Thursday, October 31, 2013
The Matter
She flew into a rage
Set Fire to the Rain
Set Fire To The Rain
Adapted from Adele's "Set Fire to the Rain"
Once, a long time ago
I let my heart show
And I let it fall for you
But one thing I never knew
My hands were strong
But my knees were weak
Without you, I felt wrong
And couldn't stand on my feet
There was a side of you
I never, never knew
All the things you'd say
They were never, never true
All the games to me you'd play
You'd always, always win
You kept me under your sway
And you didn't think that was a sin
One day I set fire to the rain
Watched it pour as I thought of your face
It burned while I cried
As it screamed for my name
Yes, I set fire to the rain
And threw both of us into the flame
I felt something inside me die
Since I no longer feel the same
Sometimes I wake up on the floor
I feel smoke, I feel rain
You're with me no more
Yet I still scream for your name
Wissai
May 5, 2013
Language and Philosophy and Poetry
Wittgenstein and I
From my recollection, Albert Camus opened his book Le Mythe de Sisyphe with an arresting thought which hit me like a sledgehammer when I first came across it. The thought is that there's only one truly philosophical question and that is suicide, i.e., to determine if life is worth living; other questions like the existence of God and if the earth is a sphere, etc.,, are of secondary importance. Of course, many others would beg to differ with Camus, but they are not philosophers cum novelists cum essayists cum playwrights cum freedom fighters, as Camus was. To them, the question of God is of supreme and cardinal importance or they so claim, but I seriously doubt their sincerity based on the way they conduct themselves. But I have no doubt of Muhammad's sincerity. I always wonder, however, if Muhammad had been a man of learning and his mind had not been contaminated by being exposed to the prevailing Jewish and Christian thoughts around him, and if he had known that there was some element of atheism in some strain of Judaism, in some early Greek thought around one thousand years before his times, and in Buddhism, would he have fancied that he was visited by the archangel Gabriel and he was receiving revelations from God? I am not saying the religion he founded was not an improvement over Christianity and Judaism in terms of social egalitarianism, and more sensible interpretations of the Biblical scriptures, the nature of God and the notion of Trinity. I am saying the religious landscape in the world today would look different. Anyway, I think Muhammad was grappling with existential questions and came to a predictable but sensible conclusion, given the intellectual tools available to him.
I, too, was struggling with existential questions, but I was lucky to be born in the 20th century and my parents were well off enough to send me to school. Still, amazingly enough, I proudly am going on record one more time that when I was about eleven years of age, I stopped believing in a Personal God to whom I could pray for favors and from whom I would receive punishments if I committed some moral transgressions. You could say that I was philosophically and maybe religiously precocious. Truths, verifiability (not slavish, childish, and mindless acceptance of dogmas and doctrines) and logic have always been appealing to me since an early age.
Truths are appealing to Wittgenstein, too. He devoted his whole life to them. I have tried to read Wittgenstein, from time to time, but since I am not smart enough to digest his thoughts although I intuitively feel he is speaking for me, I have relied on the exegeses of his thoughts from people who are smarter than me. The information in the below paragraphs about Wittgenstein was taken from Wikipedia. The reasons I am bringing up Wittgenstein are two-fold.
First, I fancy that I know something first-hand about the nature of language, first as a born stutterer and mispronouncer of certain sounds, and then incredibly enough my recognition that I have a relative ease to learn foreign languages, despite my linguistic handicaps. Articulation of sounds was a problem, and still is, to me, but understanding the structure of language and a notion that the more words available and accessible to a person, that person is more likely to think more precisely, have come naturally to me.
Second, just as I have failed to understand Wittgenstein's thoughts without help, many others, especially my ex-girlfriends (that was maybe why they are part of the history of the lonely past), have failed to understand me because they are perhaps not smart and sensitive enough, but I have refused to explain myself to them, except saying that to really understand anything or anybody requires intelligence, sensitivity, a good framework of reference, and copious facts, not just self-projection. Self-projection, without the necessary counterpart of empathy, is a pathetic exercise in reasoning. Lack of self-awareness is often the main culprit of misunderstanding. So is rampant and pervasive stupidly.
