We might wish to appear fair and equitable to others, but subconsciously, our reactions and favours are directed by an innate sense of aesthetic. It is true that people do judge a book by its cover, at least where first impressions go. Yet, in that flitting second, first impressions can actually open or close the doors to getting beyond the first acquaintance, to friendship, love and maybe marriages for some. Not everyone has the chance to get reacquainted with a person again and again under different circumstances that might allow them to see beyond the polished/raw veneer.
It might be true that a good-looking man or woman has more admirers, some even from early in life. It is especially true for a woman, for it gets people to notice her. Perhaps it has to do with how civilisation has for centuries celebrated the beauty of the female form and appearance (they did do that with the male form, though it was more on the beauty of a prepubscent or teenaged boy). All the better if she has both beauty and brains, and knows how to work these to her advantage. If she has strong personal values and/or is well brought up, she will not allow all the attention to go into her head. She has to not allow her beauty to stop her from achieving her dreams of success based on pure ability, rather than take the easy way out by merely capitalising on her looks. While many people feel that a beauty with brains has it going for her in the world (and there is no denying she does), it takes a strong character, a character with depth, to remain focus on her ambitions, especially if the ambition has nothing to do with how she looks.
How does it fare then for the less attractive counterpart, and I mean physical attractiveness. She might have strong inner beauty, intelligence and talents, and a great personality, but might not attract as many admirers at first glance. However, unlike the admirers of a natural beauty, the admirers of the less naturally physically beautiful woman are more likely to be admirable creatures, one who can appreciate the person of substance, one who is likely to be more interesting and more worthy of the strong bonds of friendship. I do not include here admirers who have reached the penultimate of desperation and hence would go for any woman that comes his way. These are not true admirers, but one who fashions his admiration based on personal calculations.
The world is one of superficialities, and a person less attractively made are bound to be faced with frustrations, and perhaps insults by less sensitive creature. She might be made to feel that she is too fat, too spotty, too flat, too ugly, too everything. Yet, to be able to rise above that shows a person of pure strength. I admit to that I have my own biases, that I too, like everyone else, gets drawn to beauty. Many people have what I would call the "ugly thermometer", where they would assign a threshold to how much physical unattractiveness they will accept in a potential partner. It does take a special person to look beyond physical deformities to appreciate the person within. And this is hard to do, and I am embarass to say that I too have such prejudices many a times, unthinkingly. But let no one despair, for such a thermometer is subjective from person to person. However, it is unfortunate that there lies no instrument to measure inner beauty.
Therefore, great is the man who can appreciate the woman for all that she is worth, and to know when he has landed himself a treasure far above rubies, and to show her his appreciation in ways that would move her. And the same goes for the woman who can appreciate the man beyond his stature, his brains, his financial successes and looks. While looks might be less important to a woman up to a certain degree, they too are guilty of making judgemental measurements of their partners.
The same goes for men and women who are attracted to the members of their sex, though there might be slight differences in terms of preference and attraction. Bear in mind that I am talking about two ends of the spectrum, one who is acknowledged (almost universally) to be beautiful and one who is known to be not so. I have yet to talk about the average looking person, and those whose looks might be more subjectively defined.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Is Malaysia becoming its own caricature?
I find it hard to understand why should NST be issued a show cause letter just because it published this little comic satire of Wiley Miller. It seems that we never learn from history, but just go on and on repeating the same mistakes of our forefathers (unfortunately for us, the leaders of today are spawns of those very same forefathers). Read the rest of the explanation on NST here. I do not believe that NST need to apologise and I think it is mendacious for the Informations Minister to arm-twist it into doing so.
In many ways, NST has become more interesting and newsworthy in the last few months, and it is sad if it has to regress back to a former shadow of its recent past.
I tried looking for the cartoon in the Feb 20th issue of NST's Life&Times but failed to locate it. Can someone tell me whether it might had been in the 13th Feb issue?
Strictly speaking, I think Malaysians in general lack the ability to understand satire, and it kinda shows how we have not moved much, intellectually, from our mud-racking days.
Fathi Omar Aris does an interesting dissection of this issue in his latest blog entry.
In many ways, NST has become more interesting and newsworthy in the last few months, and it is sad if it has to regress back to a former shadow of its recent past.
I tried looking for the cartoon in the Feb 20th issue of NST's Life&Times but failed to locate it. Can someone tell me whether it might had been in the 13th Feb issue?
Strictly speaking, I think Malaysians in general lack the ability to understand satire, and it kinda shows how we have not moved much, intellectually, from our mud-racking days.
Fathi Omar Aris does an interesting dissection of this issue in his latest blog entry.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
What maketh an intellectual - santai salon
This time around, we were at Prof SHA's house, enjoying the delights of a salon atmosphere with dimmed lights and black coffee (for the record, I am not really a coffee person but it was good enough coffee nevertheless).
The night started off slowly, with discussions about the current issues of the day, which took a detour into the sociology of cults, back into the time of the Second World War and the building and detonation of the A-Bomb (though I should call it H-Bomb since it is made with hydrogen) and back to the current conditions of the day. However, when I asked him why some of the most intelligent and highly educated people would propagate atrocities on behalf of a cult they've joined (and why did they join in the first place), he answered that it has to do with these so called "intellectuals" being merely technicians. Too bad we didn't get to go deeper into the sociology of it. Perhaps another time. Our talk remained pretty light, until Fathi posed to him a question on how he sees Malaysia as having developed, intellectually in the 30 years since the writing of his book "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" and that began the second half of the evening.
SHA lamented the fact that there are no structure or system that nurtures and encourages the growth of intellectual interest in Malaysia. Intellectual leadership from most academics/lecturers to their students are limited to helping them pass exams (in most instances). Many academics are not too concerned with intellectual pursuits, preferring to centre their attention on the technicalities of their specialisation. Bureaucracy is emphasised and flexibility of thought not encouraged. An important fact that he pointed out is that the lack of intellectual integrity and conviction is what led to many academics to being easily cowed through the blatant use of power (read my post about the Atilla)
He did talk quite a bit about his experience as an administrative leader at UM but I will not go into that.Maybe I'll bring it out in another post. However, what he said about the need for academics and scientist to engage with society, and to relate their work to society, is something that is being practised more and more today, though unfortunately in Malaysia, only by social scientists and humanities scholars. What happened to the natural scientists? And what about those in professional fields like business, finance, engineering, medicine, etc? Many of them do not seem to engage with communities beyond that of their own specialisation. The good prof believes that while nature might have a role to play in creating an intellectual, nurture is just as important, and thus the importance of education and the encouragement towards critical inquiry and creative thinking. What do these latter two phrases mean? Well, we might examine them in subsequent book discussions.
As many people had pointed out, and so did the prof now, Indonesia as a much more intellectual discourse. It might have to do with history, has to do with their revolutionary spirit in the fight for independence. The same goes for the Philippines. Perhaps the fact that Malaysia has always get things easy (compared to its neighbours) has made its people more complacent and mentally lazy. Perhaps they think that being in a country that gives them ready access to English books (though in no way am I comparing us to first world English-speaking countries), they are therefore cultured and cultivated, without understanding what these two words mean.
In the third half of the discussion, he was asked about his opinion on what constitutes Islamic Literature (with capital L). The answer was interesting. Most of us (myself included) are often quick to give narrow categorisation on particular types of Literature, and this is no different with Islamic Literature. Many great literatures of the world that talks about the universal values of humanity, of love, kindness, goodness, generosity and all that is considered positive traits of a human being, can be classed as Islamic Literature. Even literature that discusses human depravity and evil can be constitute as such, as long as such literature do not promote these values. If you want to know what values I mean, just go back to the respective religions of the Book. Other religions do not have such wholescale control over the lives of their adherents as do Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Though I stand corrected. (: One person pointed out how the hegemonic imposition of certain formulas into what is Islamic Literature had narrowed down the area of its reach drastically. And this could be true for other religions. Perhaps what can be called Islamic Literature can also be called Christian Literature. Unless one wishes to argue from the point of doctrines.
The good prof did give a number of very old reference to out-of-print magazines which contain some of his locally published writings. I will write more about them later once I have the time to dig them up.
Many are other things were talked about but those are not the main ideas discussed so I will not post them here. What you are getting here is just a summary of what went on last night. (:
P.S. This concludes our discussion of the issues surrounding the book "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" (though some of the ideas might come up again in future discussions of other works). Watch the news and updates blog for announcement on the next book discussion in March. We might and would include some thinkers and authors from our region, though it would be a great challenge to get copies of their books, due to the nature of the publishing industry in this region.
