If it isn't now, in the face of horror, that one can say, "force, terrorism, more force, more violence doesn't achieve anything," when is it going to be said?? One of the things that one tends to forget in periods of turbulence is how unsuccessful violence is, even for those who have power.
Nothing has been resolved by violence over the last sixty years, not the Arab-Israeli conflict nor any internal Arab conflict, or any of the regimes that has been self imposed for decades, not even the situation of the royal family in Saudi Arabia. All need to change, all need to think, to stand back and say,"What on earth has got us here?"
Thanks for listening and salamat.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
THE LEGITIMACY OF VIOLENCE AS A POLITICAL ACT.
In most of the world, political methods involving violence are the only methods which offer a possibility of bringing about social changes amounting to a social revolution which everyone agrees are necessary in the poorer world.
The democratic conventions which make possible certain kinds of non-violent transfers of power have only a very limited extension in these societies. In most third world countries, they either never existed,or had only a fake existence or have been abolished. In these countries, governments and or regimes are changed by "coups d'etat" , palace revolution, or much more often, by mass revolution. And not by other means.
There are some people , of course who say that one must oppose violence in general, and that there is always better ways than to resort to violence. I think we are hardly in a position which allows us to tell others that violence as a political method is illegitimate . Or even to tell them what kinds of violence are legitimate and what kinds are not. We can say that we reject or do not choose ourselves to use violence, but that is a different and personal matter.
We all know the saying "you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" it is much wiser than the acts of most Arab ruling regimes, that plainly say that they can break many eggs without ever making an omelet.
No doubt this violence seen nowadays in countries like Libya, Syria or Yemen and Bahrain can destroy the native power, but it cannot replace it. Nothing will be left after destruction but destruction.
It is a dangerous illusion to measure the power of a regime by it's capacity of violence.
Under what conditions can violent actions be said to be legitimate ?? legitimate, for example, as a form of self-defence or self-assertion by those who see themselves as victims of a system of oppressive violence managed by the self-imposed authorities. As a way of bringing about social change in those backward countries where the ruling elite is wholly intransigent and repulses all attempts to modernise or reform.
There is an opposition rather than a distinction when we speak of violence when used by states, as to force exerted by crowds and masses. I cannot see a legitimizing factor in the fact that violence is used by the state, any state for that matter.
The democratic conventions which make possible certain kinds of non-violent transfers of power have only a very limited extension in these societies. In most third world countries, they either never existed,or had only a fake existence or have been abolished. In these countries, governments and or regimes are changed by "coups d'etat" , palace revolution, or much more often, by mass revolution. And not by other means.
There are some people , of course who say that one must oppose violence in general, and that there is always better ways than to resort to violence. I think we are hardly in a position which allows us to tell others that violence as a political method is illegitimate . Or even to tell them what kinds of violence are legitimate and what kinds are not. We can say that we reject or do not choose ourselves to use violence, but that is a different and personal matter.
We all know the saying "you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" it is much wiser than the acts of most Arab ruling regimes, that plainly say that they can break many eggs without ever making an omelet.
No doubt this violence seen nowadays in countries like Libya, Syria or Yemen and Bahrain can destroy the native power, but it cannot replace it. Nothing will be left after destruction but destruction.
It is a dangerous illusion to measure the power of a regime by it's capacity of violence.
Under what conditions can violent actions be said to be legitimate ?? legitimate, for example, as a form of self-defence or self-assertion by those who see themselves as victims of a system of oppressive violence managed by the self-imposed authorities. As a way of bringing about social change in those backward countries where the ruling elite is wholly intransigent and repulses all attempts to modernise or reform.
There is an opposition rather than a distinction when we speak of violence when used by states, as to force exerted by crowds and masses. I cannot see a legitimizing factor in the fact that violence is used by the state, any state for that matter.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
HOPE FOR MORE INTELLIGENT ACTS AND RESPONSES
Do not point your nose too high, do not swell your chest too much, do not boast too loudly, do not be puffed up, let not your ambitions be excessive or take a wrong direction, remember you have done nothing at all, you are just the same member of society you were last week, you are on no higher plane, deserve no new consideration, and will get none and nowhere.
These words !!! How pertinent and timely would they be, pronounced by different Arab leaders and their regimes in power, to all of the uprising populations and youth in their countries. In every one of the Arab countries, Libya Syria and Yemen, Bahrain Jordan and Morocco, even the very repressive kingdom of Saudi Arabia, just a few with ongoing violence and total disdain from the rulers toward their own populations seeking freedom, dignity and well deserved change.
Those of us who live in the developed world are becoming increasingly disturbed by this capacity to do one another harm. We are less tolerant of violence and the behaviour of repressive regimes toward their uprising populations. We are totally uncomfortable with ideologies that demonise whole populations, justifying their abuse or outright destruction.
BUT the evidence of change is undeniable. Most readers will have viewed pictures and documentaries of brutal violence, in which whole towns turned out, as though for a carnival, only to demand more freedom and dignity. To be brutally repressed.
One would have hoped for a different response from the different leaders and regimes in all or most countries, I would have surely hoped for a very different response and approach from the young Syrian leader, any dialogue trying to understand and accommodate would have been smarter and by far more fulfilling, than repeating the same rituals of brutal killings, exercised by his predecessor decades ago, or by his contemporary friends in Libya and Yemen.
The history of these Arab countries will become even more annoying and difficult to contemplate, and future generations will marvel at the ways that we, too, failed in our commitments to the common good of these populations. We will embarrass our descendants by not upholding historic moral progress.
These words !!! How pertinent and timely would they be, pronounced by different Arab leaders and their regimes in power, to all of the uprising populations and youth in their countries. In every one of the Arab countries, Libya Syria and Yemen, Bahrain Jordan and Morocco, even the very repressive kingdom of Saudi Arabia, just a few with ongoing violence and total disdain from the rulers toward their own populations seeking freedom, dignity and well deserved change.
Those of us who live in the developed world are becoming increasingly disturbed by this capacity to do one another harm. We are less tolerant of violence and the behaviour of repressive regimes toward their uprising populations. We are totally uncomfortable with ideologies that demonise whole populations, justifying their abuse or outright destruction.
BUT the evidence of change is undeniable. Most readers will have viewed pictures and documentaries of brutal violence, in which whole towns turned out, as though for a carnival, only to demand more freedom and dignity. To be brutally repressed.
One would have hoped for a different response from the different leaders and regimes in all or most countries, I would have surely hoped for a very different response and approach from the young Syrian leader, any dialogue trying to understand and accommodate would have been smarter and by far more fulfilling, than repeating the same rituals of brutal killings, exercised by his predecessor decades ago, or by his contemporary friends in Libya and Yemen.
The history of these Arab countries will become even more annoying and difficult to contemplate, and future generations will marvel at the ways that we, too, failed in our commitments to the common good of these populations. We will embarrass our descendants by not upholding historic moral progress.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
THE ARAB REVOLTS THROUGH HANNAH ARENDT'S EYES
Arendt is well known for her celebration of "ACTION". She speaks of action as "the one miracle-working faculty of man" Pointing out that in human affairs it is actually quite reasonable to expect the unexpected,and that new beginnings cannot be ruled out even when society seems locked in stagnation or set on an obstinate course.
Since the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts took place, her observation on the unpredictability of politics have been strikingly confirmed, not least by the collapse of both regimes, but also by the ongoing revolts in Yemen, Bahrain, and other places, especially the revolt in Libya and the ensuing bloody events and scenes from that country, all are Arendtian scenes par excellence. Illustrating her account of how power can spring up as if from nowhere when people begin to "act in concert" and can die down unexpectedly from apparently powerful regimes.
But if her analysis of action is a message of hope in dark times, it also carries warnings. For the other side of that miraculous unpredictability of action is lack of control over its effects. Action sets things in motion, and one cannot foresee even the effects of one's own initiatives, let alone control what happens when they are entangled with other people's initiatives in the public arena. Action is therefore deeply frustrating, for its results can turn out to be quite different from what the actor intended.
But apart from the physical difficulties of gaining control over the situation that's set off by action of the masses, she also reminds us of the political problems caused by plurality itself.
In principle, if we can all agree to work together we can exercise great power; but agreement between plural persons is hard to achieve, and never safe from the disruptive initiatives of further actors.
As we stand at the threshold of a new millennium, the one safe prediction we can make is that, despite the continuation of processes already in motion in the Arab world, the open future will become an arena for countless human initiatives that are beyond our present imagination.
Since the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts took place, her observation on the unpredictability of politics have been strikingly confirmed, not least by the collapse of both regimes, but also by the ongoing revolts in Yemen, Bahrain, and other places, especially the revolt in Libya and the ensuing bloody events and scenes from that country, all are Arendtian scenes par excellence. Illustrating her account of how power can spring up as if from nowhere when people begin to "act in concert" and can die down unexpectedly from apparently powerful regimes.
But if her analysis of action is a message of hope in dark times, it also carries warnings. For the other side of that miraculous unpredictability of action is lack of control over its effects. Action sets things in motion, and one cannot foresee even the effects of one's own initiatives, let alone control what happens when they are entangled with other people's initiatives in the public arena. Action is therefore deeply frustrating, for its results can turn out to be quite different from what the actor intended.
But apart from the physical difficulties of gaining control over the situation that's set off by action of the masses, she also reminds us of the political problems caused by plurality itself.
In principle, if we can all agree to work together we can exercise great power; but agreement between plural persons is hard to achieve, and never safe from the disruptive initiatives of further actors.
As we stand at the threshold of a new millennium, the one safe prediction we can make is that, despite the continuation of processes already in motion in the Arab world, the open future will become an arena for countless human initiatives that are beyond our present imagination.
Monday, January 10, 2011
PROFANE !!!
The word profane in the English language, as in French and most Latin languages, has a wide circulation and usage and is misused in many cases.The Oxford dictionary defines and explain the word as follows :
Profane. adj.1 not sacred; secular. 2 a- irreverent; blasphemous. b- vulgar; obscene. v.tr. 1 treat (a sacred thing) with irreverence or disregard. 2 violate or pollute ( something entitled to respect), profanation n. profane'ly adj. profan'er n.
Adj.1 nonreligious,laic,lay,nonclerical,temporal,unsanctified,unconsecrated,unhallowed. 2 a- sacrilegious, idolatrous, irreligious, unbelieving, disbelieving, impious, godless, b- impure, unclean, dirty, filthy, smutty, foul, foulmouthed, coarse, uncouth, rude, low, bawdy. Verb. debase, contaminate, taint, vitiate, degrade, defile, desecrate, pervert.
profanity : 1 n. profane act; 2 profane language; blasphemy, see 1 sacrilege 2 obscenity, cursing, swearing, foul or bad language.
Notice here the mix and blending of two very different notions, the belief in god and the sacred, or should I say the non belief in god and his sacred on the one side, and the making and adding to the word, a variety of different low and base meanings, and degrading insults, perverting the profane rs.
In most languages words like profane had with time more meanings added to them than the words originally meant, with the sole object of brain washing users, that the questioning or negating of some or all of the godly and sacred is a dirty and degrading act, fit only to perverts.
Thanks for listening and salamat.
Profane. adj.1 not sacred; secular. 2 a- irreverent; blasphemous. b- vulgar; obscene. v.tr. 1 treat (a sacred thing) with irreverence or disregard. 2 violate or pollute ( something entitled to respect), profanation n. profane'ly adj. profan'er n.
Adj.1 nonreligious,laic,lay,nonclerical,temporal,unsanctified,unconsecrated,unhallowed. 2 a- sacrilegious, idolatrous, irreligious, unbelieving, disbelieving, impious, godless, b- impure, unclean, dirty, filthy, smutty, foul, foulmouthed, coarse, uncouth, rude, low, bawdy. Verb. debase, contaminate, taint, vitiate, degrade, defile, desecrate, pervert.
profanity : 1 n. profane act; 2 profane language; blasphemy, see 1 sacrilege 2 obscenity, cursing, swearing, foul or bad language.
Notice here the mix and blending of two very different notions, the belief in god and the sacred, or should I say the non belief in god and his sacred on the one side, and the making and adding to the word, a variety of different low and base meanings, and degrading insults, perverting the profane rs.
In most languages words like profane had with time more meanings added to them than the words originally meant, with the sole object of brain washing users, that the questioning or negating of some or all of the godly and sacred is a dirty and degrading act, fit only to perverts.
Thanks for listening and salamat.
Monday, December 27, 2010
TOO MANY GODS !!!
Plato's dialog EUTHYPHRO. recall that a contradiction exists when the speaker makes two statements both of which cannot be true at the same time. Socrates asks Euthyphro : What is the meaning of the term "piety"? Euthyphro answers that an act is pious when the gods approve of it and impious when the gods disapprove of it. Socrates then points out to Euthyphro that since there are many gods (in the Greek pantheon) and since some gods will approve of an act and some gods will disapprove of the same act,then the same act will be both approved and disapproved at the same time.Therefore, if we use Euthyphro's definition of piety, the same act will be both pious and impious at the same time. Euthyphro, clearly, has contradicted himself.
WE live today in a small world of many gods, where no harmony exist between those many gods, on the contrary enmity and total disagreement is the rule. So every act is being nowadays, interpreted by any of the gods in a different way making some acts pious and some other impious.