Wittgenstein burst into worldwide fame with the publication of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, although he was known for many years before that within the narrow philosophical circle in Europe that he was a man of genius and uncommon personality. According to Wikipedia, "At the urging of Ramsey and others, Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge in 1929. Keynes wrote in a letter to his wife: 'Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train.' Despite this fame, he could not initially work at Cambridge as he did not have a degree, so he applied as an advanced undergraduate. Russell noted that his previous residency was sufficient for a PhD, and urged him to offer the Tractatus as his thesis. It was examined in 1929 by Russell and Moore; at the end of the thesis defence, Wittgenstein clapped the two examiners on the shoulder and said, 'Don't worry, I know you'll never understand it.' Moore wrote in the examiner's report: 'I myself consider that this is a work of genius; but, even if I am completely mistaken and it is nothing of the sort, it is well above the standard required for the Ph.D. degree.' Wittgenstein was appointed as a lecturer and was made a fellow of Trinity College."
The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Latin for "Logical-Philosophical Treatise") is the only book-length philosophical work published by Wittgenstein in his lifetime. It was an ambitious project: to identify the relationship between language and reality and to define the limits of science. It is recognized as a significant philosophical work of the twentieth century. G. E. Moore originally suggested the work's Latin title as homage to Tractatus Theologico-Politicus by Baruch Spinoza.
Wittgenstein wrote the notes for Tractatus while he was a soldier during World War I and completed it when a prisoner of war at Como and later Cassino in August 1918. It was first published in German in 1921 as Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung. Tractatus was influential chiefly amongst the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle, such as Rudolf Carnap and Friedrich Waismann. Bertrand Russell's article "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism" is presented as a working out of ideas that he had learnt from Wittgenstein.
Tractatus employs a notoriously austere (the house Wittgenstein built for his sister was austere, too, and so was his personal life. Austerity was the hallmark of the man although he descended from a very wealthy Austrian family) and succinct literary style. The work contains almost no arguments as such, but, rather, consists of declarative statements which are meant to be self-evident. The statements are hierarchically numbered, with seven basic propositions at the primary level (numbered 1–7), with each sub-level being a comment on or elaboration of the statement at the next higher level (e.g., 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.12).
Wittgenstein's later works, notably the posthumously published Philosophical Investigations, criticised many of the ideas in Tractatus.
There are seven main propositions in the text. These are:
The world is everything that is the case.
What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
A logical picture of facts is a thought.
A thought is a proposition with a sense.
A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function, which is: . This is the general form of a proposition.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
I only vaguely understood prepositions 1 and 7 on my own.
Philosophical Investigations (Philosophische Untersuchungen) is a highly influential posthumous work in the 20th-century by Wittgenstein. In it, Wittgenstein discusses numerous problems and puzzles in the fields of semantics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of action, and the philosophy of mind. He puts forth the view that conceptual confusions surrounding language use are at the root of most philosophical problems, contradicting or discarding much of what he argued in his earlier work, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
He alleges that the problems are traceable to a set of related assumptions about the nature of language, which themselves presuppose a particular conception of the essence of language. This conception is considered and ultimately rejected for being too general; that is, as an essentialist account of the nature of language it is simply too narrow to be able to account for the variety of things we do with language. Wittgenstein begins the book with a quotation from St. Augustine, whom he cites as a proponent of the generalized and limited conception that he then summarizes:
The individual words in language name objects—sentences are combinations of such names. In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.
He then sets out throughout the rest of the book to demonstrate the limitations of this conception, including, he argues, many traditional philosophical puzzles and confusions that arise as a result of this limited picture. Within the Anglo-American tradition, the book is considered by many as being one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century, and it continues to influence contemporary philosophers, especially those studying mind and language.
As stated before, Wittgenstein's thoughts are too subtle and profound to me. However, they must have value, as witnessed the impact they have on thinkers in the 20th century. The list of such thinkers is long, consisting of luminaries such as Bertrand Russell, Norm Chomsky, G.E. Moore, Frank P. Ramsey, Vienna Circle, A.J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Alan Turing, Gilbert Ryle, Saul Kripke, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Richard Rorty, and Colin McGinn. These are the names I recognize and I am not a student of philosophy. For a complete list of thinkers under the influence of Wittgenstein's thoughts, please go to Wikipedia. Also, please note the long list of languages, including Vietnamese, in Wikipedia written about Wittgenstein. While he was alive, Wittgenstein was convinced of his superiority and he acted accordingly. This was perhaps his only lack of social grace. Nietzsche was also cocksure of his greatness in spite of lack of due respect and adulation from his peers and the public during his lifetime.