The night started off slowly, with discussions about the current issues of the day, which took a detour into the sociology of cults, back into the time of the Second World War and the building and detonation of the A-Bomb (though I should call it H-Bomb since it is made with hydrogen) and back to the current conditions of the day. However, when I asked him why some of the most intelligent and highly educated people would propagate atrocities on behalf of a cult they've joined (and why did they join in the first place), he answered that it has to do with these so called "intellectuals" being merely technicians. Too bad we didn't get to go deeper into the sociology of it. Perhaps another time. Our talk remained pretty light, until Fathi posed to him a question on how he sees Malaysia as having developed, intellectually in the 30 years since the writing of his book "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" and that began the second half of the evening.
SHA lamented the fact that there are no structure or system that nurtures and encourages the growth of intellectual interest in Malaysia. Intellectual leadership from most academics/lecturers to their students are limited to helping them pass exams (in most instances). Many academics are not too concerned with intellectual pursuits, preferring to centre their attention on the technicalities of their specialisation. Bureaucracy is emphasised and flexibility of thought not encouraged. An important fact that he pointed out is that the lack of intellectual integrity and conviction is what led to many academics to being easily cowed through the blatant use of power (read my post about the Atilla)
He did talk quite a bit about his experience as an administrative leader at UM but I will not go into that.Maybe I'll bring it out in another post. However, what he said about the need for academics and scientist to engage with society, and to relate their work to society, is something that is being practised more and more today, though unfortunately in Malaysia, only by social scientists and humanities scholars. What happened to the natural scientists? And what about those in professional fields like business, finance, engineering, medicine, etc? Many of them do not seem to engage with communities beyond that of their own specialisation. The good prof believes that while nature might have a role to play in creating an intellectual, nurture is just as important, and thus the importance of education and the encouragement towards critical inquiry and creative thinking. What do these latter two phrases mean? Well, we might examine them in subsequent book discussions.
As many people had pointed out, and so did the prof now, Indonesia as a much more intellectual discourse. It might have to do with history, has to do with their revolutionary spirit in the fight for independence. The same goes for the Philippines. Perhaps the fact that Malaysia has always get things easy (compared to its neighbours) has made its people more complacent and mentally lazy. Perhaps they think that being in a country that gives them ready access to English books (though in no way am I comparing us to first world English-speaking countries), they are therefore cultured and cultivated, without understanding what these two words mean.
In the third half of the discussion, he was asked about his opinion on what constitutes Islamic Literature (with capital L). The answer was interesting. Most of us (myself included) are often quick to give narrow categorisation on particular types of Literature, and this is no different with Islamic Literature. Many great literatures of the world that talks about the universal values of humanity, of love, kindness, goodness, generosity and all that is considered positive traits of a human being, can be classed as Islamic Literature. Even literature that discusses human depravity and evil can be constitute as such, as long as such literature do not promote these values. If you want to know what values I mean, just go back to the respective religions of the Book. Other religions do not have such wholescale control over the lives of their adherents as do Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Though I stand corrected. (: One person pointed out how the hegemonic imposition of certain formulas into what is Islamic Literature had narrowed down the area of its reach drastically. And this could be true for other religions. Perhaps what can be called Islamic Literature can also be called Christian Literature. Unless one wishes to argue from the point of doctrines.
The good prof did give a number of very old reference to out-of-print magazines which contain some of his locally published writings. I will write more about them later once I have the time to dig them up.
Many are other things were talked about but those are not the main ideas discussed so I will not post them here. What you are getting here is just a summary of what went on last night. (:
P.S. This concludes our discussion of the issues surrounding the book "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" (though some of the ideas might come up again in future discussions of other works). Watch the news and updates blog for announcement on the next book discussion in March. We might and would include some thinkers and authors from our region, though it would be a great challenge to get copies of their books, due to the nature of the publishing industry in this region.
Friday, February 17, 2006
What maketh an intellectual? - according to SHA and the rest of us
My friends and I had an interesting discussion yesterday. Lots of things were said and thrown about. There were talks of lack of intellectual engagement in this country, barring repressive laws. The idea that we are dry of ideas, and intellectual traditions. That our medium of intellectual exchange is non-existent, whether in the mass media or in books. Or even in Malaysian blogs. That most NGOs and political parties work on the dearth of real ideas. And the idea that we are mostly secondhanders, struggling to make sense of of principles that we may never grasp in this lifetime, or which we may grasp and let go many times over. And that S.H. Alatas is a socialist at heart :P
Oh yeah, I brought up the idea of selective intellectualism in some regimes (using the example of the former USSR where materialism is allowed to propagate but opposing forms of philosophy are repressed) and another friend asked "Are intellectuals a chance of nature or a product of nurture"?
And, to create an inquiring society, what call for action fo we need?
1. Space?
2. Conflict?
3. Engagement with conflict?
4. Critical mind?
And how does one define all those four without going into the chicken and egg conundrum?
I think another vital aspect that one has forgotten to include is that different peoples have different ways of working within groups/structures even when it comes to intellectual work, and what works for one group may not work for the other. And the most vital part, that maybe only came in fleetingly in the end, is how class wars now begin to come into play in this struggle for different opinions.
All this in the name of "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" .
And, should an intellectual be a person who has higher moral standards/ higher level of morality than the rest of us? And whose and what morality (this is subjective to whether you believe in God and absolute morality or not) :D
A bientot
P.S. Comments welcomed.
Oh yeah, I brought up the idea of selective intellectualism in some regimes (using the example of the former USSR where materialism is allowed to propagate but opposing forms of philosophy are repressed) and another friend asked "Are intellectuals a chance of nature or a product of nurture"?
And, to create an inquiring society, what call for action fo we need?
1. Space?
2. Conflict?
3. Engagement with conflict?
4. Critical mind?
And how does one define all those four without going into the chicken and egg conundrum?
I think another vital aspect that one has forgotten to include is that different peoples have different ways of working within groups/structures even when it comes to intellectual work, and what works for one group may not work for the other. And the most vital part, that maybe only came in fleetingly in the end, is how class wars now begin to come into play in this struggle for different opinions.
All this in the name of "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" .
And, should an intellectual be a person who has higher moral standards/ higher level of morality than the rest of us? And whose and what morality (this is subjective to whether you believe in God and absolute morality or not) :D
A bientot
P.S. Comments welcomed.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Should it be this? Why not that?
Here is what I feel is a well-written, balanced report on the cartoons and the furore it sparked.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/10/news/cartoons.php
Here is from today
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/15/news/union.php
I suppose when one talks about emotional issues, it is hard to maintain a clear mind.
How far can satire go, and should there be an arbitrary decision on what is sacred and profane?
I don't think this question will ever be answered. But many recent riots, sparked off unfortunately in the densely populated immigrant section of Western Europe, have made current administrations pay attention to the conditions of today's polity. And recent events have made me requestion the concept of religion, and why this religion and not the other. I see a new crisis coming up :D
On a lighter note, it is so 'on' to be an applied scientist today :D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1709337,00.html
Damn, why did I switch to the fickle world of advertising and branding, where qualifications and formal education are less important (though knowledge IS a big asset, acquired which way) than your ability to maneuvre the world of hard-knocks, put up with corporate jinks (fickle-minded and dense authorities) and to negotiate deals. Even a PhD without the necessary survival skills and EQ (+ creative talent) will drown in this vast ocean.
Academia seems so much more of an ideal in comparison (barring the campus political back-biting and power-play), but should I ever enter it, I hope that I can also share "real-life" with them, from the horse's mouth.
Both words require smarts, and in today's highly commertical world, I doubt that a lack of industrial experience will do a book-centred academic much good, even if you majored in Egyptology or Celtic Studies, or the linguistic cognition of Trobiander Indians. (:
Time to rethink my "higher-education".
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/10/news/cartoons.php
Here is from today
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/15/news/union.php
I suppose when one talks about emotional issues, it is hard to maintain a clear mind.
How far can satire go, and should there be an arbitrary decision on what is sacred and profane?
I don't think this question will ever be answered. But many recent riots, sparked off unfortunately in the densely populated immigrant section of Western Europe, have made current administrations pay attention to the conditions of today's polity. And recent events have made me requestion the concept of religion, and why this religion and not the other. I see a new crisis coming up :D
On a lighter note, it is so 'on' to be an applied scientist today :D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1709337,00.html
Damn, why did I switch to the fickle world of advertising and branding, where qualifications and formal education are less important (though knowledge IS a big asset, acquired which way) than your ability to maneuvre the world of hard-knocks, put up with corporate jinks (fickle-minded and dense authorities) and to negotiate deals. Even a PhD without the necessary survival skills and EQ (+ creative talent) will drown in this vast ocean.
Academia seems so much more of an ideal in comparison (barring the campus political back-biting and power-play), but should I ever enter it, I hope that I can also share "real-life" with them, from the horse's mouth.
Both words require smarts, and in today's highly commertical world, I doubt that a lack of industrial experience will do a book-centred academic much good, even if you majored in Egyptology or Celtic Studies, or the linguistic cognition of Trobiander Indians. (:
Time to rethink my "higher-education".
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Valentine's Day 2006: Some Vignettes
Love does not begin and end the way we seem to think it does. Love is a battle, love is a war; love is a growing up.
~ James A. Baldwin
1.
It has gone past midnight, the curfew relegated to the unconscious area of our minds. We sat shoulder-to-shoulder on the yet to be-opened-flyover, the car behind us. For the first time, I was acquainted with the inner-life of this boy, this teenager on the verge of adulthood. He spoke more than I did. He told me his dreams, his ideals, what he had done in the past. I asked if he had ever confided in his best pals the way he had to me. He said he never did. We boys do not engage in such conversations, said he. I looked at him, this young man considered to be the ideal of manhood. Smart and brawny. Popular. We were both staring down at the motorway, at the zooming cars below us. He brought food and drinks, which he shared with me. We, two, small-town teenagers, exchanging intimacies in the darkness of a yet-to-be-opened public area. Daring of us, and illegal in the eyes of the law. There were more things I wished he had told me that night, but it did not happen, as the spell was broken by the police. I shuddered at the thought, as mother would not be too pleased to be woken, after I had deliberately broken the curfew. However, the magic of that night was gone. A year later, we were almost strangers.
2.
We stood under the dusky sky, looking at the breaking waves, barely perceptible in the dimly lit area. We set up the camera and tripod to catch the full moon, and maybe a few constellations. We had to leave the camera for maximum exposure, and while waiting, we surveyed the darkness around us. We spoke, I do not remember of what. Did we touch? It escaped me. The next morning, we were up early to see the orange globe as it rose from the horizon. We took pictures once again, and the pictures came out beautifully. We also took pictures of the junks and fishing boats that were coming in with the catch of the day. We stood under the wooden pavilion, waiting for breakfast to come in. This time I remembered that we could had held on to each other, and to the camera. And the others arrived to join us for breakfast. The magic was soon lost. Few months after, we were almost strangers, a broken version of the pictures we took together.
3.
Our acquaintance was hardly usual, and under the usual circumstances, might had never arisen. We had many-shared loves, and shared-disgusts. We were alike yet so different from the other. We seldom met, yet our hearts were knitted together, sometimes sundered by unknown forces. We shared many a lonely time apart, and spent some of the most mundane hours together. Our passions were strong yet unnoticeable by others, our love mostly unspoken, then, now and thereafter, even as we engaged in long conversations. In my most conventional moments, I've dreamt of a a life together with love, a beautiful wedding to enshrine it all. Perhaps it might never come, not ever in this lifetime. The magic had begun early, and had had many fleeting moments. The first touch, the first kiss, the first of it all. Maybe the first instance wasn't all that important. The memories were what made it as it was.
Epilogue
Perhaps, the essence that defines love is made all the stronger by the lost of possibilities, of former hopes and the realisation of irrational passions.
Dans nom รข l'amour, mon ami
Happy Valentine's to each and every one of my readers.
~ James A. Baldwin
1.
It has gone past midnight, the curfew relegated to the unconscious area of our minds. We sat shoulder-to-shoulder on the yet to be-opened-flyover, the car behind us. For the first time, I was acquainted with the inner-life of this boy, this teenager on the verge of adulthood. He spoke more than I did. He told me his dreams, his ideals, what he had done in the past. I asked if he had ever confided in his best pals the way he had to me. He said he never did. We boys do not engage in such conversations, said he. I looked at him, this young man considered to be the ideal of manhood. Smart and brawny. Popular. We were both staring down at the motorway, at the zooming cars below us. He brought food and drinks, which he shared with me. We, two, small-town teenagers, exchanging intimacies in the darkness of a yet-to-be-opened public area. Daring of us, and illegal in the eyes of the law. There were more things I wished he had told me that night, but it did not happen, as the spell was broken by the police. I shuddered at the thought, as mother would not be too pleased to be woken, after I had deliberately broken the curfew. However, the magic of that night was gone. A year later, we were almost strangers.
2.
We stood under the dusky sky, looking at the breaking waves, barely perceptible in the dimly lit area. We set up the camera and tripod to catch the full moon, and maybe a few constellations. We had to leave the camera for maximum exposure, and while waiting, we surveyed the darkness around us. We spoke, I do not remember of what. Did we touch? It escaped me. The next morning, we were up early to see the orange globe as it rose from the horizon. We took pictures once again, and the pictures came out beautifully. We also took pictures of the junks and fishing boats that were coming in with the catch of the day. We stood under the wooden pavilion, waiting for breakfast to come in. This time I remembered that we could had held on to each other, and to the camera. And the others arrived to join us for breakfast. The magic was soon lost. Few months after, we were almost strangers, a broken version of the pictures we took together.
3.
Our acquaintance was hardly usual, and under the usual circumstances, might had never arisen. We had many-shared loves, and shared-disgusts. We were alike yet so different from the other. We seldom met, yet our hearts were knitted together, sometimes sundered by unknown forces. We shared many a lonely time apart, and spent some of the most mundane hours together. Our passions were strong yet unnoticeable by others, our love mostly unspoken, then, now and thereafter, even as we engaged in long conversations. In my most conventional moments, I've dreamt of a a life together with love, a beautiful wedding to enshrine it all. Perhaps it might never come, not ever in this lifetime. The magic had begun early, and had had many fleeting moments. The first touch, the first kiss, the first of it all. Maybe the first instance wasn't all that important. The memories were what made it as it was.
Epilogue
Perhaps, the essence that defines love is made all the stronger by the lost of possibilities, of former hopes and the realisation of irrational passions.
Dans nom รข l'amour, mon ami
Happy Valentine's to each and every one of my readers.
Note from a postcard 2 (first published in June 2005, two days after the first postcard)
Maria sat behind, oblivious to the battling couple trying to navigate the traffic. A cherubic child sat next to her, intermittently looking out of the window, and at her. Maria caught her glance when looking up from her mobile. Maria smiled back at her.
The four of them got to the cafe safely, after tension, as the driver had difficulties in finding his bearings, whilst his partner tried to impart his wisdom on the city's maze.
The waiter took their order. The atmosphere had relaxed. They were now all chatting amiably. Maria exchanged banter with the couple, and the child. She tried to be bright and witty, but her mind is floating elsewhere. Why did he refuse to come?
They discussed their plans, their lives and their ideals. One of the couple worked for an NGO, the other was in publishing. Maria asked one of the couple, the one who was driving. How was he? He looked at her evenly. The same.
Did he ever mention me?
Maria sat behind, oblivious to the arguing couple in front trying to navigate the traffic. A cherubic child sat next to her, intermittently looking out of the window, and at her. Maria caught her glance when looking up from her mobile. They smiled at each other.
The four of them got to the cafe safely, after much tension, as the driver had difficulties with his bearings whilst his partner tried to impart his wisdom on the city's maze.
The waiter took their order. The atmosphere had relaxed. They were now all chatting amiably. Maria exchanged banter with the couple, and the child. She tried to be bright and witty, but her mind is floating elsewhere. Why did he refuse to come?
They discussed their plans, their lives and their ideals. One of the couple worked for an NGO, the other was in publishing. Maria asked one of the couple, the one who was driving. How was he? He looked at her evenly. The same.
Did he ever mention me?
No.
Dinner came to an end after an hour. Maria went with the couple and child back into the car. She looked again at her mobile. The call never came. She sat back as they drove to their next destination.
From the corner of her eye, Maria noticed that the child was eyeing her, with a look that she imagined must meant empathy.
The four of them got to the cafe safely, after tension, as the driver had difficulties in finding his bearings, whilst his partner tried to impart his wisdom on the city's maze.
The waiter took their order. The atmosphere had relaxed. They were now all chatting amiably. Maria exchanged banter with the couple, and the child. She tried to be bright and witty, but her mind is floating elsewhere. Why did he refuse to come?
They discussed their plans, their lives and their ideals. One of the couple worked for an NGO, the other was in publishing. Maria asked one of the couple, the one who was driving. How was he? He looked at her evenly. The same.
Did he ever mention me?
Maria sat behind, oblivious to the arguing couple in front trying to navigate the traffic. A cherubic child sat next to her, intermittently looking out of the window, and at her. Maria caught her glance when looking up from her mobile. They smiled at each other.
The four of them got to the cafe safely, after much tension, as the driver had difficulties with his bearings whilst his partner tried to impart his wisdom on the city's maze.
The waiter took their order. The atmosphere had relaxed. They were now all chatting amiably. Maria exchanged banter with the couple, and the child. She tried to be bright and witty, but her mind is floating elsewhere. Why did he refuse to come?
They discussed their plans, their lives and their ideals. One of the couple worked for an NGO, the other was in publishing. Maria asked one of the couple, the one who was driving. How was he? He looked at her evenly. The same.
Did he ever mention me?
No.
