Before I express my opinion can I please request the responders not to use any 'names' or people and religions in gmail ( to avoid unnecessary hassle from the surveillance system ).
Absence of an actor is a political strategy
==============================
So these guys who think of themselves as representatives of a culture killed a lot of innocent people; the other culture is now retaliating. The retaliation
will create new links in the causal chain and those links will create newer 'minds' and motivations.
I could think of a couple of hypothetical solutions to the problem:
i) to become like the other ii) to become the other
i) To become like the other:
Lets assume one culture represents 'peace' and 'liberal values' while the other culture represents 'violence' and 'intolerance'.
One way for the liberal culture to solve this problem of this other violent and intolerant culture is to defeat them in their own game:
- When the other culture shouts, the liberal ones shout back
- When the other culture bans free expressions, the liberals ban the propagandas of the other.
- when the other culture indulges in violence, the liberals retaliate with more violence.
But do you see the end result ? By choosing to fight, the so-called 'good culture' transforms itself into a replica of its enemy. At the end, our Arjuna
looks more or less like Karna, our blood-drinking Bhima is more similar to Dushashana than anyone else, and in a subtle way our Judhishthira is a combination
of Durjodhana and Dhritarashtra.
Even when victorious, their victory takes the whole world down from Dvapara to Kali.
ii) To 'become' the other:
I think there is another hypothetical way. With this hypothetical solution you give up your culture. You adopt the other. You learn the language, the history, the music and mythologies of the other.
You become the other.
Then you express yourself. You help others express themselves. You help evolve the culture.
In this version of the thought experiment at the end you effectively transform the other. Except 'you' do not.
Not because the other culture was not transformed but because 'you' do not exist as a separate agent. It was a kind of non-action, not because things did not happen but because
there was no actor. There was no 'one culture' changing the 'other culture'.
Remember that in this thought experiment the first step was to 'give up' ... to disappear.
But, I think we will overcome all these problems soon and we will have a fun filled future ahead.
And I don't care about 'correct prediction'. My prediction of the future is my interpretation of the future. And my interpretation is also the way I influence it (in a very very small way).
Click here to Reply
18 Nov
|
 |
"But do you think that there should be one culture pervading the world?"
No, thats not what I meant. Mukta also told me that abstraction was not properly decipherable. In concrete terms the second way
could be interpreted in two different ways:
The 'goody goody' interpretation:
Lets say You are the representative of the 'people' of a nation. In your nation you have two cultures: 'the enlightened' and the 'other'. Then, you have to drop the identity of the 'enlightened' when are you are dealing with the other. You adopt the other, as part of your nation. You set up their temples. You set up universities for the 'other' and invite scholars from all over the world. You set-up optional 'theological'/'cultural' courses in your schools for kids where teachers teach everybody about the 'other'. Also like everything else, 'the other' is not black-and-white. There are many divisions within the 'other' and there are many fringe groups. You give platform to all of them and create an environment of dialogue/conversation/debate within these different groups.
( I think it is not too difficult to get them to introduce a few new rituals where they can have one day every week or month when peoples from other cultures are invited to their institutions etc.)
The 'baddy baddy' interpretation:
There is some text. And for the kids in the west there is a vacuum of interpretation of the text. For rebellious kids there is just this one exciting interpretation which talks about a narrative which is 'dangerous' and meaningful. 'You' have to get hold of the machinery of interpretation. 'You' have to join/infiltrate/influence the club of interpreters. ( This is nothing new, from Baba's point of view, it is just like creating a 'Vivekananda' for Hinduism )
- show quoted text -
|
No comments:
Post a Comment