What I have got so far from trying to read (and read about) Wittgenstein)---and I could be all wrong and off base--- is that language is indispensable in understanding the world. Even so, there are certain "truths" that can't even be conveyed by language. To have an understanding of the world we are in, we must embark on a similar intellectual journey undertaken by Wittgenstein, seriously and honestly and totally devoted to uncover "truths" obtained by the fruits of our own labor, and not the "truths" handed down by dogmas and doctrines. His two books are the recording of those "truths". "Truths" are all personal and must be authentic and lived, and not something we pay lip service to. Terry Eagleton, famed British literary theorist and critic, has described Wittgenstein as the philosopher of poets and composers, playwrights and novelists. Still, Wittgenstein was a solitary and strange bird, gay, and had brief but intense liaisons with a few men. He died in the home of his doctor as he didn't want to die in the hospital. His last moments were described as follows:
Wittgenstein began work on his final manuscript, MS 177, on 25 April 1951. It was his 62nd birthday on 26 April. He went for a walk the next afternoon, and wrote his last entry that day, 27 April. That evening, he became very ill; when his doctor told him he might live only a few days, he reportedly replied, "Good!" Joan (doctor's wife) stayed with him throughout that night, and just before losing consciousness for the last timeon 28 April, he told her: "Tell them I've had a wonderful life". Norman Malcolm (American philosopher, student and friend of Wittgenstein) describes this as a "strangely moving utterance".
Bertrand Russell was not wrong in describing Wittgenstein as a mystic. Here was how Wittgenstein viewed death:
"Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits."
— Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 6.431
Didn't I mention that Wittgenstein confessed that he had a loss of faith in God when he was in high school? Similarly, Bertrand Russell lost his when he was 15. Albert Camus didn't believe in God either. I have a strange, bold, and stupid idea that humans are divided into theists and atheists, meat-eaters and vegetarians, and atheists and vegetarians are more evolved humans, but there are always exceptions. Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe Hitler was highly evolved (he had incredible charisma and artistic sensibilities), but he let hate destroy him. That should be a lesson for me. I am working on getting rid of my hate, on ignoring and forgetting the vicious, nasty, malicious, and wrong comments and accusations leveled at me by ignoramuses with puny, tiny minds, who are not equipped to understand me.
Wittgenstein died with four of his former students being at his bedside. They were at first unsure what Wittgenstein would have wanted, but then remembered he had said he hoped his Catholic friends would pray for him, so they did, and he was pronounced dead shortly afterwards. When it is my time to die, I just want those who really love me to be there. I don't wish any clergyman to be there. I have lived my life as an atheist. I want to die as one. I seriously doubt if any of my ex-wives or ex-girlfriends will be at my funeral. I don't want them to be there anyway. I have had enough comedies and farces during my lifetime.
Wittgenstein was reportedly said that he actually asserted that he had a wonderful life. But I am not sure by "wonderful", he meant "happy" because in reading about him, he was also reportedly to be unhappy and contemplative of suicide. Only when doing philosophy, he was at peace. My own life has been eventful and exciting and turbulent, but I wouldn't call it "wonderful". Yes, the woman by the nick name VAW was correct: I have had over two dozen women who professed to having loved me. I told her about them, not to brag, but to really communicate about my search for true love. I told her about them because I loved her and thought she loved me. I was wrong about her then. I am right about her now. Hindsight is always 20/20. I didn't tell her about my obsession with suicide, otherwise she would also be mocking me about that. She does have a constricted heart and a small mind. I belatedly found that out. I of course despise her completely, having found who she really is. I am very glad she is completely out of my life and mind. Of the 24 women whom I have known in the Biblical sense and who professed a love for me, only two really did and they are dead. I have written about them under the guise of fiction. There are currently two who exhibit an interest---perhaps only platonically---in me, but alarms inside my head keep going off. I am not perturbed, however. I like the sound the alarm is making. I am finally getting some wisdom. I am also feeling lonely no more. I have made peace with who I am. I will go on vacation with them in Tahiti and Seattle in a few months in a yacht.
