Bob, over on the overgrown path ("music box") points to some interesting music, 'Become Ocean'.
When you think of Peshawar, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan..and now (probably) Paris, do you think there's a Muslim problem? Boko Haram, al-Q, IS (or whatever it's called now). Which is-obviously-not to say that all Muslims are problems or all problems are Muslim but, rather, that there's a specific problem in the so-called Muslim world-a (not the) Muslim Problem? You suspect that neither the right-wingers nor mainstream Muslims have the ability (or perhaps desire) to take a step back and honestly ask this question. And to be honest, neither have you. James Kelman's Greyhound and Agee's Let us Praise both came in today (highly recommended by James Wood and Charles from CB respectively).
The question cannot be framed any longer in terms of nationality or self-determination-if it ever could. As with Walker, this is about an 'endless war', "infinite justice".
The shape of things to come? You remember an old Parsee, a retired army person who used to work at the once great Ferozsons book shop-a dark and cool oasis in the heart of the higher end of the old city. And you remember the seated old man shaking his head, as if he'd arrived at some hard-won bit of wisdom: "To be honest, I spend most of my time with my dogs and cats...I've given up on human beings".
~~~
Todorov-whose excellent book you happen to be reading at the moment-was on Newsnight and said things people probably didn't want to hear: the first principle of democracy is not freedom of speech but the limiting of power. He then went on to imply that the media acts as if it has unlimited power. Don't put those two together or else you have an uncomfortable equation.
Does negative liberty (rights, or those of the market) exhaust the concept of freedom? Do we want to ask Brando's question?Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Well, okay, liberty and equality. Bugger...liberty, then!
Is free speech a necessary but not sufficient condition? Is the dominant (and correct or more important) idea of freedom really 'freedom from'...feel free to fill in the blanks: the state, church, religion, other people, society...)?
Are other people, bonds, dependencies always a constraint on our freedom? (That is the dominant idea in the social sciences and-if Todorov is to be trusted-for a lot of western philosophy). Robinson Crusoe as the foundation (or the war of all against all..see Sahlins). Or some form of suppression of our primal drives and instincts (by an artificial civilisation). We start off lacking something (scarcity has to be posited as getting the whole thing in motion); we start off as conflicted beings, at war with other people (Mother, Father) and with ourselves. What we want above all is autonomy, to be left alone (which makes you wonder about the role of friendship and love in philosophy).
~~~
When you think of Peshawar, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan..and now (probably) Paris, do you think there's a Muslim problem? Boko Haram, al-Q, IS (or whatever it's called now). Which is-obviously-not to say that all Muslims are problems or all problems are Muslim but, rather, that there's a specific problem in the so-called Muslim world-a (not the) Muslim Problem? You suspect that neither the right-wingers nor mainstream Muslims have the ability (or perhaps desire) to take a step back and honestly ask this question. And to be honest, neither have you. James Kelman's Greyhound and Agee's Let us Praise both came in today (highly recommended by James Wood and Charles from CB respectively).
The question cannot be framed any longer in terms of nationality or self-determination-if it ever could. As with Walker, this is about an 'endless war', "infinite justice".
The shape of things to come? You remember an old Parsee, a retired army person who used to work at the once great Ferozsons book shop-a dark and cool oasis in the heart of the higher end of the old city. And you remember the seated old man shaking his head, as if he'd arrived at some hard-won bit of wisdom: "To be honest, I spend most of my time with my dogs and cats...I've given up on human beings".
~~~
Todorov-whose excellent book you happen to be reading at the moment-was on Newsnight and said things people probably didn't want to hear: the first principle of democracy is not freedom of speech but the limiting of power. He then went on to imply that the media acts as if it has unlimited power. Don't put those two together or else you have an uncomfortable equation.
Does negative liberty (rights, or those of the market) exhaust the concept of freedom? Do we want to ask Brando's question?Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Well, okay, liberty and equality. Bugger...liberty, then!
Is free speech a necessary but not sufficient condition? Is the dominant (and correct or more important) idea of freedom really 'freedom from'...feel free to fill in the blanks: the state, church, religion, other people, society...)?
Are other people, bonds, dependencies always a constraint on our freedom? (That is the dominant idea in the social sciences and-if Todorov is to be trusted-for a lot of western philosophy). Robinson Crusoe as the foundation (or the war of all against all..see Sahlins). Or some form of suppression of our primal drives and instincts (by an artificial civilisation). We start off lacking something (scarcity has to be posited as getting the whole thing in motion); we start off as conflicted beings, at war with other people (Mother, Father) and with ourselves. What we want above all is autonomy, to be left alone (which makes you wonder about the role of friendship and love in philosophy).
~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment