the gre atg lob ali stb log

Elections are exciting. Kind of.

i've half-considered not doing anything this election, because irony is something i take to heart and enjoy, but that's probably being irresponsible. i'm glad the Greens will probably win some seats, their platform is amusing in that it is everything, but will probably end up with the NDP, even though i disagree with them on certain issues.

For Edmonton-Strathcona--i'm wishing on Malcolm Azania. That would be u:ber-awesome.

Ken Epp and i disagree on many things.

Now too is when i want proportional representation.

It was beautiful indeed. But, define "climbing buildings"?

this election is exciting...there's some potential for drastic change (either good or bad, but altogether exciting)

I hate politics. However, this town is so full of the real complicated kind (nothing to do with you or anyone you know, just the "old gang" from sherwood park, and really, everybody i see daily) that clean-cut pursuits for power are almost refreshing. And also, I've decided to research a bit into this one to prevent the thoughts from drifting (as they have been doing far too often of late)

I have yet to hear of Malcolm Azania, I'll check him out (mostly I see Liberal signs all over the place, last time, I voted liberal, this time...i dunno i want a gov't that'll do something rather than merely exist - even if it means giving up those tasty gov checks every month)

sherwood park is a fortress of conservatism - the real kind, the "Please Please don't change ANYTHING!!!" kind. i fear that there is no escape from Epp until he is dead (NO!! Don't Get any ideas!!!)

as for proportional representation: I dont know, honestly, i dont understand this system; i was under the mimpression that it was MP-based. But, every where I look, I see Martin's billboarded face staring at me...I didn't know he was running in my riding, what a severe honour. I've been a fan of the "rank your choices" method..its not bad, but it can still be manipulated to the question-asker's advantage (ah, nothin's perfect)

ah, disregard the buildings bit, I was feeling quite corniferous at the time.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

il a dit quoi?

Hmm strange. What i meant to say--it's possibly that i know Malcolm personally, as well as a bunch of people working on his campaign, and see in him the natural..."charisma" and dedication one might need?
i'm not sure. anyways, www.ndpmalcolm.ca .

Too i have promptly forgotten of the buildings.

As for electoral reform, what is clear is that the current system leads to apathy, (wasted votes and all)... proportional representation has its faults, in that i do not find specific political parties the be-all and end-all of the political arena, and so would rather personalize politics, but hmm. a decent overview: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/reform.html

Hmmm...I am working on his campaign. An interesting person, though I have never met him conversationally. However, minister faucit's radio show on CJSR always enraged me (merely because I like music and he talks too much). Hmm.. I can see why you like him - a mild mannered intellectual activist. For me, it is Jack Layton who makes the sale (and this is why I am on the campaign).

Don't think that I am in complete agreement with the NDP. For recently, Stephen Harper has won some amusement from me (another good politician like Mr. Layton). However, policy-wise, a conservative vote is economic suicide ~ Canada is not infrastructurally prepared for the extent of his proposed tax cuts, and then there are some very right-wing ideas that would be revisited.

The Liberals must not be given a strong public mandate - yes, every government has its share of back-scratching and scandal but a public apathy for it is a disastrous message to send.

A friend today suggested a Liberal/NDP majority coalition (likened to the Trudeaux years). This is a practical possibility and an oppertunity for posative change.

On voting: it seems that I do not have a textual reference for the rank method, however I do have some class notes from Dr. Dahlby's "Public Finance" and Dr. Landon's "Public expenditure" courses (they were collaborators both on the text and the curriculum for their courses) which had some interesting voting theorums, I will make a web-page of these notes (any citation errors and such, please let me know, notes of other peoples thoughts in my handwriting are not covered in the MLA guide) by the end of the week.

Totally unrelated question:
In hand-to-hand combat, who would win: Jesus or Mohammed?

I always thought it would've been Muhammed (always thought of him as a warrior). However, my classics-studying friend suggested some alternative conceptions of both history figures, What thinks basit?

(this is in a playful and theoretical sense only, nothing to do with who's religion is better than who's and whatnot)

Oddly enough, i've never heard the radio show. And i do like to the Liberal/NDP coalition, but don't know how well that would work out in practical terms.