Dinner came to an end after an hour. Maria went with the couple and child back into the car. She looked again at her mobile. The call never came. She sat back as they drove to their next destination.
From the corner of her eye, Maria noticed that the child was eyeing her, with a look that she imagined must meant empathy.
Note from a postcard 1 (first published in June 2005)
He sat next to me, holding my hand and bag. I looked at his face. It held an imperceptible pensiveness. He looked at me and smiled in a way that only those who understood would see it as a smile. He held his lips closed to my temple as he pulled me towards him.
I looked out of the dew covered pane as we whizzed past flat landscapes, highways and scatterings of narrow houses. I touched the cold glass, feeling the frosty tingle through my fingers. The world looked sober. I felt the warmness of his palm as he squeezes my hand nearest to him. I savoured an amniotic coziness that must soon be abruptly ended.
In the swirl of diembodied voices, omniscient clocks, people and bags, we came to a halt at our destination. We took a trolley and started looking for the counter. I noticed a dog in a leash trotting obediently behind a lady in a coat, perhaps on their way to greet someone who had just arrived. Everything was a whirl but festivity was in the air. Bags were taken away. In return, I held a pass.
We went for breakfast, our last meal together, knowing that oceans will soon separate us. I took in his liquid eyes, long lashes and gorgeous lips. We chatted amiably, wanting in vain to ignore that which was then impatient in the performance of its duty.
A long queue met us at the entrance that stood as a hatchet between loved ones, those who were leaving and those who were staying back. Some for a few days, some for a few weeks, some indefinitely.
He bade me adieu, not wanting to linger longer, having an appointment to keep, and wanting to be spared the painful parting. Before leaving, he whispered, "I love you" and kissed me on the lips, the first for that day. I looked at his back as he hurried away.
I looked out of the dew covered pane as we whizzed past flat landscapes, highways and scatterings of narrow houses. I touched the cold glass, feeling the frosty tingle through my fingers. The world looked sober. I felt the warmness of his palm as he squeezes my hand nearest to him. I savoured an amniotic coziness that must soon be abruptly ended.
In the swirl of diembodied voices, omniscient clocks, people and bags, we came to a halt at our destination. We took a trolley and started looking for the counter. I noticed a dog in a leash trotting obediently behind a lady in a coat, perhaps on their way to greet someone who had just arrived. Everything was a whirl but festivity was in the air. Bags were taken away. In return, I held a pass.
We went for breakfast, our last meal together, knowing that oceans will soon separate us. I took in his liquid eyes, long lashes and gorgeous lips. We chatted amiably, wanting in vain to ignore that which was then impatient in the performance of its duty.
A long queue met us at the entrance that stood as a hatchet between loved ones, those who were leaving and those who were staying back. Some for a few days, some for a few weeks, some indefinitely.
He bade me adieu, not wanting to linger longer, having an appointment to keep, and wanting to be spared the painful parting. Before leaving, he whispered, "I love you" and kissed me on the lips, the first for that day. I looked at his back as he hurried away.
Friday, February 10, 2006
A night with a grand old man - Discussion and reading circle
In some ways, he reminds me of my late grandfather (I only ever knew one, as the other died before I was born). His smile was gentle, his voice soft (and sometimes hardly audible). Maybe age has taught him that the one that speaks the loudest is not always the most heard, whereas a person whose thoughts are sought after will have others straining to hear every enunciation.
Yesterday, my friends and I sat around the august Prof Dr Syed Hussein Alatas (thereafter known as SHA) in order to hear him speak on what brought about the inspiration for his book "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" (though apparently out of print, copies of it have been spotted at Borders Berjaya Times Square) and also to discuss some contents of the book (it being the first part of the a series of discussion on this book and others like it). The book has itself been translated into the two languages of the region, Indonesian Malay and Malaysian Malay. It was originally written in English and published in England, but it took Malaysia more than 30 years to finally recognise the importance of this work and to therefore translate it into the national language, and even then, it has sadly allowed it to go out of print (unless one can dig it out from some obscure warehouse/garage sale).
In this book, SHA writes about the appearance and existence of intellectuals within any society that prides itself in its progressiveness, as well as their function in such societies. Remember that this book was written in the 70s, which was a time of 'flower-power' and nascent period of cultural studies, when many institutions of higher learnings (and their byproducts) are underdoing changes in the curriculum and emphasis. When Malaysia was still a very young country and the PM was Tun Hussein Onn.
The gist of his argument is to differentiate the intellectuals from the intelligentsia. Just because you are well-educated (as in being well-read or well-qualified), have refined and cultured ways, speak many languages, is widely travel, and have an 'open' mind (and the latter case optional and subjected to debate), you do not automatically fall into the category of an intellectual. The one SHA terms an intellectual would be someone with profound and deep understanding of the philosophical conditions of humanity that surround his/her science and arts. Someone who can look at the bigger picture (while still paying attention to the details) and see what ails it. Perhaps an easier way of saying this is that an intellectual is someone who does not just work with existing data, but extrapolates from the data (and to collate all these extrapolations from various data) into a framework that helps him/her understand the greater issues and paradox of humanity, perhaps grappling with problems that seem to have no solution, or finding a solution that eludes even some of the most intelligent. The intelligentsia would be the sort of person I have just described above: one who might be a top-notch professional in his/her field, and possessing all the traits as suggested, but might not qualify for an intellectual. There is always some confusion in this two terms and I could do no better than to advocate that you read this book of the professor.
The book also talks about the bebals (where he gave a rather long list of, and from which he devoted an entire chapter to), which talks about a person incapable of contemplation or thoughtfulness, one who only follows the path of least resistance (even if the path is known to be inefficient and foolish)and someone who allows majority sentiments to dictate him/her, one who allows superstition and irrationality to dictate him/her as opposed to clear thinking.A bebal can be someone who is very good in his/her field of work/specialty, by could not apply holistic/intelligent thinking to every other aspect of his/her life. It could also be someone who does not understand the underpinning philosophy (reason/justification/functions) of his/her work and thus is only a blind follower of instructions, regulations and ideas without understanding why it is such as it is. He/she is afflicted with mental lassitude. When such conditions occur, he/she merely becomes an assembly worker within a conveyor belt of his/her career.
He also talks about the fool, one with difficulties to think through anything logically, one who is seemingly incapable of learning the art of learning (or maybe learning from mistakes), one who makes decisions that impact others but is unheedful of it and who does not recognise that he/she is a fool. He/she is reactive to situations and criticism but incapable of considered action. Or whose only form of considered action is to be reactive without heed to consequence.
Throughout the discussion we had with him, SHA gave many examples of what he considered to be foolish decisions made by authorities, as well as the lack holistic thinking when dealing with problems ranging from building highways and roads to combatting problems of traffic congestion, something of course that is not alien to us. He also mentions the problems of cultural lag in issues as wide as the planning and construction of society to the direction in which education has taken in this country. This was what he told me when I asked him why, inspite of the noble aim of the education philosophy of this country in its aim to create holistic individuals, have only succeeded in creating lopsided intelligentsia who while could be very good in their field, lack creative hindsigh and the ability to look at matters more philosophically. SHA did not say this, but if I were to expand from his arguments, I would say that it has to do with the strong emphasis on the material over the abstract. As SHA reiterated on what he had mentioned in his book more than 30 years ago, the inability of the country's planners to adjust to the intellectual framework that surrounds the development they have been so eager to wish on the country is that which has led to an unbalanced society, and hence unbalanced individuals. He explained that this is not only the case in developing societies, but has become more prominent even in developed societies like the America, where information overflow has led to over-saturation of the mind, and thus the inability to get back to the basics. This hints strongly on his disapproval on the direction which scholarship, monopolised by babyboomers academics, have taken, whom he felt were more interested in indoctrinating their students with their ideologies and ideas as opposed to leading them to basic questions. While I would disagree that this is the overall sense, since there are academics and students who are still interested in reading the origins of such ideas (though arguably a lot less than before, seeing the popularity of certain pseudo-intellectual polemic published and snapped out in this day and age) I agree that there is a cultural lag in still trying to make sense of the bombardment of information, and the fact that many are still trying to sieve knowledge from mere information.
When questioned as to whether there might be a need to adjust the Enlightenment traditions of the West to suit the peculiarities of our nation, I was a little disappointed that he did not address this question as thoroughly as he should, since most of the time were taken up in giving examples of what is considered as the insitutionalisation of moral depravity in the West. However he did give a rather good example of how the grandness of an intellectual idea can be contradicted by the living of his/her personal life. However, I will caution that this does not always detract from the nobility of the ideas. After all, cognitive dissonance to occur. And sometimes, simply, the person's philosophy might actually be a testimony of his personal beliefs, even if one might not see it as such from the way the ideas were put forth sophisticatedly. Case in point is Wittgenstein. Read him and read his biography and you will know what I mean. I suggest trying "Wittgenstein's Popper" as an introduction. While to a certain extend, it might be useful to keep in mind philosopher/intellectual's personal beliefs, there is such a time when we can gain and learn even when merely elucidating the person's philosophical arguments/ideas, realising then that the ideas are flawless and require continuous critique and refinement.
