something,
then please ask, don't presume or try to fill in the blanks yourself like
you have since I came on this NG. Either that or do as we agreed before and
I will be happy to avoid each other.
>Finally, any Democracy have checks and balances including the checks and
>balances on Free Association that allows history to be monsterized and
>massacred into a mumbo jumbo and hodge podge of ideas. When History is
>made into radical absolutes. any thinknig of this sort is a direct aide in
the
>rise of Fascism
How does this take place? What is a radical absolute? The only thinking
that leads to the rise of fascism is NONE and this is imposed by the state
and enforced by its puppets (the military etc.). You're thinking in terms
of running a state like the machiavellian prince - that is far closer to
anarchy; totalitarianism borders on anarchy you know. I'm talking about
running a state from the bottom up - that is a democracy.
>Michel Foucault had the following to say:
>"The historical sense can evade metaphysics and become a privileged
>instrument of genealogy if it refuses the certainty of absolutes. Given
>this, it corresponds to the acuity of a glance that distinguishes,
>separates, and disperses, that is capable of liberating divergence and
>marginal elements - the kind of dissociating view that is capable of
>decomposing itself, capable of shattering the unity of man's being through
>which it was thought that he could extend his sovereignty to the events of
>his past."
And you say I speak giberish. I hate foucault - he is a postmodernist and I
think he skirts the issues. "The Historical sense can become priviledged
if it refuses the certainty of absolutes " - translation, there are certain
absolutes in life that history (culture, religion, political structures)
must respect. If this is disrespected, then history starts all over,
possibly and probably repeating itself. Right? Man must always be aware of
his past and be able to decompose it when required. Please elaborate on
this further because I missed your point. Why did you quote Foucault?
>It is only through lens that an "educational" liberation can take place.
>not through the poison of historic Nishee poisons that you have wasted your
>energies defending in the name of some Academic ideal that lacks any
>experience, and that which you dare call democracy.
That which I dare call democracy. Perhaps your educational liberation will
take place through the deceptive lens of foucault...a theorist who is
suspect of modernism, who lives in the post-modern, but my educational
liberation is taking place right here, it will take place at university in
my classes with friends, and it takes place in my writings. Then it will
take place when I educate others on my teachings, when I form and join
organizations
designed to further democracy, to further inter-cultural dialogue. Your
educational liberation has to refer to some abstract ideal because it
counters everything that modernism has achieved so far. I'll tell you why
1+1=4 in Orwell, because in the future the postmodernists took over and that
is when true anarchy takes place. An academic ideal that lacks any
experience you say? Are you referring to democracy? I certainly prefer
it's INexperience to the Experience of mid-eastern political structures.
Poisons....come off it...he is informing, period. You don't like him,
period. You are disliked by many, period. What is your alternative
political structure? Are you happy with the political system in Lebanon?
What academic ideal makes your ideal any closer to reality and to something
the majority desires?
>Also, do not forget that in addition to Physical Violence that you can view
>as evil no doubt, there is also the issue of Linguistic Violence that is no
>less dangerous than Physical violence. When the mere idea can violate
>someone's being in the name of a historic absolute, then I do not think
>that was the idea of Athenian democracy or the idea of the founding fathers
of
>this country or any thinking that has an inner respect for Truth and
>Justice.
Physical violence vs. linguistic violence ; ya, sure. Sticks and stones my
friend, that's all you're saying. Linguistic violence - translation, sticks
and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me...names hurt
you? You're the one so caught up in linguistics and you highlight their
importance, yet you say that my language is deceptive. That's a good one.
Just forget about the symantics and speak. I have professed my allegiance
to democracy, why don't you use your linguistic talent and profess your
allegiance to whatever political system it is you endorse. Athenian
democracy is it? Well it looks like we're not so far off after all.
Fadia
Maurice
>>toward repeating the same record over and over again. We are talking
noise.
>>Not discussion in any meaningful way. Is this what democracy all about?
>
>propaganda.
But no matter how hateful he gets, he will never be able to reach your level
of HAte towards Christians, you make Jouhlani look like a saint!
Maurice
>
>Fadia, even I, a non-christian, serve better as a representative for the
>minority than Nishee. If you argue that the minority needs representation
and
YOu are totally wrong here, and you have no right to classify him as a
minority, many Christians today feel that a silent majority wishes that we
had accepted the Confederalism ideas that were brought up in the past, Today
our Areas are filled with Syrians, Syrian Moukhabarat, MAss arrests, illegal
workers, etc. things that were not there before Taef!
>you agree that Nishee is bent on spreading Chaos, then what is the logic in
>picking him to represent the minority.
>
>What you don't see is that Nishee does more harm to christians than he
himself
>could realize. Using simple logic, his attacks on arabs and Islam alienate
>arabs/moslims who would then dismiss any of his allegations as lies. He is
THe FACT IS christians are the ones that have been allienated, do not look
for sympathy here on this one, again you turn the tables and use the Jewiss
mentality in the US, that they are the victims, so please do not use the
Jewish Style of argument, because it is BAd for you image.
>then dividing - that is the name of his game, to divide - the people along
>confessional lines. That is all he does. According to your philosophical
>understanding, he can form the Association for a Divided Lebanon, and this
>would be a legitimate association.
Look closely, the country is divided you do not need a checpoint to figure
out the borderlines, anywhere where there was a front line ARMY checkpoint
exist today, they are there to keep us from getteing at each other all over
again. The Army was called in on many times to take care of flare ups, you
want Propaganda, Just listen to your HArriri's Future TV.
Maurice
Fad wrote in message <6qcdpq$d3g$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
Give it up FADIA, you are Preaching Democracy to Arabists, IT just does not
work, it is like oil and Water, they do not mix!
Maan M. Hamze
Fad wrote in message <6qarfb$idb$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
>
>Ya, I am toying with ideas, and I'm doing it to 1) work out an idea that I
>am toying with; and 2) generate discussion in melding out that idea. Why
>does that offend you?
When you toy with ideas the only thing that you'll generate are toys. You
are still not sincere. I do not see sarcasm with you anymore. I see
confusion. I do not see someone generating discussions. I see an automaton
generating the nuts and bolts of a little lifeless machines with no
conviction, no passion, and no sincerety. An idea without a life is not a
Mona Lisa, it is a comic book. Toying with ideas should be left to diaries
and journals where strong characters keep track of their own development.
Not for public displays of toys. But you do not listen! Albert Camus in
his journals toys with ideas. It was he who said that Ideas on their own go
nowhere. They are mere torrents.
>Actually, never-mind, I really don’t care if it does.
Fine with me! I am not easily offended.
Lesson two: for these traces of sarcasm -
Great Thinkers are IRONIC; Toy makers are Sarcastic. It is the same
difference between Greek Comedy and Clowns.
>I won’t take up your time with sincerity and passion, I’ll just state the
>case as I see it.
A case stated with no passion is no case at all. Check with Kafka on this
one.
>But before I do, I’ll say this. I told my friend what
>happened here in the last couple of weeks and he said…just get off those
>things (meaning NG’s), they're for losers anyway and who has time to go
back
>and forth on those things with strangers.
Blessed be the one who knows himself and/or herself for this matter.
>He has a very good point,
Good for him!
>but
>there is some constructive dialogue taking place here, some very
>unconstructive, but still, there is some meaningful dialogue.
I hope so!