Hand-to-hand combat, Jesus or Muhammad? To tell the truth, i've never thought of such--because Muslims see Muhammad simply as the culmination of the Prophetic chain that stretches back till the dawn of humanity... that is, according to the very fundamentals of Muslim belief, you have to believe in Jesus if you're going to believe in Muhammad, it's all part of the same thing. To the extent that you can't call yourself a Muslim if you don't.
Of course, believing in Jesus and his original message is very different from believing in today's church.
Does that make any sense to you? Jesus' message, at its root, is simple monotheism (the whole trinity-"mystery" thing being, in the view of many, a Paulian doctrine). Muhammad too is known to have said "I am the nearest of kin to Jesus, son of Mary, in this world and the next. The prophets are brothers...their mothers are different, but their religion is one."
In other words, i don't think it's theoretically possible that the two (peace be upon them both) would *fight*, per se...

What do you say? What do you claim as yours?

Firstly, i would think that the renessance image of a scrawny white guy with long hair, sporting a loincloth and sandals is a little bit of a stretch. I can only imagine that Jesus was a big muslim-looking fellow. And, it is doubtful that he was all good.

No, Jesus was probably pretty bad-ass. For combat, though, Mohammed was definately a warrior. And. when it comes down to it, Mohammed would be able to deliver a severe bastinada. And, if not, he's got the support of an army of warriors.

Idiologically, one of Jesus's big things was not to put all your faith into a single book ~ I don't know what happened to this thought for modern Christians, but it is an idea I like. Today, he wouldn't be travelling door-to-door, toting the Book of Mormon, he might be meandering around, inviting people to throw down their books - or at least to think of them in a critical manner.

You would be of right mind to think that the Christian church and doctrine is largely due to the work of Paul,. But, don't discount the work of Aquinus and Augustine (Aquinus for the injection of Platonic ideals, Augustine for Aristotle's).

I am not as learned as to the evolution of the Koran. But, if I am not mistaken, Mohammed did not have an active role in its development (though, I am told that the "five pillars" remain true to Mohammed's teachings). As for Ali, my thoughts to this regard would probably get me killed instantly. Meh, such is life.

On a brighter note, the Monguls once attempted to conquer the Middle East. It has been written that they were so impressed with the strength of the Muslims they encountered that the Mongals converted to Islam.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

So what would you call a /Muslim-looking fellow/?

Also, i was reading somewhere how the "image" the West has of Jesus only appeared centuries afterward.

The Muslim position is essentially this: he was an exemplary human being, a righteous messenger of God to humanity, but that is all. Pretty much like the Muslim position on Muhammad. While Muslims too champion the virgin birth and his miracles, they don't elevate him to the status of "God" by any means--that'd be considered blasphemy; associating others (blatantly or metaphorically) with God is perhaps the worst thing one might do.

i still have trouble comparing the two prophets in a /combat/ setting.

Religiously, as i see it, Jesus' thrust was to restore what we now call "Judaism" to its "original" state--that is, one unstultified in tradition, being simple monotheism without the power-heirarchy that became the legions of "religious" leaders.

i read somewhere--something i agree with--that over the past centuries each of the three prominent monotheistic faiths has had to deal with major ideological challenges which will corrupt them if they are not "restored"--Judaism with Zionism, Christianity with secular humanism, Islam with cultural traditions which somehow get incorporated into the mindset... Islam, though, sees itself as the culmination of the same message present in the previous.

Anyways. What i meant about Paul--that it was he, and not Jesus of Nazareth, who fostered the ideology of "mystery" in God and introduced the factor of Jesus being the "son"--i see Jesus as the son of God only in the sense that we're all "sons"/"daughters", by virtue of creation... so, i'm not discounting Augustine or Acquinas or the rest.

A Muslim would hold by the simple fact that the Qur'an /hasn't/ evolved through the ages--that it was revealed (the word revelation is perhaps foreign to the contemporary West, but not so for billions of the uncitizens)--and that while it is true that the "hadith" (=traditions of Muhammad, distinct from the Qur'an, which might be called "the Word", in the literal sense) have had foreign elements introduced, there's also been a reactive tradition of scholarship developed to verify and authenticate...
anyways, i'm on a tangent now. Where do you get the "Muhammad not being active in its development" part from? i don't (necessarily) mean this offensively, am curious.