Wissai
October 31, 2013
Meditated Message to a self-deceiving, nasty, sarcastic JAW
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Life-affirming Approach
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Emotional Cowardice
Tempest in a Teapot
Truths come in many forms and disguises. And we must be ready for them, otherwise we would miss them completely, especially if we are not too smart and yet think we are intelligent, wise, and clever. Just because we parrot some words of Buddha (and yet giving no due acknowledgement) that does not necessarily mean we fully understand them. We must really live those words. Our hearts and our minds must be ready for them.
A person's level of understanding reflects in how he reacts to truths and words of wisdom. There was a third reaction to my story about redemption. It came from a lady (most of my friends are of the fair sex). She is a new friend, but she has read my blog and she understands what she has read. She has a mind and a heart for my words. She is no fool, like the other two who have fragile egos born out of weak intellects, small minds, constricted hearts, and inferiority complexes due to being nobodies all their long, lonely, unhappy lives. But enough about fools who think they are somebodies, about cowards who think they are brave, about ignoramuses who think they are full of wisdom. My patience and my kindness with them have limits. Those limits have been exhausted. I cannot save them anymore. They must save themselves.
I wrote "A Story of Redemption" because the young Korean-American man's life was very interesting and almost a tragedy, just like mine almost was a tragedy more than 40 years ago. He was saved by a very good "Global Performance Coach". I was saved by my love for my mother. I couldn't bring myself to hurting her emotionally. One must live for something or somebody bigger than oneself, otherwise one's life would be common, ordinary, and animal-like. Love makes one become bigger and stronger. When I read about the young man's life, I was very affected. I recognized his awesome gifts and talents. I could see his intelligence in his strikingly handsome, gorgeous face. I am no slouch myself in the departments of intelligence and looks, but unlike some fools, I readily acknowledge superiority in others. I am perfectly comfortable with myself. I have some gifts and many, many foibles. I am who I am. I try to be the best who I can be within the confines of my limitations. With regard to poker, I am a small potato. I have been a small winner, year after year. That's all I can be. Many of my friends have moved on and become millionaires. stacking their money in safe deposit boxes (to avoid paying taxes and for convenience---they have access to their funds 24/7) in poker rooms all over country). I am happy for them. I am not jealous of them. Not at all. I am not jealous of Steve (name of the young man) either. He is a rarity. He is a superstar. I salute his poker superiority over me.
In about a week, the finals of the 2013 Main Event ($10,000 entry fee) No Limit Hold'Em (a game invented by Texans in early 1950's or so) of The World Series of Poker will be played in Vegas. There are 9 players left from over 6,000 contestants. The winner will be paid $6 million and some change. Ninth-placed finisher will be paid almost $800,000. There's a Vietnamese player, J.C. Tran, in the finals. He's experienced and well-known. He's a favorite to win. In the past, Scotty Nguyen won the championship.
You can follow the finals on the Net or live in order to savor the atmosphere. No Lmit Poker is a financial full-contact sport. It's the best game ever invented by Man. It resembles real life the most. It's far better than chess. If you think you are very smart, knowledgeable about the human mind, and brave, I urge you to take up the sport. You will find out really fast who you really are and what you are made of. The public don't realize that lawyers, engineers, businessmen, and college graduates all over the world have been flocking to the game ever since a young accountant with an improbable name Chris Moneymaker (real name, a very nice man, I have met him) won the championship in 2003.
Wissai
October 29, 2013
Monday, October 28, 2013
A story of Redemption
A real man must know who he is and his true worth. (Also, a really talented man does something that very few persons can do. If you have done something that thousands and millions of other humans can do, you have no bragging rights. Ask yourself if you are a Bobby Fischer, a Wittgenstein, a Shakespeare, an Einstein, etc...or if you are an insignificant, untalented regurgitator of undigested facts and don't have a single original idea or thought in your head, and your religious and political ideas are what you got from your parents and from what you heard from Fox "News" or CNN. Can you hold your own in a debate? Can you really think? ). An asshole, on the other hand, is a stinking blowhard, full of ugly sound and fury, signifying a sordid stench.