>That tells
>me that there is some small corner where one can say hope exists. Hope for
>Lebanon, not for you or for me, for Lebanon you arrogant, egotistical,
>intellectual-inferiority-complex driven boy.
You can still learn one or two things from me in the same way I am still
hoping to learn couple of things from you!
>Don't freak out, I'm being
>sincere and honest with you.
I am not! I do not freak out easily!
>Anyone can read Malik, I want to discuss the
>implications of his writings.
We will! There is a also special issue in the Lebanon Report on Civil
Society in Lebanon.
>Anyone can see that Hizbollah is sitting
>comfortably in parliament and killed (literally) to get there, I want to
>discuss what that means for democracy in Lebanon.
Is this connected particularly to Party of God in Lebanon? Do you mean that
if it was not for that party then democracy is fine in Lebanon? Why are you
singling out that party all of a sudden.
>
>Now, on to the discussion:
>> Also, you toy with ideas without understanding their consequences. I
>believe that is what made me react so
>>strongly toward you. For from the start I could see a lack on your part of
>>seeing consequences in the ideas you present.
>
>What do you mean consequences? If you mean that I thought everyone was on
>the same wavelength as I was, then you're right, I had no idea of the
>backlash I was creating.
Ideas are lively, Ironic, and participate in the making of the World. They
are your reflection of yourself as you encounter the World as a Being! They
are not toys.
>But if you mean someone trying to provoke others
>and get on their nerves, then you're way off. Some people should just
>agree to disagree sometimes and not take things to their highest possible
>limits, especially if they don't ask people to clarify first. Besides,
who
>gives you the right to be so protective and defensive of the various ideas
>that I’m toying with? What consequences? Silence carries with it the worst
>consequences of all, worse than toying with ideas ever could.
Please explain! I lost you here! What are you talking about?
>Consequences…you were the only consequence of my having voiced my opinions.
>And you are of no consequence to me. Don’t get all excited again, I am
>being sincere and honest with you.
Why are you replying then?
Are you sure that you got my meaning of the word Consequence? Or am I
facing the boundaries of your intellectual learning?
>
>>Fadia - it is a talent to present ideas with sincerety. It really is!
>>Sincerety is a refletion of passion and conviction. For when ideas turn
>>into something to toy with just because we can do it, then all Values
fail.
>>And Ethics itself is drawn down a cheap stream.
>
>Don't tell me anyone can possibly come off on this medium as sincere and
>bearing passion and conviction. In person, yes, but not here where most
>posts are written within the period of five minutes and posted in what
>oftentimes appears to be in haste.
You appear to have given thought (I hope so) to what you have written! You
appear to be taking yourself seriously! Am I supposed to think otherwise of
you! What is it exactly that you want me to think of your ideas and posts
then?
>But
>that is probably one of the most eloquent things I've ever heard.
Besides,
>you mistook my sincerity of wanting to have a discussion for something else
>from the outset, remember.
Ah...that is what it is all about then! I thought I was of no consequence
to you! Can we get with the program now!
>
>>At the outset (with permission from Heidegger who was fond of using that
>>term) there is NO opposition between Free Speech and Propaganda. On the
>>contrary, Free Speech is the atmosphere under which we can speak thereof
of
>>something called Propaganda and something that is not propaganda. Free
>>speech is the atmosphere, the general condition, and the setting under
>which
>>propaganda and non-propaganda can flourish. To speak of propaganda and try
>>to differentiate it from what is not propaganda is not an easy subject and
>>is open to a wide interpretation. If the need arises and if you wishe me,
I
>>can go into detail on the many interpretations concerning this
>>subject...................
>
>I think if we substitute the word propaganda for truth then this opens up a
>whole new or extended dialogue. I don’t have the patience to go into it
>that deeply. We could get into a discussion on truth through symbols, art,
>ideas etc. etc., but that would bring us right back to point A.
Then let us drop it. Will we? There is no point in going in cycles! But,
no, you missed one thing:
When Propaganda can go for Truth then we can inquire about the issue of
Authenticity Vs. Inauthenticity. I use that in a Nietzschean manner. But I
forgot: Most probably you have already dismissed half of Philosophy under
your label "Postmodernism" which has many meanings anyway and of which you
are aware of only one and even then I do not know your level of kowledge of
what goes into this term.
>
> justice to socrates really meant going
>against the grain of one’s DESIRES. There is something very basic and
>innate about justice that invokes the most basic of man’s senses, his
>desires and his rationale. So, point of message, if you are saying that
>the way in which speech accesses our inner sense of justice (in a socratic
>sense I assume?) determines whether we think something is just or unjust,
>then I agree with you only to the extent that our inner senses (our
desires)
Your reading of Socrates is down right wrong...............(see below)
>can only take us so far, and they could easily take us down the path to
>injustice. Rationality must be able to take us further yet still. Also,
>this isn’t just about how speech accesses our inner sense of justice, it’s
>more about how the actions of other men appeal to that sense of justice.
>This is where the civil society proposed by Socrates comes in…according to
>him, a noble lie is the only way to insure that men who love the truth will
>exist and rule in a society. So Socrates’ version of justice is the most
>unjust of all, the most realistic yes, but there is no justice in a city of
>lies ruled by philosopher kings. This is where citizen responsibility and
>duty comes into the picture. You know, civil society. Like there’s
>anything to bash in civil society.
........And wrong misleading readings lead into downright wrong results and
conclusions.
By assuming that there is a noble lie you have condemned the whole of
Philosophy into being some sort of a noble lie.
You chose not to see in The Republic a reply, or an attempt to reply, to
Thrasymachus protestation: "Justice is the advantage of the strongest." You
chose to see in it some _glib_ exercise that is based on a misreading.
You chose not to see in The Republic the final call of Socrates. You chose
not to see in it the foundation upon which a Thinking that had finally
discovered its boundaries tires to re-establish itself. You chose to see in
it smoe hiding place upon which you can display your misreadings and your
ready made answers.
It took hundreds and hundreds of years to be able to try and resolve the
crisis that arises in The Republic. But this is not the place for it here.
>
>Yes, I’ve heard of Husserl’s Ideation and I've seen phenomenology referred
>to, though I haven’t read anything on either. Well, Socrates tells us
>otherwise; he says that desires guide man’s drive for justice. Rationality
>comes in second. So, how can anything be just if desire is the guiding
>force; not unlike ‘intuition’ is it. Even if justice were a matter of
>choice, then irrationality would preclude justice.
Socrates teaches no such thing. And you did miss the entire point that I
was trying to establish in the name of a presentation you do here that is
more akin to a cheap effort at hiding.
>
>I think ‘moments’ are just as easily followed by other
‘moments
>’ which may or may not (but they have the capability) help an individual
>make a rational choice. For example, if communism was a moment in history,
>well it proved to be permeable to other moments in time didn't it. It’s
>not as though one moment predicts whether or not a person will accept or
>reject an information campaign, and from there tradition is wiped out. No,
>one moment builds upon another, sometimes constructively, sometimes not.
>But when it isn't constructive, sometimes it can nevertheless be
beneficial.
>Communism is a case in point.