The Mongols wrought their carnage across the Muslim world, sacking even the seat of the now decandent and dilapidated Caliphate (ironically Baghdad...), but their conquest also served to inject new blood into the Muslim polity, and as you said, they themselves embraced Islam and went on to become some its firmest adherents...

i have a feeling this comment is now longer than your original post. :)

Extended comentaries are never an issue: mostly it is in discussion that the pure juices of thought begin to flow. Thank you for your involvement and knowledge :D .

The idea of a make-believe mortal struggle between teachers of faith would be an attempt to take theology out of context - in this manner, the stage might be set to debate, consider, evaluate, and learn without fear of comprimising one's personal rule set nor infringing on the rights of other (for, the discussion occurs, not in this realm, but in an imaginary realm which is imaginitive and playful and might not be taken seriously if one so chose) - and your fear of humanism might erupt, however, it is your choice to make what you will: make a critical analysis, or spread your knowledge.

A muslim-looking fellow? I can only imagine, Disney's cartoon rendition of Sinbad the Sailor. And, such a perverted would-be stereotype is merely questioning a popular image while attempting to think about what a Jewish man in Israel might have looked like during the time of Christ (which would probably be: just like everyone else from that area).

A riteous messenger. But, aslo a rebel with warm defiance - in the stories. he does indeed lose his temper and scorn the unworthy (once - apparently highly debated among scholars; cited as evidence of sin, but I am not learned and cannot more than idle comments).

See, my only knowledge of Islam, how it works and how it grew, is from a single-semester course in post-classical history that I took three years ago, so some of the info was sparse and sketchy to begin with, and things fade. I was under the impression, however, that Muhammed's revelations were expressed orally, and written down by others.

I would, however, disagree with the obscurity of revelation. It is a common thing to seek. And, most western scholars and thinkers (and even everyday people) seek or have sought it. For instance, Aquinus, Augustine, Descartes, Rousseau, all cited that most of their thoughts had been aquired through a passive contempation (not unsimilar to reason, but somewhat mroe receptive), in which they did not see themselves as the producers of their thoughts, but the recipients of them (implying, or course, the existence of a giver of thought, a messenger...)

How many, I sometimes wonder, have been given the knowledge of the path of riteousness for the times as years and struggle cloud the teachings of the past? And, how would they be distinguished from those who preach falsehood?

it might be safe to say, then, that in modern times with resentment and fear and a seeming split in world philosophies, you do not thing that the imagined talismen of each side would agree to battle; That is, at its core, Western and Middle-Eastern thought have no disagreement?

Perhaps I offend. I'll take the chance.

The make-believe mortal struggle between teachers of faith isn't what's fazing me. Rather, the idea that it is these two *particulars*--that is, in the literalist sense, they both taught /Islam/, and to synthetically foist a conflict-paradigm would be to impose externals which jar with their essence. In other words, i don't necessarily see this as the most conducive arena for /discussion/, or as theoretical playthings, but "for the sake of conjecture"...

My fear of humanism? the "fear" or rejection is not of humanism as a way of life dedicated to humanity--that, i find, is too what Islam calls upon. My anti-humanism is of anti-Humanism, the secularist philosophy of the Rennaissance, not the value-systems which have evolved from that same. (That is, the nontheistic religion what rejects the supernatural.)

Agreement on Sinbad. And also on the rebel. Then too, i think all the prophets were rebels, in a "secular" sense as well.

And for expressing orally / writing down later--now i get it. Um, basically his companions committed them to memory and recorded individually, and later, a few years after his death, all was brought together, corroborated, and compiled as one. i think my argument was of /revelation/ being voided from this society, as distinct from /inspiration/. Can i make that difference? Your point, of the many individuals both currently and throughout history, is as i see it one relating to inspiration, not revelation.

Preaching falsehood vs. inspired teachings: a timeless quandrary.