We also discussed the possibility of bebalisma as the reason for much superstition and supernatural beliefs in our society. While the discussion group is divided between over-rationalising and using rational/logic to explain supposedly 'supernatural' occurences, no real conclusion has been reached on this issue. SHA gave examples of some practises within the Malay culture one being the "minyak dagu" (oil retrieved from a fresh corpse) as an aphrodisiac charm and the use of dead babies to help in robberies or to ensure that one's husband does not stray. He cited examples of supposedly educated/rational individuals falling prey to such beliefs and superstition. He expounded on how the use of superstitious beliefs as a way of obtaining a child's obedience could end up producing bebalist adults. In responding to a question and comment on how one might deal with someone one perceives as one's intellectual inferior, SHA said that the way of doing so is not to act as if one is superior, but to build on that other's person's premise of reasoning, and perhaps to lead him/her to see his/her own thoughts more clearly.
While I could go on about the discussion we had, it is not my aim to report the thing as it happened, but to inject my editorial voice into this review to give my readers some idea as to what went on. There are of course too many stories and examples to give here (SHA is quite a story-teller, and some of the tales he related were pretty interesting). There are definitely some usefulness in getting the author of a book you are discussing to be present in the discussion, though there is probability of the person's present overshadowing the discussion. It of course depends a lot on the personality of the person present. Sometimes the discussion does not take off as well as you would want it to, because perhaps the discussants feel that they would rather hear the words from the horse's mouth rather than to debate on the ideas and its relevance, or its relation to an overall structure. However, I think it would be good to have sessions without the author so that we can distil our own perceptions and ideas of what the author says, because no author is infallible, and his/her intentions with regard to the book (and even the reasonings with regard to the book) can change in time.
There are many reading and literary circles around KL, but the aim of our circle here is to look more at the issues brought up by the work, regardless of whether it is a work of fiction or non-fiction, in order to contextualise the philosophy of our time and age. Where possible, we would invite the author to be present, though it is not that simple seeing that we are living in a backwater (it IS a backwater despite its facade of rapid modernisation and spanking new buildings and state-of-the-art toilets). But you have the words in the text, so use them, and the grey thing between your ears. (:
We will be doing a second discussion, to continue in areas of the book which had not been touched upon (though we have had the discussion from 8:40pm to close to midnight). For those of you living in Kuala Lumpur/will be around the area and are interested to participate, just drop me an email or drop me a note in the comment box. The discussions will be conducted in the mix of Malay and English, and you can participate and express yourself in any language you feel comfortable with, provided there is someone to translate for you should the majority around not understand. (:
In light of this review, you might want to read this article by Douglas Kellner entitled "Intellectuals, the New Public Spheres, and Techno-Politics"
A bientot!
Yesterday, my friends and I sat around the august Prof Dr Syed Hussein Alatas (thereafter known as SHA) in order to hear him speak on what brought about the inspiration for his book "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" (though apparently out of print, copies of it have been spotted at Borders Berjaya Times Square) and also to discuss some contents of the book (it being the first part of the a series of discussion on this book and others like it). The book has itself been translated into the two languages of the region, Indonesian Malay and Malaysian Malay. It was originally written in English and published in England, but it took Malaysia more than 30 years to finally recognise the importance of this work and to therefore translate it into the national language, and even then, it has sadly allowed it to go out of print (unless one can dig it out from some obscure warehouse/garage sale).
In this book, SHA writes about the appearance and existence of intellectuals within any society that prides itself in its progressiveness, as well as their function in such societies. Remember that this book was written in the 70s, which was a time of 'flower-power' and nascent period of cultural studies, when many institutions of higher learnings (and their byproducts) are underdoing changes in the curriculum and emphasis. When Malaysia was still a very young country and the PM was Tun Hussein Onn.
The gist of his argument is to differentiate the intellectuals from the intelligentsia. Just because you are well-educated (as in being well-read or well-qualified), have refined and cultured ways, speak many languages, is widely travel, and have an 'open' mind (and the latter case optional and subjected to debate), you do not automatically fall into the category of an intellectual. The one SHA terms an intellectual would be someone with profound and deep understanding of the philosophical conditions of humanity that surround his/her science and arts. Someone who can look at the bigger picture (while still paying attention to the details) and see what ails it. Perhaps an easier way of saying this is that an intellectual is someone who does not just work with existing data, but extrapolates from the data (and to collate all these extrapolations from various data) into a framework that helps him/her understand the greater issues and paradox of humanity, perhaps grappling with problems that seem to have no solution, or finding a solution that eludes even some of the most intelligent. The intelligentsia would be the sort of person I have just described above: one who might be a top-notch professional in his/her field, and possessing all the traits as suggested, but might not qualify for an intellectual. There is always some confusion in this two terms and I could do no better than to advocate that you read this book of the professor.
The book also talks about the bebals (where he gave a rather long list of, and from which he devoted an entire chapter to), which talks about a person incapable of contemplation or thoughtfulness, one who only follows the path of least resistance (even if the path is known to be inefficient and foolish)and someone who allows majority sentiments to dictate him/her, one who allows superstition and irrationality to dictate him/her as opposed to clear thinking.A bebal can be someone who is very good in his/her field of work/specialty, by could not apply holistic/intelligent thinking to every other aspect of his/her life. It could also be someone who does not understand the underpinning philosophy (reason/justification/functions) of his/her work and thus is only a blind follower of instructions, regulations and ideas without understanding why it is such as it is. He/she is afflicted with mental lassitude. When such conditions occur, he/she merely becomes an assembly worker within a conveyor belt of his/her career.
He also talks about the fool, one with difficulties to think through anything logically, one who is seemingly incapable of learning the art of learning (or maybe learning from mistakes), one who makes decisions that impact others but is unheedful of it and who does not recognise that he/she is a fool. He/she is reactive to situations and criticism but incapable of considered action. Or whose only form of considered action is to be reactive without heed to consequence.
Throughout the discussion we had with him, SHA gave many examples of what he considered to be foolish decisions made by authorities, as well as the lack holistic thinking when dealing with problems ranging from building highways and roads to combatting problems of traffic congestion, something of course that is not alien to us. He also mentions the problems of cultural lag in issues as wide as the planning and construction of society to the direction in which education has taken in this country. This was what he told me when I asked him why, inspite of the noble aim of the education philosophy of this country in its aim to create holistic individuals, have only succeeded in creating lopsided intelligentsia who while could be very good in their field, lack creative hindsigh and the ability to look at matters more philosophically. SHA did not say this, but if I were to expand from his arguments, I would say that it has to do with the strong emphasis on the material over the abstract. As SHA reiterated on what he had mentioned in his book more than 30 years ago, the inability of the country's planners to adjust to the intellectual framework that surrounds the development they have been so eager to wish on the country is that which has led to an unbalanced society, and hence unbalanced individuals. He explained that this is not only the case in developing societies, but has become more prominent even in developed societies like the America, where information overflow has led to over-saturation of the mind, and thus the inability to get back to the basics. This hints strongly on his disapproval on the direction which scholarship, monopolised by babyboomers academics, have taken, whom he felt were more interested in indoctrinating their students with their ideologies and ideas as opposed to leading them to basic questions. While I would disagree that this is the overall sense, since there are academics and students who are still interested in reading the origins of such ideas (though arguably a lot less than before, seeing the popularity of certain pseudo-intellectual polemic published and snapped out in this day and age) I agree that there is a cultural lag in still trying to make sense of the bombardment of information, and the fact that many are still trying to sieve knowledge from mere information.
When questioned as to whether there might be a need to adjust the Enlightenment traditions of the West to suit the peculiarities of our nation, I was a little disappointed that he did not address this question as thoroughly as he should, since most of the time were taken up in giving examples of what is considered as the insitutionalisation of moral depravity in the West. However he did give a rather good example of how the grandness of an intellectual idea can be contradicted by the living of his/her personal life. However, I will caution that this does not always detract from the nobility of the ideas. After all, cognitive dissonance to occur. And sometimes, simply, the person's philosophy might actually be a testimony of his personal beliefs, even if one might not see it as such from the way the ideas were put forth sophisticatedly. Case in point is Wittgenstein. Read him and read his biography and you will know what I mean. I suggest trying "Wittgenstein's Popper" as an introduction. While to a certain extend, it might be useful to keep in mind philosopher/intellectual's personal beliefs, there is such a time when we can gain and learn even when merely elucidating the person's philosophical arguments/ideas, realising then that the ideas are flawless and require continuous critique and refinement.