Let me try and explain that point again. Heidegger proclaims in "Identity
and Difference" - read that essay before attempting to say anything else, it
is not for the faint hearted be warned - that Thinking is in the process of
facing its own demise in the very shape of what gives it life and allows it
to exist after all - that thing is Metaphysics. He means that Thinking is
in a continual process of facing up to Metaphysics by bridging itself into
the other side of Metaphysics. The other side is always in view. But never
attained. But that process is continual. The historic process that gives
rise to Communism is in itself an ideological process that skirts the very
process of bridging by situating itself deeply into Metaphysics. For
thinknig to have any effect at all it has to escape that crystallization.
Thus, it has to work on redefining itself from within the Metaphysical
social space.
In other words, Metaphysics and history are the projection of Thinking on
the Social space. You chose to see the former part. Many avoid the latter
part. I do not blame them: it really is not for the weak and those who
seek a hiding place.
Althuogh I am not this fond of demonstrating Philosophical remarks by
scientific facts, let me give you an example from Sciences/Physics: Wolfgang
Pauli started something long ago called "Quantum Field Mechanics." There,
the world itself is a mere potential of being and a play of mere resonances
that is projected into the world as felt by us in the form of solidity and
proerties and color etc........
We can not talk talk of a history in the realm of Quantum Field Mechanics.
We can only talk of the possibility of an Ontology of Being, and the
conditions under which such an Ontology is possible. This was in fact
Heidegger's contribution to Philosophy. An inquiry on the conditions upon
which an Ontology is possible. Thinknig in the process of bridging projects
itself into the world of history and Metaphysics. Thus Foacault on History
that you yourself had dismissed so hastily as a "Postmodernist."
>
> Also, you should know that Tocqueville meant it like
>>that also. They were not catering to every little guy with a piece of
>>misinformation to waste on humanity.
>
>Oh yes Maan, they were catering to those outside of the mainstream, because
>the mainstream never places checks on itself. You should know that
>because you seem to be a critical theorist.
You really are into categorizations and labelings....are not you?
>Habermas is a huge proponent of civil
>association (civil society) and civic engagement. That’s all he writes
>about. How is Nishee failing to perform his duty as a citizen? How are
>you performing yours any better or worse? You can’t put Nishee under the
>banner of ethics and say that he must be silenced! Indeed, if you put him
>under the banner of Habermas, he would be the first to say Nishee must
>stay, and he would be first to put Nishee under the banner of civil
society -
>because that then attaches a precondition to citizenship and the
>precondition is duty. So this turns our attention to, well, is the state
>doing its duty and obligation, fulfilling its role, because this is not a
>one-way relationship. Citizens have a reciprocal relationship to the
>state.
See below..........................
>
>>Again toying with ideas. There is no exchange with ideas with Nishee. Have
>>you read his articles on history?
>>I can not believe I am explaining this to you!
>>Quit toying with ideas Fadia!
>>Anyway, if there are any quesitons to clarify any of the points feel free
>to
>>ask.
>
>Maan, do you think any one party in Lebanon doesn’t have racist/bigoted
>members? No, but the party goes on, right.
And apparently you enjoy participating in the game in every bit of
it.........
It must be all a game to you!
>So in your logic, Americans
>wouldn’t be able to have an American presidency…the institution would have
>to be scrapped because someone abused it.
See below....... also, you are relating two unrelated things....Nishee is
unethical and is not an institution. I believe this point had been
addressed in detail.
>Last time I looked humanity had
>a long way to go before it could stop 'toying' with ideas.
Toying? You are toying with ideas. Now you want to give it a social
dimension?
>Come on, that
>would be like having freedom of association and not using it. What a waste
>that would be.
Habermas viewed the Public Sphere as the channels through which lines of
discourse are transmitted through the common good of Reason as a common
commodity that is based on Language.......Remember that one clearly since
you seem to detach Language from your considerations. These lines of
discourse are formed and transmitted along poles of what you may call Public
Opinion Makers. The mainstream does not toy with ideas as you are
suggesting so naively. The mainstream negotiate lines and streams of Reason
and Opinions toward the common good of the Public. Opposition voices have
as much space as anything else as long as they are based on the common good.
Otherwise, we can witness the disruption of the Public Phere and its
destruction.
Years ago, Habermas gave a lecture where he warned that the Public Sphere is
in danger due to the rise of Corporatism, and the excessive influences of
the Private Sphere. He sounded a very sad note, the same one who had been
the prophet of the Public sphere. I shook my head. To see the sadness of
this man, I thought.........Now what a waste the whole project must have
been!
Maan
Fad
>
>are still not sincere. I do not see sarcasm with you anymore. I see
>confusion. I do not see someone generating discussions. I see an
automaton
>generating the nuts and bolts of a little lifeless machines with no
>conviction, no passion, and no sincerety. An idea without a life is not a
>Mona Lisa, it is a comic book. Toying with ideas should be left to
diaries
>and journals where strong characters keep track of their own development.
>Not for public displays of toys. But you do not listen! Albert Camus in
>his journals toys with ideas. It was he who said that Ideas on their own
go
>nowhere. They are mere torrents.
Shou bit halik ya Maan.
>>Anyone can see that Hizbollah is sitting
>>comfortably in parliament and killed (literally) to get there, I want to
>>discuss what that means for democracy in Lebanon.
>
>Is this connected particularly to Party of God in Lebanon? Do you mean
that
>if it was not for that party then democracy is fine in Lebanon? Why are
you
>singling out that party all of a sudden.
I'm questioning (toying in your words) whether the means justify the ends in
the case of Hizbollah. I'm also questioning what this means for democracy.
I don't think the means justify the ends here at all; it gaulls me that
Hizbollah has seats in Parliament, the same way it gaulls me that Sinn Fein
is sitting at the negotiating table. It's an 'Arafat' type of irony. It's
so ironic that Arafat holds a fig leaf in one hand and a bazooka in the
other. This is politics at its worst in my mind.
>Ideas are lively, Ironic, and participate in the making of the World. They
>are your reflection of yourself as you encounter the World as a Being!
They
>are not toys.
In case you didn't notice, the world is going through some very uncivilized,
irrational episodes in its history: ethnic and national conflicts persist,
migratory movements are presenting new challenges that never existed before
(for example, there are myriad consequences from the uncontrolled migration
of human capital across lebanon's borders alone...environmental,
psychological, etc..), the environment is taking a beating, terrorism
abounds, nuclear proliferation is still around, and increasing global
economic competition accompanied by the demise of the welfare state is
resulting in what I would say is a state of moral confusion. Whose morals
are the best morals? It used to be that 125 million people thought
communism was the way to go. What are they going through right now? They
have no choice but to toy with ideas. I'm not toying with ideas, corrupt
leaders toy with ideas; power seekers toy with people. I'm safeguarding
myself and others from being toyed with!
>Silence carries with it the worst
>>consequences of all, worse than toying with ideas ever could.
>Please explain! I lost you here! What are you talking about?
I'm saying that unless we discuss issues and we are silent on them, then the
consequences of silence on an issue can be much worse than discussion. It's
like the difference between a benign and active citizenry.
>Are you sure that you got my meaning of the word Consequence? Or am I
>facing the boundaries of your intellectual learning?
You are discussing with me, you are caught within the boundaries of my
intellect and I am caught in yours. Why don't you explain what you mean by
consequence rather than being your old condescending self. Either that or
just move it along.
>You appear to have given thought (I hope so) to what you have written! You
>appear to be taking yourself seriously! Am I supposed to think otherwise
of
>you! What is it exactly that you want me to think of your ideas and posts
>then?