When Henry Miller got his "Tropic of Cancer" published in Paris, prudish and stupid readers decried the alleged pornographic elements contained therein, while the more discerning men of letters (Lawrence Durrell, Erza Pound, Karl Shapiro, Norman Mailer, and so on) recognized a free spirit and a revolutionary approach to fiction writing. Nowadays, Henry Miller is part and parcel of American literary history. The above can understand the below, but the below can never understand the above. Where you stand can affect what you see. Ditto for your intellect. A stupid and ignorant person can never understand a more intelligent, sensitive, and knowledgeable person.
Thus spoke Wissai
I was far more successful, financially and romantically, than I let on (in five weeks, I will spend ten days in Tahiti. I will have a chance to freshen my French. In June, I will spend a vacation in Seattle with a friend where I will cruise around in a yacht having two bedrooms, and spend time in a cabin on an island and in another cabin on the mountain. I am not lonely as I let on in my writings). I didn't want to reveal to her too much of my finance and my personal life. In retrospect, I am glad I was being prudent. Her words described more her conditions than mine. But, as I said, humans have a tendency to read themselves into other people's words or lives. I knew her well. She used to be a college classmate of mine in Vietnam. She was a totally common woman. I didn't regret of having a romantic relationship with her. I learned a lesson about humanity.
Wissai
A sensitive reading "A Story of Redemption"
Sunday, October 27, 2013
I've been thinking
Thursday, October 24, 2013
I woke up this morning with a dream
Facts, Myths, Truths, and Religion
You can find out about certain truths all by yourself, if you are really smart. Or you can rely on others to do the legwork for you. That means you take the trouble to read what others, presumably smarter than you, who have spent years and decades to research and think about certain truths.
Everything that rises will converge. That's your own insight. Politics, religion, philosophy, and worldview (Weltanschauung) of a person are all interconnected. And every living human possesses an outlook on life, whether he is aware of that or not, even when he adamantly denies that he is political, religious, philosophical and so on. To be human is to have a certain attitude. We are what we think we are. The following are notes, taken verbatim, from a book written by Reza Aslan on Islam ("No god but God"). Aslan's English is far better than yours. He also has spent a lot of his time to study religion in a formal manner while you only took up the subject of religion in a haphazard manner. Superiority is a matter of relativity and degree and subject-specific. The book is magnificent. Any self-regarding "educated" person should read it so he/she is no longer a victim of ignorance and an easy prey of propaganda from certain quarters in the West. Truth will make us free. By the way, you are not a Muslim. You are an infidel. More precisely, you are a dyed-in the-wool atheist who has a keen interest in religion which in your view, as stated above, is only an integral part of a person's outlook .
Myth, which originally signified nothing more than stories of the supernatural, has come to be regarded as synonymous with falsehood, when in fact myths are always true. By their very nature, myths inhere here both legitimacy and credibility. Whatever truths they convey have little to do with historical fact. To ask whether Moses actually parted the Red Sea, or whether Jesus truly raised Lazarus from the dead, or whether the word of God indeed poured through the lips of Muhammad, is to ask totally irrelevant questions. The only question that matters with regard to a religion and its mythology is "What do these stories mean?"
Evangelists interpret historical events in order to give structure and meaning to the myths and rituals of their community, provide future generations with a common identity, a common aspiration, a common story. Religion, by definition, is interpretation; and by definition, all interpretations are valid. However, some interpretations are more reasonable than others. And as the Jewish philosopher and mystic Moses Maimonides noted, it is reason, not imagination, which determines what is probable and what is not.
Muhammad's revolutionary message of moral accountability and social egalitarianism was gradually reinterpreted by his successors into competing ideologies of rigid legalism and uncompromising orthodoxy, which fractured the Muslim community and widened the gap between mainstream, or Sunni, Islam and its two major sectarian movements, Shiism and Sufism. Although sharing a common sacred history, each group strove to develop its own interpretation of scripture, its own ideas on theology and the law, and its own community of faith. And each had different responses to the experience of colonialism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Indeed, that experience forced the entire Muslim community to reconsider the role of faith in modern society. While some Muslims pushed for the creation of an indigenous Islamic Enlightenment by eagerly developing Islamic alternatives to Western secular notions of democracy, others advocated separation from Western cultural ideals in favor of complete "Islamization" of society. With the end of colonialism and the birth of the Islamic state in the twentieth century, these two groups have refined their arguments against the backdrop of the ongoing debate in the Muslim world over the prospect of forming a genuine Islamic democracy. At the center of the debate over Islam and democracy is a far more significant internal struggle over who gets to define the Islamic Reformation that is already under way in most of the Muslim world.