One example lies in the way most Americans view anyone with a notion of socialism, or worse; Marxism. It's hate with all it's derivatives that govern this relationship. but let's look into a model of analogies between Marxism and Christianity, I believe Bertrand Russel was the first to call attention to the parallels in his "history of Western philosophy :
To understand Marx psychologically, one should use the following dictionary:
Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The second Coming = The revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalist
The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth
Every god and every creed, has its sacred texts, its saints, its heretics, its elect, its holy city, if Marx was communism's messiah, Lenin was its Saint Paul.
in the previous analogy, the terms on the left give the emotional content of the terms on the right. We are almost in unity of thought and meanings, yet so different when our different gods look at them. Many Muslims nowadays have their own god approving and disapproving so many acts, rendering some acts pious and some impious, some of these pious acts are indeed terribly crazy and barbaric. And some other gods are joining the game lovingly.
Simply too many gods.
Salamat.
WE live today in a small world of many gods, where no harmony exist between those many gods, on the contrary enmity and total disagreement is the rule. So every act is being nowadays, interpreted by any of the gods in a different way making some acts pious and some other impious.
One example lies in the way most Americans view anyone with a notion of socialism, or worse; Marxism. It's hate with all it's derivatives that govern this relationship. but let's look into a model of analogies between Marxism and Christianity, I believe Bertrand Russel was the first to call attention to the parallels in his "history of Western philosophy :
To understand Marx psychologically, one should use the following dictionary:
Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The second Coming = The revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalist
The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth
Every god and every creed, has its sacred texts, its saints, its heretics, its elect, its holy city, if Marx was communism's messiah, Lenin was its Saint Paul.
in the previous analogy, the terms on the left give the emotional content of the terms on the right. We are almost in unity of thought and meanings, yet so different when our different gods look at them. Many Muslims nowadays have their own god approving and disapproving so many acts, rendering some acts pious and some impious, some of these pious acts are indeed terribly crazy and barbaric. And some other gods are joining the game lovingly.
Simply too many gods.
Salamat.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
"ASSABIYAH"
This Arabic word means ; tribal solidarity, or social adhesion. Its meaning here is looked at from a perspective of societal dynamics and their rules of evolution.
The power-base of each state depends on its "assabiyah" or group solidarity based on family and small communities ties and lineage which is to be found mostly among new migrating people and emerging nations.
The power of each "assabiyah" extends basically to four generations. The first generation, driven by tribal expansionism or religious mission, would conquer the settled nations and establish a powerful state.
The second generation would consolidate and expand the state and build its institutions and would still enjoy strong attachment to its"assabiyah" due to its close connection with an original migrating tribal ethos.
The third generation would enjoy the prosperity of the state and provide support for arts, sciences, and culture. But would have less attachment to their "assabiyah" as a result of their urban upbringing.
The fourth generation would be the one to waste the achievements of their ancestors. Confined to a life of palace machinations and the pursuit of material gratification.
This generation would be mostly concerned with raising money to spend on their welfare and the preservation of their thrones. Which would lead to an intensification of the tax burden on the populace and the erosion of existing social welfare systems, the resulting injustices would lead to the dissolution of the state and the annihilation of its civilisation, and make it vulnerable to invasions of new ideas and social behavioral patterns from other migrating groups, the cycle then starts anew.
Are we at these times witnessing the completion of a full cycle in many places of our world ?? America, Lebanon, many of the rich golf emirates to name a few.
The core idea comes originally from the philosopher Ibn Khaldoun(1332-1406) who inspired the actual thought and opinion, salamat.
The power-base of each state depends on its "assabiyah" or group solidarity based on family and small communities ties and lineage which is to be found mostly among new migrating people and emerging nations.
The power of each "assabiyah" extends basically to four generations. The first generation, driven by tribal expansionism or religious mission, would conquer the settled nations and establish a powerful state.
The second generation would consolidate and expand the state and build its institutions and would still enjoy strong attachment to its"assabiyah" due to its close connection with an original migrating tribal ethos.
The third generation would enjoy the prosperity of the state and provide support for arts, sciences, and culture. But would have less attachment to their "assabiyah" as a result of their urban upbringing.
The fourth generation would be the one to waste the achievements of their ancestors. Confined to a life of palace machinations and the pursuit of material gratification.
This generation would be mostly concerned with raising money to spend on their welfare and the preservation of their thrones. Which would lead to an intensification of the tax burden on the populace and the erosion of existing social welfare systems, the resulting injustices would lead to the dissolution of the state and the annihilation of its civilisation, and make it vulnerable to invasions of new ideas and social behavioral patterns from other migrating groups, the cycle then starts anew.
Are we at these times witnessing the completion of a full cycle in many places of our world ?? America, Lebanon, many of the rich golf emirates to name a few.
The core idea comes originally from the philosopher Ibn Khaldoun(1332-1406) who inspired the actual thought and opinion, salamat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)