Maan, I SINCERELY don't give a hoot what you think of my ideas. I know I
have no hope of bringing someone like you to see the merits of democracy,
I'm hoping someone will be reading this thread and thinking about the
important issues and using their own brains and initiative to take action.
This is social activism on a very limited scale. This is the untrammeled
dissemination of information. There is no Ass_ d here, there is no
oppressor. This NG has no moderator.
>Ah...that is what it is all about then! I thought I was of no consequence
>to you! Can we get with the program now!
No. Not so fast. Really, you are of no consequence to me. Although I do
have a picture of you in my mind that I would love to validate, but that's
my curiousity getting the better of me. Honest, I still don't care what
you think of me.
> To speak of propaganda and try
>>>to differentiate it from what is not propaganda is not an easy subject
and
>>>is open to a wide interpretation. If the need arises and if you wishe me,
>I
>>>can go into detail on the many interpretations concerning this
>>>subject...................
I'll spare us all the anticipation.
>Your reading of Socrates is down right wrong...............(see below)
>
>........And wrong misleading readings lead into downright wrong results and
>conclusions.
>By assuming that there is a noble lie you have condemned the whole of
>Philosophy into being some sort of a noble lie.
Maan, my reading of Socrates is right on. Pull out your 'republic of plato'
and turn to the first page. The whole point of the journey is to find out
how to hide the noble lie.
>You chose not to see in The Republic a reply, or an attempt to reply, to
>Thrasymachus protestation: "Justice is the advantage of the strongest."
You
>chose to see in it some _glib_ exercise that is based on a misreading.
Shou be halik hal saby. Justice is the advantage of the strongest...this
doesn't refer ONLY to those with physical prowess, but it refers also to the
wisest, the philosopher kings in particular. The strongest are those who
use unjust means to achieve justice...kind of like certain capitalists or
others who seek gain, any kind of gain, at the expense of others. Socrates
admits that it should be possible to achieve one's advantage while not
sacrificing the interests of the 'other', but that man's desires outweigh
his rationale in seeking gain.
>You chose not to see in The Republic the final call of Socrates. You chose
>not to see in it the foundation upon which a Thinking that had finally
>discovered its boundaries tries to re-establish itself. You chose to see
in
>it smoe hiding place upon which you can display your misreadings and your
>ready made answers.
The Republic is an exercise in seeking justice, it's a masquerade through
the mind of socrates, yes, but it is primarily played out through thrasy (an
innocent) to find the meaning of justice.
>It took hundreds and hundreds of years to be able to try and resolve the
>crisis that arises in The Republic. But this is not the place for it here.
I know, and this is really tiring.
>Socrates teaches no such thing.
Yes, he does. Pull out your Republic again and turn to page 340-341 (this
is the version by Alan Bloom). Read the interpretive essay and you'll see
that Soc skirts the issue of nature for the most part, but where he does
address it justice is simplified to man's basic and most innate needs.
Can't you 'I disagree' or 'I think you are mistaken' about something rather
than saying this is wrong or this is right.
And you did miss the entire point that I
>was trying to establish in the name of a presentation you do here that is
>more akin to a cheap effort at hiding.
Elaborate will you...sticks and stones my friend, just elaborate and get on
with it. 'More akin to a cheap effort at hiding'...talk about gliberish.
That Taha is gliberish at its best. Just state what I missed and let's get
on with this. It still pains me to accept that we're speaking to each other
so let's make this as swift as possible shall we.
>Let me try and explain that point again. Heidegger proclaims in "Identity
>and Difference" - read that essay before attempting to say anything else,
it
>is not for the faint hearted be warned - that Thinking is in the process of
>facing its own demise in the very shape of what gives it life and allows it
>to exist after all - that thing is Metaphysics.
Okay, so if I understand you correctly, would this quote kind of represent
Heidigger:
"It might be suggested that Marx’s critique of religion as a tool of the
ruling classes is not without validity in post-communist society. But
equally it might be argued that when society is undergoing radical surgery,
even opium has its uses." Do you mean that the 'weak' sometimes have to be
deluded because someone thinks it is best for them in the name of some
ideal?
>He means that Thinking is in a continual process of facing up to
Metaphysics by bridging itself into
>the other side of Metaphysics. The other side is always in view. But
never
>attained. But that process is continual. The historic process that gives
>rise to Communism is in itself an ideological process that skirts the very
>process of bridging by situating itself deeply into Metaphysics. For
>thinknig to have any effect at all it has to escape that crystallization.
>Thus, it has to work on redefining itself from within the Metaphysical
>social space.
Exactly! You must re-work yourself from within the social space you are
given, right. That could mean social activism for some, it could mean
terrorism for others. Am I following your deep logic?
>In other words, Metaphysics and history are the projection of Thinking on
>the Social space. You chose to see the former part. Many avoid the latter
>part. I do not blame them: it really is not for the weak and those who
>seek a hiding place.
I see, so the majority of the thinking world really isn't thinking at all,
it is being eluded and deluded by the continuation of some metaphysical
force. It's up to the strong (I'm holding up my very pathetic excuse for a
muscle) to think and guide the weak is that it? Am I following you?
>We can not talk talk of a history in the realm of Quantum Field Mechanics.
>We can only talk of the possibility of an Ontology of Being, and the
>conditions under which such an Ontology is possible. This was in fact
>Heidegger's contribution to Philosophy. An inquiry on the conditions upon
>which an Ontology is possible. Thinknig in the process of bridging
projects
>itself into the world of history and Metaphysics. Thus Foacault on History
>that you yourself had dismissed so hastily as a "Postmodernist."
Okay, but ontology starts at different points for different people. For
postmodernists it begins in the modern. For others it may go as far back as
Ibn Khaldun and continue into the present day. It really depends on where
one sits in their own ontology for it to be a comprehensive and fair
examination/introspection into one's history.
>> Also, you should know that Tocqueville meant it like
>>>that also. They were not catering to every little guy with a piece of
>>>misinformation to waste on humanity.
They were hoping those guys would be around to make sure that democracy was
operating to its fullest potential.
>>Oh yes Maan, they were catering to those outside of the mainstream,
because
>>the mainstream never places checks on itself. You should know that
>>because you seem to be a critical theorist.
>
>You really are into categorizations and labelings....are not you?
You are something. Shoooouuuu beeee haliiiik hal saby! You have tried to
categorize me with everything from sado-massichist to I don't know what. I
haven't even flintched at you. I'm stating what I see...Heidigger,
Habermas, Gramsci...you seem to be a critical theorist.
>>Maan, do you think any one party in Lebanon doesn’t have racist/bigoted
>>members? No, but the party goes on, right.
>
>And apparently you enjoy participating in the game in every bit of
>it.........
>It must be all a game to you!
I'm being realistic. If I'm playing a game it's called cold, hard realism.
What game are you talking about? Even the best of democracies have their fl
aws.
>>So in your logic, Americans
>>wouldn’t be able to have an American presidency…the institution would have
>>to be scrapped because someone abused it.
>
>See below....... also, you are relating two unrelated things....Nishee is
>unethical and is not an institution. I believe this point had been
>addressed in detail.