The reformation of Christianity was a terrifying process, but it was not, as it has so often been presented, a collision between Protestant Reform and Catholic intransigence. Rather, the Christian Reformation was an argument over the future of the faith---a violent, bloody argument that engulfed Europe in devastation and war for more than a century.
Thus far, the Islamic Reformation has proved no different. For most of the Western world, September 11, 2001, signaled the commencement of a worldwide struggle between Islam and the West---the ultimate manifestation of the clash of civilizations. From the Islamic perspective, however, the attacks on New York and Washington were part of an ongoing clash between those Muslims who strive to reconcile their religious values with the realities of the modern world, and those who react to modernism and reform by reverting---sometimes fanatically---to the "fundamentals" of their faith.
The book ("No god but God") is an argument for reform. There are those will call it apostasy, but that is not troubling. No one speaks for God---not even the prophets (who speak about God). There are those who will call it apology, but that is hardly a bad thing. An apology is a defense, and there is no higher calling than to defend one's faith, especially from ignorance and hate, and thus to help shape the story of that faith.
M never claimed to have invented a new religion. By his own admission, M's message was an attempt to reform the existing religious beliefs and cultural practices of pre-Islamic Arabia as to bring the God of the News and Christians to the Arab peoples (Koran 42:13).
M dealt with the demise of the tribal ethic in Mecca. He called for an end to false contracts and the practice of usury that had made slaves of the poor. He spoke of the rights of the rights of the underprivileged and the oppressed, and made the astonishing claim that it was the duty of the rich and powerful to take care of them.
In 613, three years after the Revelation had begun, M's message underwent a dramatic transformation, one that is best summed up in the twofold profession of faith that would henceforth define both the mission and principles of the movement:
"There is no god but God, and M is God's messenger." From this point forward in M's ministry, the monotheism that had been implicit in the earliest recitations became the dominant theology behind what had thus far been primarily a social message.
At the time of Islamic expansion after the death of M, religion and the state were one unified entity. Your religion was your ethnicity, your culture, and your social identity; it defined your politics, your economics, and your ethics. More than anything else, your religion was your citizenship. Thus, the Holy Roman Empire had its officially sanctioned and legally enforced version of Christianity, just as the Sassanian Empire had its officially sanctioned and legally enforced version of Zoroastrianism. In the Indian subcontinent, Vaisnava Kingdoms (devotees of Vishnu and his incarnations) vied with Saiva kingdoms (devotees of Shiva) for territorial control, while in China, Buddhist rulers fought Taoist rulers for political ascendancy. Throughout every one of these regions, but especially in the Near East, where religion explicitly sanctioned the state, territorial expansion was identical to religious proselytization. Thus, every religion was a "religion of the sword."
The term "holy war" originates not with Islam but with the Christian Crusaders who first used it to give theological legitimacy to what was a battle for land and trade routes. "HW" was not a term used by Muslim conquerors, and it is in no way a proper definition of the word jihad. The word j literally means "a struggle", "a striving", or "a great effort". In its primary religious connotation (sometimes referred to as "the greater jihad"), it means the struggle of the soul to overcome the sinful obstacles that keep a person from God. This is why the word j is nearly always followed in the Quran by the phrase "in the way if a God." However, because Islam considers this inward struggle for holiness and submission to be inseparable from the outward struggle for the welfare of humanity, j has more often been associated with its secondary connotation ("the lesser jihad"): that is, any exertion---military or otherwise---against oppression and tyranny. And while this definition has occasionally been manipulated by militants and extremists to give religious sanction to what are social and political agendas. War, according to the Quran, is either just or unjust, it is never "holy."
Muslim Law, which considers Jews and Christians "protected peoples", neither required not encouraged their conversion to Islam. Pagans and polytheists, however, were given a choice between conversion and death. Islamic law did prohibit Jews and Christians from openly proselytizing their faith in public places. Such prohibitions affected Christians more than they did Jews, who have been historically disinclined toward both proselytizing and public displays of their religious rituals.