We also discussed the possibility of bebalisma as the reason for much superstition and supernatural beliefs in our society. While the discussion group is divided between over-rationalising and using rational/logic to explain supposedly 'supernatural' occurences, no real conclusion has been reached on this issue. SHA gave examples of some practises within the Malay culture one being the "minyak dagu" (oil retrieved from a fresh corpse) as an aphrodisiac charm and the use of dead babies to help in robberies or to ensure that one's husband does not stray. He cited examples of supposedly educated/rational individuals falling prey to such beliefs and superstition. He expounded on how the use of superstitious beliefs as a way of obtaining a child's obedience could end up producing bebalist adults. In responding to a question and comment on how one might deal with someone one perceives as one's intellectual inferior, SHA said that the way of doing so is not to act as if one is superior, but to build on that other's person's premise of reasoning, and perhaps to lead him/her to see his/her own thoughts more clearly.
While I could go on about the discussion we had, it is not my aim to report the thing as it happened, but to inject my editorial voice into this review to give my readers some idea as to what went on. There are of course too many stories and examples to give here (SHA is quite a story-teller, and some of the tales he related were pretty interesting). There are definitely some usefulness in getting the author of a book you are discussing to be present in the discussion, though there is probability of the person's present overshadowing the discussion. It of course depends a lot on the personality of the person present. Sometimes the discussion does not take off as well as you would want it to, because perhaps the discussants feel that they would rather hear the words from the horse's mouth rather than to debate on the ideas and its relevance, or its relation to an overall structure. However, I think it would be good to have sessions without the author so that we can distil our own perceptions and ideas of what the author says, because no author is infallible, and his/her intentions with regard to the book (and even the reasonings with regard to the book) can change in time.
There are many reading and literary circles around KL, but the aim of our circle here is to look more at the issues brought up by the work, regardless of whether it is a work of fiction or non-fiction, in order to contextualise the philosophy of our time and age. Where possible, we would invite the author to be present, though it is not that simple seeing that we are living in a backwater (it IS a backwater despite its facade of rapid modernisation and spanking new buildings and state-of-the-art toilets). But you have the words in the text, so use them, and the grey thing between your ears. (:
We will be doing a second discussion, to continue in areas of the book which had not been touched upon (though we have had the discussion from 8:40pm to close to midnight). For those of you living in Kuala Lumpur/will be around the area and are interested to participate, just drop me an email or drop me a note in the comment box. The discussions will be conducted in the mix of Malay and English, and you can participate and express yourself in any language you feel comfortable with, provided there is someone to translate for you should the majority around not understand. (:
In light of this review, you might want to read this article by Douglas Kellner entitled "Intellectuals, the New Public Spheres, and Techno-Politics"
A bientot!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Wearing the jilbab to be different from non-believers?
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1429171,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,,1705144,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4679058.stm (the BBC story did not mention her story, but has an equally damaging statement on how this girl equate the resistance towards her wearing the jilbab WITH western attitude. Hello, you ARE a westerner yourself. You LIVE in the west...or is this another example of mental ghettoisation? I think the authorities need no look far as to why they are breeding terrorists. It all started from young. And I think it is time to examine this trend properly?)
Check out the news above and other related news stories. While I believe that it is the right of the girl to practice aspects of her religion, what I find extremely laughable is the reason she gave to her lawyers for practising her dresscode, so that she is not dressed like other non-believers! This is so irrational I nearly died laughing. So if all non-Muslims start wearing what she does, is she gonna her dresscode again?
I believe Islam to be a reasonable religion with many profound teachings, but actions like this girl is making the religion ridiculous. She might have won her right, but professing the reasons as she did more is just another way of justifying the sceptic's criticism of the religion through the idiocy of its believers. Since the girl is young, I will excuse her a little. Somehow, I feel really sorry for the British authorities who have to start bending backwards to accomodate every whims and fancies of every "pious" persons. In context, I disagree completely with the reason for her victory. She might feel she has won a step forward for the women (in terms of dressing, but this is miniscule compared to the other problems faced by Muslim women) but she has definitely help in creating the pejorative perception of Islam. It is sad that so many Muslims understand so little of their faith. She goes as far as to quote the Quran verse, and I am looking at it right now. But it is different from what it says. My 3:59 says "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust then said to him:"Be": and he was". I believe she is referring to the Hadith, not the Quran. Can someone tell me the name of the Hadith? And can someone tell me where in which Hadith is it said about dressing differently from the "kaffirs"
Anyhow, I am surprise that no religious leaders have come out and give any explanation to her "reinterpretation" of Islam, unless of course they are behind this?
Before I get fired at by indignant Muslim men/women, let me state clearly here that I am NOT criticising the professions of the faith. What I am criticising is her misuse of her religion get her end. It is easy to say anything and everything to a bunch of "kaffirs" in the judiciary since most lack the training on the religion, no? And I think nothing is worse that knowingly speak the untruth yet using your religion as the basis. However, if someone can tell me im which Hadith or school or thought that "differances" should be professed THROUGH dressing (as opposed to one's actions and faith), I'll retract my words with regard to this girl. I would even do so if someone can let me know that Guardian has been erroneous in its report.
I am a feminist hence I do believe in every woman's right. But what I cannot buy into is the probable stupidity of my sex and the lack of will from its collective to do anything about it. But I'll be first to happily eat my words to have it proven otherwise...due to that damn media and its misreportage :D
I do understand the concept of ijtimak, by the way.
P.S. And I hope people will begin to learn the consequences of the irresponsible use of words and flippant, thoughtless remarks.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,,1705144,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4679058.stm (the BBC story did not mention her story, but has an equally damaging statement on how this girl equate the resistance towards her wearing the jilbab WITH western attitude. Hello, you ARE a westerner yourself. You LIVE in the west...or is this another example of mental ghettoisation? I think the authorities need no look far as to why they are breeding terrorists. It all started from young. And I think it is time to examine this trend properly?)
Check out the news above and other related news stories. While I believe that it is the right of the girl to practice aspects of her religion, what I find extremely laughable is the reason she gave to her lawyers for practising her dresscode, so that she is not dressed like other non-believers! This is so irrational I nearly died laughing. So if all non-Muslims start wearing what she does, is she gonna her dresscode again?
I believe Islam to be a reasonable religion with many profound teachings, but actions like this girl is making the religion ridiculous. She might have won her right, but professing the reasons as she did more is just another way of justifying the sceptic's criticism of the religion through the idiocy of its believers. Since the girl is young, I will excuse her a little. Somehow, I feel really sorry for the British authorities who have to start bending backwards to accomodate every whims and fancies of every "pious" persons. In context, I disagree completely with the reason for her victory. She might feel she has won a step forward for the women (in terms of dressing, but this is miniscule compared to the other problems faced by Muslim women) but she has definitely help in creating the pejorative perception of Islam. It is sad that so many Muslims understand so little of their faith. She goes as far as to quote the Quran verse, and I am looking at it right now. But it is different from what it says. My 3:59 says "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust then said to him:"Be": and he was". I believe she is referring to the Hadith, not the Quran. Can someone tell me the name of the Hadith? And can someone tell me where in which Hadith is it said about dressing differently from the "kaffirs"
Anyhow, I am surprise that no religious leaders have come out and give any explanation to her "reinterpretation" of Islam, unless of course they are behind this?
Before I get fired at by indignant Muslim men/women, let me state clearly here that I am NOT criticising the professions of the faith. What I am criticising is her misuse of her religion get her end. It is easy to say anything and everything to a bunch of "kaffirs" in the judiciary since most lack the training on the religion, no? And I think nothing is worse that knowingly speak the untruth yet using your religion as the basis. However, if someone can tell me im which Hadith or school or thought that "differances" should be professed THROUGH dressing (as opposed to one's actions and faith), I'll retract my words with regard to this girl. I would even do so if someone can let me know that Guardian has been erroneous in its report.
I am a feminist hence I do believe in every woman's right. But what I cannot buy into is the probable stupidity of my sex and the lack of will from its collective to do anything about it. But I'll be first to happily eat my words to have it proven otherwise...due to that damn media and its misreportage :D
I do understand the concept of ijtimak, by the way.
P.S. And I hope people will begin to learn the consequences of the irresponsible use of words and flippant, thoughtless remarks.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Pressing the hot buttons (the issue of the Danish Cartoons)
Fathi Aris Omar has collated an interesting list of opinions in his latest post and also in a post on kartun. For those who have not seen the cartoons that have spark suck uproar and violent reactions, click here. If you are not on broadband or on limited connectivity, be warned that the page has really huge graphics so it will take forever to load.
In my opinion, the reason for such violent reactions from both sides, whether those who were highly offended by the depictions of the Muslim prophet or who defend the right to do so, is based on two very different planes altogether. For a vast majority of religious adherents (and I would say that this applies across the board to ALL religions), the icons of their faith are sacred (though of course, there are individual sects who pay little or no heed to such need for icons, whether in the Muslim or Christian faith, though that does not make them less offended). For the agnostic/atheist/non-believer/nihilist, everything is profane and available for critique. Seeing that each have a different level of intellect and comprehension of the world, hence the diverse and different quality of critique. Many criticism are reactionary and emotional, even by the so-called rationalists, because when all logic fails, the easy way out is always to descend into emotionalism. And in the case of these cartoons, there are merely an example of excessive emotionalism. Hence, for so many Muslims to pour so much energy into such reaction becomes a symbol of their helplessness and subaltern position in the world.
I disagree with some scholars that the Muslims are new to western influence and outlook. They are not. It is just that a period of isolation that their civilisation underwent during their version of the dark ages (as the Dark Age of Islamic civilisation) and the continuous propaganda that they have been subjected to that the Western Civilisation is evil has been the cause of their suspicion and subliminal hatred. However, Western civilisation too has its share in its propagation of stereotypes based on ignorance and hatred. In this gratuitous power struggle between the artificial divide of the East and West, one always forget that religious adherents populate all civilisations, and Muslims are not precluded. Hence, when a supposed spokesperson for the western civilisation speak of defending their right to critique the Muslims in the same way that they have accussed the Muslims of lampooning them (and I daresay that the latter are guilty of that as well), whom are they speaking for? The atheists, the agnositcs, the Jews, Christians, and Muslims in their societies. OR are they speaking for the rights of a few person who decided to make a field day out of religious lampoons? And Muslim nations who insult the religion of their minority populace are just as guilty. But using such arguments to justify their personal vendetta is childish in its extreme. But then, mental sloth is one reason why such stupidity exists in the first place. (:
Religious adherents, and in this case the Muslims, who have bitten into the bait of their detractors by their excessive show of violence, hence lending further credence to the stereotype which they should instead have been trying to dismantle. I am sure I need not say this more because others have said this before me and many will continue to use this as a way of criticising Muslims. I am not merely saying that the Muslims are the only ones with this problem, because many Christians too are just as capable of blind judgement when they respond to perceived insults. The failure of religious groups to rise to the same level of power and control as many agnostics and atheists, hence making the transmissions of their intellectual heritage and intelligent thought powerful and indelible, is the lopsided preoccupation with life after death. They lost sight of the capacity to live life to the fullest (and that does not equate to hedonism, unlike what most fanatics seem to think) and achieving the best with the abilities that God has given them. Instead of glorifying God, their reactive preoccupation is equivalent to flinging mud at God's face.
In the case of point of Muslims here, if they are really serious about Jihad, they will strive towards regaining the reigns of control through legitimate means of equitable treatment for their fellow men, respect for the rights of women, strong emphasis on liberal arts education (and this has always been equated with a secular, atheistic focus without understanding the spirit of inquiry that is the mainstay of its philosophy) that allows them to open their minds and to build strong foundations for their societies. If you feel that your enemies and rivals are despicable, why stoop even lower than their level when all they are doing is just to push at your buttons?
Or do we with to go back to the Biblical Old Testament Age (a tradition that the Quran shares) of wiping out your enemies just because we can't figure out a different way of dealing with them? Assuming that we consider the records a true depiction of the actual events, we might also be interested to know that the climate and condition of that particular age is different. Or perhas we are fast approaching the age of that past?
Any discussion to alleviate this problem will not go far as long as the two different planes of arguments of both parties are not reconciled. Or perhaps the only way out of the issue (a pessimistic way out that is) is to let them kill each other off. Or kill them fast enough so that they have no chance to breed. There is such an argument in the history of Western intellectuals that I will discuss the next time around. (:
Going back to the argument that atheists and agnostics would see everything as profane, hence they would feel that lampooning neo-Nazies is equal to lampooning Muhammad. So do the neo-Nazis have the same moral ground to react in the way that the Muslims do? And if we work under the assumption that all is equal under the principle of equitability, in that Hitler and Muhammad are mere humans (and they both are in principle just normal men), why should it be less likely for one to be lampoon than for the other? This is because for the believers of Islam, they see Muhammad as God's divine Messenger (and in calling him a divine Messenger, I am in no way saying that he is a divine figure), just as Christians would react strongly to the depiction of Christ (as they did in Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ) because they see Jesus as the reincarnation of God's Son in a human form. Perhaps it is high-time that religious adherents should also be trained to understand the mind of others who might not share their beliefs and faiths, and to realise that gentle rebuke/peaceful protestations will go towards, in the long run, in winning the admiration of others. Just as many from the faith might reneged on their professions, a number of hardcore, crusading non-believers and critics of the faith have also been converted.
There are many questions as to why people behave the way they do, or why history is the way it is, that I am still trying to figure out. Even the concept of what God would really want and require of us is still something I am grappling with. As a person who believes in God, I wonder too that all these hoohaa that has happened is not perhaps a way in which God is trying to tell us that we have miss the woods for the trees, and that instead of worshipping him and doing His Will, we are preoccupied with the worship of iconoclasts.
The above is my two-cents take on the issue.
In my opinion, the reason for such violent reactions from both sides, whether those who were highly offended by the depictions of the Muslim prophet or who defend the right to do so, is based on two very different planes altogether. For a vast majority of religious adherents (and I would say that this applies across the board to ALL religions), the icons of their faith are sacred (though of course, there are individual sects who pay little or no heed to such need for icons, whether in the Muslim or Christian faith, though that does not make them less offended). For the agnostic/atheist/non-believer/nihilist, everything is profane and available for critique. Seeing that each have a different level of intellect and comprehension of the world, hence the diverse and different quality of critique. Many criticism are reactionary and emotional, even by the so-called rationalists, because when all logic fails, the easy way out is always to descend into emotionalism. And in the case of these cartoons, there are merely an example of excessive emotionalism. Hence, for so many Muslims to pour so much energy into such reaction becomes a symbol of their helplessness and subaltern position in the world.
I disagree with some scholars that the Muslims are new to western influence and outlook. They are not. It is just that a period of isolation that their civilisation underwent during their version of the dark ages (as the Dark Age of Islamic civilisation) and the continuous propaganda that they have been subjected to that the Western Civilisation is evil has been the cause of their suspicion and subliminal hatred. However, Western civilisation too has its share in its propagation of stereotypes based on ignorance and hatred. In this gratuitous power struggle between the artificial divide of the East and West, one always forget that religious adherents populate all civilisations, and Muslims are not precluded. Hence, when a supposed spokesperson for the western civilisation speak of defending their right to critique the Muslims in the same way that they have accussed the Muslims of lampooning them (and I daresay that the latter are guilty of that as well), whom are they speaking for? The atheists, the agnositcs, the Jews, Christians, and Muslims in their societies. OR are they speaking for the rights of a few person who decided to make a field day out of religious lampoons? And Muslim nations who insult the religion of their minority populace are just as guilty. But using such arguments to justify their personal vendetta is childish in its extreme. But then, mental sloth is one reason why such stupidity exists in the first place. (:
Religious adherents, and in this case the Muslims, who have bitten into the bait of their detractors by their excessive show of violence, hence lending further credence to the stereotype which they should instead have been trying to dismantle. I am sure I need not say this more because others have said this before me and many will continue to use this as a way of criticising Muslims. I am not merely saying that the Muslims are the only ones with this problem, because many Christians too are just as capable of blind judgement when they respond to perceived insults. The failure of religious groups to rise to the same level of power and control as many agnostics and atheists, hence making the transmissions of their intellectual heritage and intelligent thought powerful and indelible, is the lopsided preoccupation with life after death. They lost sight of the capacity to live life to the fullest (and that does not equate to hedonism, unlike what most fanatics seem to think) and achieving the best with the abilities that God has given them. Instead of glorifying God, their reactive preoccupation is equivalent to flinging mud at God's face.
In the case of point of Muslims here, if they are really serious about Jihad, they will strive towards regaining the reigns of control through legitimate means of equitable treatment for their fellow men, respect for the rights of women, strong emphasis on liberal arts education (and this has always been equated with a secular, atheistic focus without understanding the spirit of inquiry that is the mainstay of its philosophy) that allows them to open their minds and to build strong foundations for their societies. If you feel that your enemies and rivals are despicable, why stoop even lower than their level when all they are doing is just to push at your buttons?
Or do we with to go back to the Biblical Old Testament Age (a tradition that the Quran shares) of wiping out your enemies just because we can't figure out a different way of dealing with them? Assuming that we consider the records a true depiction of the actual events, we might also be interested to know that the climate and condition of that particular age is different. Or perhas we are fast approaching the age of that past?