You're missing my point. Civil society can be viewed as an instititution
that must be nourished. Without the nishee's, we would have to start
questioning whether civil society were fulfilling its role. Let me define
civil society for you and you'll see the parallel. Taken from Victor
Perez-Diaz (big civil society theorist): "Civil societies have been and are
historical experiments of, and institutional attempts at, an accommodation
between the two ideal characters of 'civil associations' and 'associations
as enterprises', and they have reflected tensions between them. (p. 83, "The
possibility of civil society" in J. A. Hall). So, the institutional
experiment of a civil society survies on its own distortions and its own
developments and affect every political and social component of civil
society. Part of the understanding of civil society is that the
manipulation of public opinion and the indoctrination of the public are some
of the institutional 'distortions' that the institution of civil society
must reckon with.
>Toying? You are toying with ideas. Now you want to give it a social
>dimension?
Say what?
>Years ago, Habermas gave a lecture where he warned that the Public Sphere
is
>in danger due to the rise of Corporatism, and the excessive influences of
>the Private Sphere. He sounded a very sad note, the same one who had been
>the prophet of the Public sphere. I shook my head. To see the sadness of
>this man, I thought.........Now what a waste the whole project must have
>been!
What whole project..that of capitalism or that of public responsibility?
You know the market couldn't have come into being without a flourishing
civil society. It's pretty cool that you saw habermas speak.
>Maan
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maan M. Hamze
>>
>>Fad wrote in message <6q8l44$nsl$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Maan,
>>Nishee is NOT interested in any discussion. His posts have been geared
>>toward repeating the same record over and over again. We are talking
>noise.
>>Not discussion in any meaningful way. Is this what democracy all about?
>
>I'm not here to argue, I'm here to present my points.
>
>>Historical discussions are fine and should be encouraged, but not when
>>someone is not interested in any discussion.
>
>
>You can't be serious. Any bells ringing? The first time I came onto this
>NG, I asked you to post your questions to the entire group. What could be
>more democratic than that? Post your questions and you will get answers.
I was talking about Nishee. I posted my questions many many times, and I
simply do not have the time to sit down and reformulate my quesitons again.
Hope the occasion will arise again, and the questions will be posted again
in a separate discussion.
>I have been trying to elicit discussion ever since I joined this NG. You
>are not amicable to dialogue.
We HAVE been discussing things. And I simply do not know on most occasions
what is it that you want to discuss. Beyond toying with ideas that is, as
you yourself acknowledge.
>
>>You seem to be toying with an extremely dangerous ideal of Democracy that
>>is starting to resemble an Anarachy of thoughts without any form. A
>>system with a free flow of energy without order and without shape. Where
>>anything can be valued for the way it sounds, not for the embedded values
of
>>Justice and Ethics.
>
>You might call it anarchy but I call it democracy. Ask me questions before
>you try to falsely categorize my ideas...ideas that I never communicated to
>you.
I have replied to these points. Taha replied to them. And he was capable,
for your own benefit, to show the inconsistincies and the illogic that you
yourself have trapped yourself into.
>>Democracy, first and foremost, concerns itself with the very
>>idea of Citizenry and Ethical Responsibility and a reflection on the idea
>>of Citizenry and Ethical Responsibililty.
>
>Yes, exactly. You would prefer to silence and think of it as ethical
>whereas I would prefer to allow one to speak and I call it ethical.
You have a strange weird idea of Ethics that does not belong on any
respecatble forum where things can be discussed in a democtratic manner.
That is all you can answer. How come you are fond of talking of Civil
Society when you can not see that the flow of ideas in Society is shaped by
an order of meaning. I thought that you are the one who can not stand
postmodernism. And here you are exhibiting one of the worst forms of
Postmodernism - A form that have not made it even in any form into
Philosophy.
>
>>I'll ask you: well, what are the elements of
>>this education that allows any sense of validation. This is THE meat of
>>the argument here! Define then to me what Education will it take to
>validate
>>information and misinformation.
>
>You tell me. I'm talking about informing; campaigns to inform. I don't
>believe ANY state has the right to inhibit its citizens from associating
>for the purpose of informing; why, that would be a dictatorship (not unlike
>certain strong hands in the ME).
Taha made answers to these points. Read them. I do not see any point in
repeating his points.
>The educative function of various civil
>organizations, therefore, is partly in their very ability to organize and
>coalesce, and also in the information that the organization provides to its
>members.
>
You contradict yourself when these very same views carry within them the
seed of destroying any Reason within Civil Society. When the very idea of
Reason in and by itself is annihilated then there is reason for alarm. Even
when Philosophy in the form of Socrates and Heidegger et al
etc...etc.....called and worked on deconstructing Reason, they acknowledged,
at least, the premise that Reason is the Social Space within which nothing
is possible. Philosophy is not about the annihilation of thought, let it be
in the form of Democracy or otherwise. Philosophy remains, along with
Thinking, the reverberating voice of Ethics. That is what I said before.
And that is a point that you do not seem to get. I thought you were a
Christian. Or so do you claim. Or are these mere emtpy words reflecting an
empty faith along with many other empty things. I thought you'll see
something in Heidegger's "Heeding the call of Being" although he was not
into Religion or Gods. I thought you were going to see something in the
very word "Reverberation" and "Accessibility to Justice." "I heard a voice
in the Wilderness." Does this remind you of anything? Or are we busy
constructing empty democracies based on empty associations that can destroy
any claim of Being in the World just because it so happens that you have
made it most probably (and your profile strongly suggests that) into some
obscure Dean's list, and you like to toy with ideas just because it happens
that the Spoiled Fadia has read some books and can do it.
>
>>Then ask the question directly and lay it to us in intelligible terms
>>instead of this cyclic thinking.
>
>Intelligible terms...what! Whatever. How do you think I've been speaking
>all along?
You have been speaking like someone who knows something in Philosophy and
has not been able to mold it into anything meaningful and will not attempt
to have any bond or connectedness with fellow people over issues. You are
behaving like an island unto yourself. And you are starting to show the
strais that dealing with Modern Philosophy can exact on you.
>This is the way I speak. If you want me to clarify something,
>then please ask, don't presume or try to fill in the blanks yourself like
>you have since I came on this NG. Either that or do as we agreed before
>and I will be happy to avoid each other.
I'll gladly do when I have something to ask you!
>
>>Finally, any Democracy have checks and balances including the checks and
>>balances on Free Association that allows history to be monsterized and
>>massacred into a mumbo jumbo and hodge podge of ideas. When History is
>>made into radical absolutes. any thinknig of this sort is a direct aide
>>in the rise of Fascism
>
>
>How does this take place? What is a radical absolute?
A radical absolute is something we take to be Self-Evident in History. Even
though what self-evident can be shown to have a Geneology! On this check
Raymond Williams with his studies on what constitutes Common Sense, and
Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals and....ah.....yes.......Foacault's attempt
at "ARCHIVING" History. And many others.
>The only thinking
>that leads to the rise of fascism is NONE and this is imposed by the state
>and enforced by its puppets (the military etc.).
You have a narrow minded and naive view of what leads to the rise of
Fascism. This can be an interesting topic on its own.
>You're thinking in terms
>of running a state like the machiavellian prince - that is far closer to
>anarchy; totalitarianism borders on anarchy you know. I'm talking about
>running a state from the bottom up - that is a democracy.
I do not think you what you are talking about. And I do not have the
slightest idea how did you jump into this Machiavellian thin. I thought
that quoting Heidegger will give you a clue. But it had not. I thought
that quoting Foucault will give you a clue but it did not. Before asking
others to discuss things with you, make sure to know what the others are
talking about.