Theological differences Islam has with C and J:
Trinity: Muhammad considered it intolerably heretical innovation created by ignorance and error. "God is one. God is eternal. He has neither begotten anyone, nor is he begotten of anyone" (Korean 112: 1-3)
Religions become institutions when the myths and rituals that once shaped their sacred histories are transformed into authoritative models of orthodoxy (the correct interpretations of myths) and orthopraxy (the correct interpretations of rituals), though one is often emphasized over the other. Christianity may be the supreme example of an "orthodoxic" religion; it is principally one's beliefs---expressed through creed---that make one a Christian. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Judaism, a quintessentially "orthopraxic" religion, where it is principally one's actions---expressed through the Law---that makes one an observant Jew. It is not that beliefs are irrelevant in Judaism, or actions unimportant in Christianity. Rather, it is that of the two religions, Judaism places far greater emphasis on orthopraxic behavior than does Christianity.
Like Judaism, Islam is primarily an orthopraxic religion. However, because the Ulama have tended to regard Islamic practice as informing Islamic theology, orthopraxy and orthodoxy are intimately bound together in Islam, meaning questions of theology, or kalam, are impossible to separate from questions of law, fiqh. Their ultimate objective was to form strict guidelines that would establish exactly who was and who was not a Muslim. The result of their labors became what is now commonly known as the Five Pillars of Islam, which are meant as a metaphor for Islam. They are a summary of not just what is required to be a member of the Ummah, but also of what it means to be a Muslim.
Contrary to perception, the Pillars are not oppressive obligations. These are highly pragmatic rituals, in that the believer is responsible only for those tasks that he or she is able to perform. Nor are the Pillars mere perfunctory actions. The single most important factor in the performance of any Muslim ritual is the believer's intention, which must be consciously proclaimed before the ritual can begin.
The Shariah, called the "core and kernel of Islam" by Joseph Schacht, was developed by the Ulma as the basis for the judgment of all actions in Islam as good or bad, to be rewarded or punished. More specifically, the S recognized five categories of behavior:
1) actions that are obligatory, in that their performance is rewarded and their omission punished;
2) actions that are meritorious, in that their performance may be rewarded, but their neglect is not punished;
3) actions that are neutral and indifferent;
4) actions that are reprehensible, though not necessarily punished;
5) actions that are forbidden and punished.
These five categories are designed to demonstrate Islam's over-arching concern with not only forbidding voice, but also actively promoting virtue.
Sufism: For Sufis, Islam is neither law nor theology, neither creed nor ritual; rather, Islam is merely the means through which the believer can destroy his ego so as to become one with the creator of the heavens and the earth.
While the annihilation of the ego may be a common goal to all mystical movements, there are a few important differences between S and traditional ideals of mysticism.
First,there exists in Islam a stringent anti-monasticism. Put simply, Islam is a communal religion.
Second, the Quran categorically derides celibacy as against the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply."
Third, Islam, like all religions, can claim to point humanity to god, whereas S's goal is to thrust humanity to God.
Islam and religious pluralism:
It is pluralism, not secularism, that defines democracy. A democratic state can be established upon any normative moral framework a long as pluralism remains the source of its legitimacy. The State of Israel is founded upon an exclusivity Jewish moral framework that recognizes all the world's Jews---regardless of their nationality---as citizens of the state. England continues to maintain a national church whose religious head is also the country's sovereign. And yet, like the Untied States, these countries are all considered democracies, not because they are secular but because they are, at least in theory, dedicated to pluralism.
Islam has had a long commitment to religious pluralism. Muhammad's Recognition of Jews and Christians as protected peoples (dhimmi), his belief in a common divine text from which all revealed scriptures are derived, and his dream of establishing a single, united Ummah encompassing all three faiths of Abraham were revolutionary ideas in an era in which religion literally created borders between peoples.
It is true that the Quran does not hold the same respect for polytheistic religions as it does for monotheistic ones. However, this is a consequence of the fact that the Revelation was revealed during a protracted and bloody war with the "polytheistic" Quraysh. The truth is that the Quranic designation of "protracted peoples" was highly flexible. When Islam expanded into Iran and India, both dualist Zoroastrians and certain polytheistic Hindu sects we're designated as dhimmi.