Any discussion to alleviate this problem will not go far as long as the two different planes of arguments of both parties are not reconciled. Or perhaps the only way out of the issue (a pessimistic way out that is) is to let them kill each other off. Or kill them fast enough so that they have no chance to breed. There is such an argument in the history of Western intellectuals that I will discuss the next time around. (:
Going back to the argument that atheists and agnostics would see everything as profane, hence they would feel that lampooning neo-Nazies is equal to lampooning Muhammad. So do the neo-Nazis have the same moral ground to react in the way that the Muslims do? And if we work under the assumption that all is equal under the principle of equitability, in that Hitler and Muhammad are mere humans (and they both are in principle just normal men), why should it be less likely for one to be lampoon than for the other? This is because for the believers of Islam, they see Muhammad as God's divine Messenger (and in calling him a divine Messenger, I am in no way saying that he is a divine figure), just as Christians would react strongly to the depiction of Christ (as they did in Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ) because they see Jesus as the reincarnation of God's Son in a human form. Perhaps it is high-time that religious adherents should also be trained to understand the mind of others who might not share their beliefs and faiths, and to realise that gentle rebuke/peaceful protestations will go towards, in the long run, in winning the admiration of others. Just as many from the faith might reneged on their professions, a number of hardcore, crusading non-believers and critics of the faith have also been converted.
There are many questions as to why people behave the way they do, or why history is the way it is, that I am still trying to figure out. Even the concept of what God would really want and require of us is still something I am grappling with. As a person who believes in God, I wonder too that all these hoohaa that has happened is not perhaps a way in which God is trying to tell us that we have miss the woods for the trees, and that instead of worshipping him and doing His Will, we are preoccupied with the worship of iconoclasts.
The above is my two-cents take on the issue.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Chinese New Year family reunion, reunion with friends, TV addiction and philosophy :D
You know it is the time of the year when certain towns in Malaysia are experiencing heavier inflows of traffic and there is the perennial jostling for space as more and more cars fight for the right to park along the narrow public roads surrounding housing estates. And since small towns lack the attractions of big cities, you see bored and listless faces streaming into the pack-to-bursting shopping centres. Restaurants are taking advantange of the yearly influx by upping prices and forcing set meals on their patrons (and in Chinese-centric towns, this is particularly severe for the lack of shops that are opened to service the appetites of the annual visitors).
I have had the usual family dinners (for some reason, my family decided to have THREE big family dinners in the space of 4 days, though I missed the third one owing to my school reunion). I also managed to visit some old friends, and especially the little pride and joy of my life. Most of all, I got to indulge in hours of tv, something which I do not get to do back in KL for the lack of a tv set. I was curious to know what's new on tv, what are the latest ads, what are the latest fads, the latest movies (well as latest as they can get in Malaysia) and the latest interactive design MTV/V Channel has (not to mention who the new VJs are).
While watching TV, I was also simultaneously reading some works on philosophy and history (YES, while watching tv, though of course, when the interesting scenes came on, you can guess what took most of my attention :P), as well as fashion and design (: It has to do with trying to squeeze in as many things as I could in the short space of time (though it also has to do with my short attention span during the holiday seasons). Yet, reading the discussion on life through the books and watching the portrayal of life via tv shows and movies, one notice a strong parallel between them. Here am I, reading works that have nothing to do with the shows I was watching (which ranged from 70s sitcoms to travellogues to Hollywood blockbusters to Hong Kong movies) yet I could feel the words of the authors resonating strongly through the visual effects created by the movies. I was reading the philosophy of Ayn Rand while watching Armageddon (believe it or not, I only just watched it for the first time on the first day of Chinese New Year), so many discussions of Ayn Rand with regards to Atilla, the crude Barbarians (the reactionaries), the Witch Doctor (I suppose you can say Rand intended these to be the communists, whom she had an aversion towards- I guess what Mr Syed Alattas would call the soft-hearted "Bebalians") and the Producers (who is her perfect exemplification of fair play, ego-centrism, original creation and capitalism, I see such different personas reenacted through the different personalities of the men who were the characters in this movie (with the exception of Liv Tyler as Grace the daughter of the hero, and the lady engineer on the space shuttle (whose name escapes me for now), there aren't too many heroic ladies portrayed in this show, which is after all about American patriachalism defending the world against end-times caused by an asteroid relentless hurtling towards Earth. I kind of feel that the Bruce Willis character epitomised the ideal of the Producer, though he has the prepondency towards being an Atilla when it concerns his daughter, with his Paternal protectiveness and dominance.
However, the two professional thieves in a Chinese comedic romance starring Andy Lau and Sammy Cheng, who gained riches through their thieving activities would not sit so easily within Rand's three categories. They did gain their riches through the use of their canny and cunning. They were not reactionaries nor were they barbaric looters. Yet looters they were nonetheless, running off with bootie that were not earned through legitimate means. Perhaps if they have decided to channel their obvious abilities into let's say, derivatives trading and fund hedging, they might to a hell of a job. In which case, they would fall into Rand's concept of the rational and ethical producer (though should one read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, you will notice that Rand has a long discussion on the idea of ethics through her protagonists). But their thievery places them under the same category as Atilla, even if they do not use any violence, but rather their brains, to commit such acts. In fact, in the movie, it seems obvious that they intersperse legitimate activities with their highly-polished kleptomaniac tendencies. And they were both diehard gamblers. Capitalism does work on the precept of a certain amount of risk and gamble. However, these two characters epitomise more of the tendency of a rather refined Atilla rather than the Producer. (:
I also began to reread history but that is a post for a different day. As for what I've learned from meeting back old school friends? That is also another post for a different time. And I hope to find that time to write about metaphysics real soon. (:
Happy Doggy Year!
I have had the usual family dinners (for some reason, my family decided to have THREE big family dinners in the space of 4 days, though I missed the third one owing to my school reunion). I also managed to visit some old friends, and especially the little pride and joy of my life. Most of all, I got to indulge in hours of tv, something which I do not get to do back in KL for the lack of a tv set. I was curious to know what's new on tv, what are the latest ads, what are the latest fads, the latest movies (well as latest as they can get in Malaysia) and the latest interactive design MTV/V Channel has (not to mention who the new VJs are).
While watching TV, I was also simultaneously reading some works on philosophy and history (YES, while watching tv, though of course, when the interesting scenes came on, you can guess what took most of my attention :P), as well as fashion and design (: It has to do with trying to squeeze in as many things as I could in the short space of time (though it also has to do with my short attention span during the holiday seasons). Yet, reading the discussion on life through the books and watching the portrayal of life via tv shows and movies, one notice a strong parallel between them. Here am I, reading works that have nothing to do with the shows I was watching (which ranged from 70s sitcoms to travellogues to Hollywood blockbusters to Hong Kong movies) yet I could feel the words of the authors resonating strongly through the visual effects created by the movies. I was reading the philosophy of Ayn Rand while watching Armageddon (believe it or not, I only just watched it for the first time on the first day of Chinese New Year), so many discussions of Ayn Rand with regards to Atilla, the crude Barbarians (the reactionaries), the Witch Doctor (I suppose you can say Rand intended these to be the communists, whom she had an aversion towards- I guess what Mr Syed Alattas would call the soft-hearted "Bebalians") and the Producers (who is her perfect exemplification of fair play, ego-centrism, original creation and capitalism, I see such different personas reenacted through the different personalities of the men who were the characters in this movie (with the exception of Liv Tyler as Grace the daughter of the hero, and the lady engineer on the space shuttle (whose name escapes me for now), there aren't too many heroic ladies portrayed in this show, which is after all about American patriachalism defending the world against end-times caused by an asteroid relentless hurtling towards Earth. I kind of feel that the Bruce Willis character epitomised the ideal of the Producer, though he has the prepondency towards being an Atilla when it concerns his daughter, with his Paternal protectiveness and dominance.
However, the two professional thieves in a Chinese comedic romance starring Andy Lau and Sammy Cheng, who gained riches through their thieving activities would not sit so easily within Rand's three categories. They did gain their riches through the use of their canny and cunning. They were not reactionaries nor were they barbaric looters. Yet looters they were nonetheless, running off with bootie that were not earned through legitimate means. Perhaps if they have decided to channel their obvious abilities into let's say, derivatives trading and fund hedging, they might to a hell of a job. In which case, they would fall into Rand's concept of the rational and ethical producer (though should one read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, you will notice that Rand has a long discussion on the idea of ethics through her protagonists). But their thievery places them under the same category as Atilla, even if they do not use any violence, but rather their brains, to commit such acts. In fact, in the movie, it seems obvious that they intersperse legitimate activities with their highly-polished kleptomaniac tendencies. And they were both diehard gamblers. Capitalism does work on the precept of a certain amount of risk and gamble. However, these two characters epitomise more of the tendency of a rather refined Atilla rather than the Producer. (:
I also began to reread history but that is a post for a different day. As for what I've learned from meeting back old school friends? That is also another post for a different time. And I hope to find that time to write about metaphysics real soon. (:
Happy Doggy Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)