>
>>Michel Foucault had the following to say:
>>"The historical sense can evade metaphysics and become a privileged
>>instrument of genealogy if it refuses the certainty of absolutes. Given
>>this, it corresponds to the acuity of a glance that distinguishes,
>>separates, and disperses, that is capable of liberating divergence and
>>marginal elements - the kind of dissociating view that is capable of
>>decomposing itself, capable of shattering the unity of man's being through
>>which it was thought that he could extend his sovereignty to the events of
>>his past."
>
>And you say I speak giberish. I hate foucault - he is a postmodernist and
>I think he skirts the issues. "The Historical sense can become priviledged
>if it refuses the certainty of absolutes " - translation, there are certain
>absolutes in life that history (culture, religion, political structures)
>must respect. If this is disrespected, then history starts all over,
>possibly and probably repeating itself. Right? Man must always be aware
>of his past and be able to decompose it when required. Please elaborate on
>this further because I missed your point. Why did you quote Foucault?
Listen Fadia, I am not here to teach you Modern Philosophy. Your comments
are showing that you do not have a clue over these issues nevertheless you
seem to HATE Postmodernism. How can you hate something when you do not know
what the thing is all about. Nishee operates in the realm in Historical
Absolutes where everything is Self-Evident. I can not say it in any simpler
manner. Go check some Philosophical dictionary.
And what the hell is the matter with labeling things anyway.....this is
Critical Theory....This is Traditionalist....this is Postmodern etc....can't
you take something for what it is instead of this linguistic package that
you impose all the time....then you tell me later that I am into
Linguistics? also, if you hate Postmodernism, as a label no doubt, I do not
think that Philosophy should dismiss fifty years of work because it so
happens that you, Fadia, can not get yourself to understand a quote by
Foucault or to have any clue about it!
>>It is only through lens that an "educational" liberation can take place.
>>not through the poison of historic Nishee poisons that you have wasted
your
>>energies defending in the name of some Academic ideal that lacks any
>>experience, and that which you dare call democracy.
>
>That which I dare call democracy. Perhaps your educational liberation
>will take place through the deceptive lens of foucault...a theorist who is
>suspect of modernism, who lives in the post-modern, but my educational
>liberation is taking place right here, it will take place at university in
>my classes with friends, and it takes place in my writings. Then it will
>take place when I educate others on my teachings, when I form and join
>organizations
Suspect of modernism???? Lives in the Postmodern???? Are you for real?
>designed to further democracy, to further inter-cultural dialogue. Your
>educational liberation has to refer to some abstract ideal because it
>counters everything that modernism has achieved so far.
What?
> I'll tell you why
>1+1=4 in Orwell, because in the future the postmodernists took over and
>that is when true anarchy takes place. An academic ideal that lacks any
>experience you say? Are you referring to democracy? I certainly prefer
>it's INexperience to the Experience of mid-eastern political structures.
You really have a long way to go to rise over this gibberish that you are
shooting left and right! And I am amazed that you did not understand one
word of my comment on 1984.
Academic ideal that you equate with Inxperienced Democracy? Are you
hallucinating at last Fadia. Are you on some kind of a drug!
>Poisons....come off it...he is informing, period.
Another coverup done with no style whatsoever. You put yoursefl into a bind
with inconsistincies and illiogical remarks and that is all that is left to
yo u now to say: pure gibberish.
>You don't like him,
>period. You are disliked by many, period. What is your alternative
>political structure? Are you happy with the political system in Lebanon?
>What academic ideal makes your ideal any closer to reality and to something
>the majority desires?
another glib from a BA student in International Relations who had wasted her
entire energy covering for Nishee.
>
> You're the one so caught up in linguistics and you highlight their
>importance, yet you say that my language is deceptive. That's a good one.
>Just forget about the symantics and speak. I have professed my allegiance
>to democracy, why don't you use your linguistic talent and profess your
>allegiance to whatever political system it is you endorse. Athenian
>democracy is it? Well it looks like we're not so far off after all.
Listen little girl! I can tell from now that you are going NOWHERE in that
intellectual endeavour that you have started. You are not only a spoiled
brat, but a crook also. You seize the idea of Democracy in such an amateur
manner so that you'll allow yourself to die defending someone like Nishee,
and you try to turn the tables by saying that I am not into Democracy. In
Philosophy we call this type of thinking a Vulgarity and you are turning
into intellectual Vulgarities now. There is nothing left for you but to be
intellectually Vulgar. Pure and simple. Vulgar and intellectually
Dishonest. And it shows, all you have done so far is defend Nishee, and you
have gotten Maurice to be on your side. You are in such a good company, and
you have done it all by yourself.
I have allegiance only to what allows me to think. Philosophy is not about
allegiances. But it is about uncovering the bankruptcy of the allegiance
that you claim to belong to since it is an empty shell of glib amateur
remarks of a little girl who has some potential but had decided instead to
waste it, out of sheer frustration and foolishenss, on glib endeavours.
Maan
TahaK
>Elaborate will you...sticks and stones my friend, just elaborate and get on
>with it. 'More akin to a cheap effort at hiding'...talk about gliberish.
>That Taha is gliberish at its best. Just state what I missed and let's get
>on with this. It still pains me to accept that we're speaking to each other
>so let's make this as swift as possible shall we.
>
Fadia,
There is nothing bliberish about what I post on this NG. I am straightfoward
and I get to the point.
I judge from your statement about me being gliberish that you're beginning to
know what it means, and perhaps you feel insulted after having boasted about
being a gliberish talker yourself.
That's an improvement, but you're using it in the wrong context. Try going
back and re-reading all your posts thus far - you'll find some clues :)
Taha
TahaK
Fadia, I think you should go back to the school that graduated you and ask for
a refund. Take printouts of all your posts on SCL as evidence. They will
quickly see that you really are entitled to the refund :)
Taha
Maan Hamze wrote in message <upfXKmbw9GA.372@upnetnews03>:
>another glib from a BA student in International Relations who had wasted her
>entire energy covering for Nishee.
>Listen little girl! I can tell from now that you are going NOWHERE in that
Maan M. Hamze
Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
>etc...etc.....called and worked on deconstructing Reason, they
acknowledged,
>is possible.
A Correction:
****[...] the premise that Reason is the Social Space WITHOUT which nothing
is possible.****
Maan
Maan M. Hamze
>Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
>>
But you chose to keep the quotation. Apparently it reminded you of
something in you.
>
>I'm questioning (toying in your words) whether the means justify the ends
in
>the case of Hizbollah. I'm also questioning what this means for democracy.
I thought you were the realit as you say toward the end. Give history a
good stare in the face. This does not mean anything as far as democracy is
concerned. This is part of democracy. Also, the LF ran for municipal
elections! This only tells me that there are organizations that seem to
represent the mainstream and they are succeeding in the elections. This is
no different in Europe or the US. The Republican Party is in the congress,
and they themselves have participated in making the Gulf War. They have
used means that justify the ends to get to power. They do represent a
constituency. They won an election. etc...etc....That is what Democracy is
all about. Also, what were the means that justified the ends in the case of
Hizbollah anyway? And in what way are they different from the norm that you
are thinking about?