The current ideology of those Wahhabists who wish to return Islam to some imaginary ideals of original purity must be once and for all abandoned. Islam is and always has been a religion of diversity. Both Shiism and Sufism in all their wonderful manifestations represent trends of thought that have existed from the beginning of Islam, and both find their inspiration in the words and deeds of the Prophet. God may be One, but Islam most definitely is not.
Any democratic society---Islamic or otherwise---dedicated to the principles of pluralism and human rights must dedicate itself to political secularization. Therein lies the Cruz of the reformist argument. An Islamic democracy is not intended to be a "theo-democracy," but a democratic system founded upon an Islamic moral framework, devoted to preserving Islamic ideals of pluralism and human rights as they were first introduced in Medina, and open to the inevitable process of political secularization. Islam may eschew secularism, but there is nothing about fundamental Islamic values that opposes the process of political secularization.
Those who argue that a state cannot be considered Islam unless sovereignty rests I the hands of God are in effect arguing sovereignty should rest in the hands of the clergy. Because religion is, by definition, interpretation, sovereignty in a religious state would belong to those with the power to it expert religion. Yet for this very reason an Islamic democracy cannot be a religious state. Otherwise it would be an oligarchy, not a democracy.
Conclusion:
After wading through the origins and evolution of this third Abrahamic faith, established, for all practical purposes and single-handledly, by a genuinely religious-minded, illiterate, but smart and sensitive caravan leader of Arab descent, you came away with a healthy respect for the mixture of tough fair-mindedness and yet rationality and pragmatism the man had. If a human thinks he must believe in God and needs a religion as a crutch to go through life, Islam would be the most sensible answer, compared to its cousin, Christianity, and its parent, Judaism, because while it is still burdened with some unprovable and nonsensical assertions, it is more "rational", more "logical", and more "egalitarian" than the other two Abrahamic faiths. If you cannot bring yourself into believing in God and yet cannot divorce yourself from the crutch of religion, then Buddhism may be the religion that meets your needs. But don't take any words from anybody blindly. You need to investigate all available religions and faiths out there (the info is freely available on the Net) and then chose the one that makes the most sense to you. Alas, most humans don't do that. They just blindly accept whatever religion their parents practiced. Ignorance is not really bliss. It is a sign of slavery.
To live as a human and to justify one's conduct is to really answer the questions if there's a God and what's the role of religion, if any, in your life. (To put the matter differently, to live authentically as a thinking human, and not as a mindless human animal, is to deal squarely with existential questions: where does the universe come from? is there a God? who am I? why am I here? and where am I going to end up after I die?). Other questions (fame, power, fortune, love, and sex) are of secondary importance.
Wissai
October 23, 2013.
I wrote poetry because of thee
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Mediocrity
Monday, October 14, 2013
Le temps qu'il nous reste
Le temps qu'il nous reste
Quelle importance le temps qu'il nous reste,
nous aurons la chance de vieillir ensemble :
au fond de tes yeux vivra ma tendresse,
au fond de mon cœur vivra ta jeunesse.
Comme une prière du temps de l'enfance
ces mots sur tes lèvres me donnent confiance.
Je nous imagine ta main dans la mienne,
nos moindres sourires voudront dire je t'aime.
Mais l'un de nous s'en ira le premier,
il fermera ses yeux à jamais
dans un tout dernier sourire.
Et l'autre en perdant la moitié de sa vie,
restera chaque jour dans la nuit.
Son cœur bien sûr battra,
mais pour qui, mais pourquoi ?
Ton pas résonne, la porte s'entrouvre,
mon cœur bat plus vite et je te retrouve.
Quand nos mains se tiennent j'oublie tout le reste,
j'ai l'impression même que le temps s'arrête.
Mais l'un de nous s'en ira le premier,
il fermera ses yeux à jamais
dans un tout dernier sourire.
Un jour l'un de nous sera trop fatigué,
s'en ira presque heureux le premier
et l'autre sans tarder viendra le retrouver.
~ ~ ~
Je nous imagine ta main dans la mienne,
nos moindres sourires voudront dire je t'aime.