>I don't think the means justify the ends here at all; it gaulls me that
>Hizbollah has seats in Parliament, the same way it gaulls me that Sinn Fein
>is sitting at the negotiating table.
Who do you feel should be at the table in the case of Sinn Fein and why?
Taking the situation into consideration. Also, Why does it gaull you? What
is the Norm that you have against these events? You are not clear here about
your expectations!
>It's an 'Arafat' type of irony. It's
>so ironic that Arafat holds a fig leaf in one hand and a bazooka in the
>other. This is politics at its worst in my mind.
What is politics in your view? Where is it different? Is it Ok for a
government to do that for example, and bad for Party of God and Sinn Fein?
You are not clear on these things! What are your expectations in these
situations? What is Arafat supposed to do for example taking the whole
situation into account! You know, these things are not born in a vacuum.
Again, are you singling these movements for a reason, or are you trying to
reach an Ethical understanding on Man's actions in the World?
>
>In case you didn't notice, the world is going through some very
uncivilized,
>irrational episodes in its history: ethnic and national conflicts persist,
>migratory movements are presenting new challenges that never existed before
>(for example, there are myriad consequences from the uncontrolled migration
>of human capital across lebanon's borders alone...environmental,
>psychological, etc..), the environment is taking a beating, terrorism
>abounds, nuclear proliferation is still around, and increasing global
>economic competition accompanied by the demise of the welfare state is
>resulting in what I would say is a state of moral confusion. Whose morals
>are the best morals? It used to be that 125 million people thought
>communism was the way to go. What are they going through right now? They
>have no choice but to toy with ideas. I'm not toying with ideas, corrupt
>leaders toy with ideas; power seekers toy with people. I'm safeguarding
>myself and others from being toyed with!
I do not think that you are safeguarding yourself! I think you are setting
yourself up for a big disappointment! Here we go again into what I was
talking about that you so amiably have warped and deformed. I was
addressing the same issues. And you managed to deform them beyond
recognition. Granted, I use a Philosophical language! But you seem to be
looking for answers from within the same structure that causes these
problems! Are you? History is a history of Power! Are you looking for a
theory of ethics from within this history? If not, then I simply do not
understand your incapability to understand the Foacault quotation that dealt
with exactly this problem.
Now, a question: You seem to be suggesting that the modern age is different
from the rest of history in the amount of confusion, corruption,
etc...etc.... I do have my views on this, but I want to know yours......How
is this age different from others then? Also, how do you reconciliate this
view with your recent view where you extall the gians of modernity!
I really am trying to get to grips with what you are thinking about. So
really truly forget about our fights and get down to the business at hand
here. When you do, I'll repeat my points on Heidegger in a more readable
form.
>
>>Silence carries with it the worst
>>>consequences of all, worse than toying with ideas ever could.
>
>>Please explain! I lost you here! What are you talking about?
>
>I'm saying that unless we discuss issues and we are silent on them, then
the
>consequences of silence on an issue can be much worse than discussion.
It's
>like the difference between a benign and active citizenry.
Well, I believe that I am trying here to get into what you are trying to
say.
>
>>Are you sure that you got my meaning of the word Consequence? Or am I
>>facing the boundaries of your intellectual learning?
>
>
>You are discussing with me, you are caught within the boundaries of my
>intellect and I am caught in yours. Why don't you explain what you mean
by
>consequence rather than being your old condescending self. Either that or
>just move it along.
When you ask politely I'll answer you!
>
>>You appear to have given thought (I hope so) to what you have written!
You
>>appear to be taking yourself seriously! Am I supposed to think otherwise
>of
>>you! What is it exactly that you want me to think of your ideas and posts
>>then?
>
>
>Maan, I SINCERELY don't give a hoot what you think of my ideas. I know I
>have no hope of bringing someone like you to see the merits of democracy,
What the hell are you talking about? That is what we have been trying to
discuss and all of a sudden you spring this on me. Cool it down! Ok!
>I'm hoping someone will be reading this thread and thinking about the
>important issues and using their own brains and initiative to take action.
>This is social activism on a very limited scale. This is the untrammeled
>dissemination of information. There is no Ass_ d here, there is no
?????
>>Ah...that is what it is all about then! I thought I was of no consequence
>>to you! Can we get with the program now!
>
>
>No. Not so fast. Really, you are of no consequence to me. Although I do
>have a picture of you in my mind that I would love to validate, but that's
>my curiousity getting the better of me. Honest, I still don't care what
>you think of me.
You are so full of it Fadia! I'll try to convince myself that you give a
hoot about anything at all for the hell of it. Anyway, since by your
acknowledgement that I am an egotistical maniac, let me take advantage of
this understanding in order to assure you that you are NOT going to find
another Lebanese guy with my knowledge of Philosophical issues. None Mon
cher! People who know me just love to spend time with me to ask me
questions. So, it is YOUR loss not mine; and I simply do not give a damned
my dear whether you want to continue this discussion or not because, my
dear, it is YOUR loss, not mine!
>
>>Let me try and explain that point again. Heidegger proclaims in "Identity
>>and Difference" - read that essay before attempting to say anything else,
>it
>>is not for the faint hearted be warned - that Thinking is in the process
of
>>facing its own demise in the very shape of what gives it life and allows
it
>>to exist after all - that thing is Metaphysics.
>
>Okay, so if I understand you correctly, would this quote kind of represent
>Heidigger:
>"It might be suggested that Marx’s critique of religion as a tool of the
>ruling classes is not without validity in post-communist society. But
>equally it might be argued that when society is undergoing radical surgery,
>even opium has its uses." Do you mean that the 'weak' sometimes have to be
>deluded because someone thinks it is best for them in the name of some
>ideal?
This quote is so UnHeideggerian as to make me think how anyone can miss the
mark so widely! I wonder about you Fadia sometimes; whether to feel sheer
pity or whether to just say: Screw it, who really cares! How did you get
from my comment into what you just quoted? Really Fadia, how did you do it?
Let me into the mental process and steps! For your info, Marx did not deal
with religion as a means of deluding the weak later in his life. Not in his
earlier writings even. He was refering to the uses of Religion as a
UTILITY. Thus, Marx is silent actually on the existence of God. This is
not his subject matter. To him, religion is a cultural object, and a
commodity of exchange like any other product. This is a point that you have
to come to grips with. So, it can not be simply used as an object of
deluding the Weak. You get into a crisis at this stage with Marxist
Classical Thinking: How do you establish Justice and Values from within
Marxism? Critical Theory tries to have a say on this issue. It does not
work out. Phenomenology in Philosophy represents a revolution of sorts on
how to handle this issue. But please understand that these are huge
questions and I have no time to write papers here because I have a full itme
job to worry about after all! I can give you good sources if you wish me
to. I have written couple of papers on Heidegger and Civil society, and the
Political Heideggerian implicaitons. I can share them with you if you want
to. Otherwise, can we narrow down the focus of this thread. This is
getting to be tiring!
Finally, please do check Ferrucio Rossi-Landi's book Language as Market, it
will teach you valuable lessons on how to dismiss language from your
ocnsiderations.
>
>>He means that Thinking is in a continual process of facing up to
>Metaphysics by bridging itself into
>>the other side of Metaphysics. The other side is always in view. But
>never
>>attained. But that process is continual. The historic process that gives
>>rise to Communism is in itself an ideological process that skirts the very
>>process of bridging by situating itself deeply into Metaphysics. For
>>thinknig to have any effect at all it has to escape that crystallization.
>>Thus, it has to work on redefining itself from within the Metaphysical
>>social space.
>
>Exactly! You must re-work yourself from within the social space you are
>given, right. That could mean social activism for some, it could mean
>terrorism for others. Am I following your deep logic?
First of all, I do not get along very well with the word "Terrorism." It
includes a value judgement for things you have not established yet which
defeats the hwole purpose of having any discussion. In one way or another,
I'll get along with you on this one. But I'll take social activism to mean
all sorts of acts, let it be inside a household or more generalized to
include social activism where a group shares in a certain outlook. The way
I meant it is that Thinking is always faced by the boundaries of a
representation. We are surrounded by representations; let it be in our
living room or in the serivce of some social project. So, excluding your
use of the word Terrorism, yes you may infer that from my statement.
>
>>In other words, Metaphysics and history are the projection of Thinking on
>>the Social space. You chose to see the former part. Many avoid the
latter
>>part. I do not blame them: it really is not for the weak and those who
>>seek a hiding place.
>
>I see, so the majority of the thinking world really isn't thinking at all,
>it is being eluded and deluded by the continuation of some metaphysical
>force. It's up to the strong (I'm holding up my very pathetic excuse for a
>muscle) to think and guide the weak is that it? Am I following you?
No! Here the field of the strong and the weak disappears. While preserving
a Phenomenological trace of Ethics and justice. Please, here you have to
have a sense of the Philosophy as a Poetics. My statement has everything to
do with how to get out of the Ethical Socratic crisis in The Republic. Your
big mistake is that you see in it some kind of a noble lie. I see in it a
Crisis in Thinking!
Before continuing let me recommend the following:
Kelly Oliver's (my ex professor) Womanizing Nietzsche. She has another new
book on the subject (i forgot the name) where she actually addresses Ethics
from the point of view of Phenomenology. I do not know your actual
familiarity with Phenomenology.
Anyway, back to the above.
Any Philosophy is on the long run a Normative project. The point is to take
a stand. In Heideggerian philosophy there are no ready recipes for action.
Actually, there is no plan for action of the kind that you may imagine. For
the individual to participate in everyday life is equivalent to what is
called the Parmenidean Uncovering of Truth
(Alethia).......................................................
Let me stop here for now, and go back into these divergent topics later. It
is getting too late and I am quite tired.
This post can be subdivided into different posts. If you are up to it,
please do it!
>
>
>Okay, but ontology starts at different points for different people.
Yet another subject......What do you understand by Ontology?
Clarifications:
>For postmodernists it begins in the modern.
There is NO Ontology with the postmodernists. Period!
>I'm stating what I see...Heidigger,
>Habermas, Gramsci...you seem to be a critical theorist.
Heidegger is NEVER considered a Critical Theorist! Habermas, well, so so!
****************************************************************************
****
Fadia:
>You're missing my point. Civil society can be viewed as an instititution
>that must be nourished. Without the nishee's, we would have to start
>questioning whether civil society were fulfilling its role. Let me define
>civil society for you and you'll see the parallel. Taken from Victor
>Perez-Diaz (big civil society theorist): "Civil societies have been and
are
>historical experiments of, and institutional attempts at, an accommodation
>between the two ideal characters of 'civil associations' and 'associations
>as enterprises', and they have reflected tensions between them. (p. 83,
"The
>possibility of civil society" in J. A. Hall). So, the institutional
>experiment of a civil society survies on its own distortions and its own
>developments and affect every political and social component of civil
>society. Part of the understanding of civil society is that the
>manipulation of public opinion and the indoctrination of the public are
some
>of the institutional 'distortions' that the institution of civil society
>must reckon with.
>on Habermas: Fadia:
>What whole project..that of capitalism or that of public responsibility?
>You know the market couldn't have come into being without a flourishing
>civil society.
Can we hold on to these last two ideas for another topic? Because it is yet
another subject.
Maan
Fad
questions and diverting attention from the issues to trying to defamate
someone. You two are two peas in a pod. On to bigger and better things.
Fad
Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
>
>Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
> >Even when Philosophy in the form of Socrates and Heidegger et al
>>etc...etc.....called and worked on deconstructing Reason, they
>acknowledged,
Caroline
"Fad" <fa...@law.com.lb> wrote:
ALPHA...
> Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
OMEGA...
Taib shu bekeh inteh wy yyeih kamein :-) ?
Fala'tuna wlo !!
Falsafeh 3al TAle3 wunneizel...
mitl ma be 'ul lmatal : kel chi zeid, na'aS.
Tayyeb bta3rfeele chi keef bya3mlo 7inne ?? hati la nshouf
BTW (another question min fadlik Anissati), leich k3eeteh 3a eikher 7arfein
min esmik ? I mean, Fi a7la min Fadia ? eh leich 3milteelna yeha FĀD ???
Su'al bass...ma tiz3aleh minneh.
Inni 'uqqabiluqee "7athithan" (7assissan)
Caroline.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Caroline
ALPHA...
> Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
OMEGA...
Taib shu bekeh inteh wy yyeih kamein :-) ?
Fala'tuna wlo !!
Falsafeh 3al TAle3 wunneizel...
mitl ma be 'ul lmatal : kel chi zeid, na'aS.
Tayyeb bta3rfeele chi keef bya3mlo 7inne ?? hati la nshouf
BTW (another question min fadlik Anissati), leich k3eeteh 3a eikher 7arfein
min esmik ? I mean, Fi a7la min Fadia ? eh leich 3milteelna yeha FĀD ???
Su'al bass...ma tiz3aleh minneh.
Inni 'uqqabiluqee "7athithan" (7assissan)
Caroline.
> >Fad wrote in message <6q8l44$nsl$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Maan M. Hamze
Fad wrote in message <6qf0jq$3q2$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>There goes another great conversation, ending without answering any of my
>questions and diverting attention from the issues to trying to defamate
>someone. You two are two peas in a pod. On to bigger and better things.
eh, good riddance! do you think I expected anything else from you! did you
really think that I expected any discussion with you. Mon cher, I only
demonstrated to you the boundaries of your thinking, and the volume within
that boundary happens to be smaller than the volume of an ant's brain. I
understand arrogant people; but arrogant and ignorant? you really are
something else of royal trash. Again, good riddance!
Maan
Maan M. Hamze
Caroline wrote in message <6qfjl0$iu4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6qcdpq$d3g$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
> "Fad" <fa...@law.com.lb> wrote:
>
>ALPHA...
>
>> Maan M. Hamze wrote in message ...
>
>OMEGA...
>
>Taib shu bekeh inteh wy yyeih kamein :-) ?
>Fala'tuna wlo !!
>Falsafeh 3al TAle3 wunneizel...
I have not seen any falsafeh from her end. only the big empty ideals of a
spoiled brat who thinks she is miss know it all!
>
>BTW (another question min fadlik Anissati), leich k3eeteh 3a eikher 7arfein
>min esmik ? I mean, Fi a7la min Fadia ? eh leich 3milteelna yeha FĀD ???
>Su'al bass...ma tiz3aleh minneh.
No, more like it a Freudian Slip. She meant Fad for Fadyee.....ya3nee
empty....ya3nee Zero bil3arabee limshabra7.
Anyway, anoynoe knows what is the origin of the word "mshabra7"? heheheheheh
Maan