When one does comparative religion, one finds Judaism / Christianity / Islam under "Western religions" and Buddhism / Hinduism / etc under "Eastern religions". As for the question, though, i think i'd just repeat that i find what Jesus taught simply a reflection of the same message Muhammad taught--and i do see complications (clerical hegemony, doctrinal obfuscation, et al) as later developments what had very little to do with himself. The same could be said of the many narrow cultural elements which have in many parts of the world crept into people's understanding of Islam, though its reified essence remains...
To coherify: i do not think Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them both) would ever "fight" per se. However, i differentiate Jesus from Western thought, and to restrict Islam to the Middle East would be to do an injustice--that is, Western thought is by now several evolutions awae from the Rennaissance, and Middle-Eastern thought isn't really synonymous with Islam. Would Islam conflict with the Rennaissance? Superficially, no; their various expressions would probably overlap in many areas. However, Islam would hold a stand against ultimate relativism and reduction and indeed against progressivism as a whole, so in that sense (while seeing these as cornerstones of the Renaissance), yes i do see conflict.

What of yourself? Do you see conflict? Huntingdon? What belief-paradigm d'you cling to?

I do see a conflict; but, I do not understand it.

I call myselft not a Humanist, Christian, Bhuddist, Scientologist, Muhammedan, Satanist, Hedonist, Pegan, Sophist, Mormon, Cartesian, Hindu, Wiccan, nor anyother label one might find comfort in. However, I like to make an active effort to read and appreciate what these people have to say; and, I hope that such reading would influence me.

I entertain a belief that there is some connectivity between all things, all people. If I were to have a conception of God, it would be an aggregate of all that was, is, and will be - something whose essence might only be known with certainty once the last life sheds its coil (which is somewhat of a paradox). However, the more I listen, and the more poeple I meet and respect, the closer I become (this is the goal and the idea, anyways, sometimes the actualization is more challenging)

Anyhow, as an extrapolation of this, I like to think that there is something worthwile and worthy in anything and anyone - that is, Hitler might be as deserving of love as Mother Theresa; that is, one of the virues I persue is an infinite capacity for forgiveness (a fleeting and frusterating persuit).

The idea is too see, in the face of suffereing, the face of a fellow man (or woman, or whatever).

Admitedly, Islamic thought has influenced western thought (har, we are using arabic lettres, aren't we?) and visa-versa. However, there is difference.

I will make an admission, I fear Muslims. I fear the call to jihad - not in its essence, which might be an unigornable call to make a stand for one's values. However, I fear its power in craftily ambitious hands. That is all on that, for now.

Huntingdon? An obscure reference...An attempt: It is brutally important to treat all things with respect. To view an animal as a tool or something worth less than oneself is to have this same view about anything, there is no seperation. However, this also begs that the system and the institution (those who make iot up) must also be treated with humility and respect. For, the want of blood for blood is a step towards distinguishing between worthwile and worthless, which i might consider a downward spiral.

And stil the battle? Talismen that might've simplified an impending confilct on the world stage which is all to complex, especially since so many people of different heritage are pocketed amongst each other. If there cannot be some ideological peace, then things might be far worse than battles in a far-off land.

Just as we're told nature abhors a vacuum, so too despite any apparent lack of labels, there is a label there just the same--indoctrination isn't necessarily palpable, but it's everywhere nonetheless.

Your extrapolation on forgiveness/etc reminds me of Quakerism--they believe there is a "kernel of God" within everyone, and their worship centers around this. However, to equate Hitler with Mother Theresa on a non-theoretical level is somewhat extreme. i very much accept that within each individual is an Essence, originally uncorrupted and beautiful, but too see that as people grow they learn to form themselves, make choices, walk around... equality in terms of theoretical "worth", but the choices people make to deal with their lives affect how i appreciate them. Everything is *not* relative--theoretically, Hitler is of course as deserving of love, but practically? He made choices with his life, and there are consequences to those choices.

i wasn't trying to say Islamic thought was the same as Western--don't get that from me. i was after all saying there was conflict with post-Rennaissance thought... What i *was* saying was that Muhammad's thought, and Jesus' thought, were identical.

You fear Muslims? That is a sad admission, especially as there are 1.3billion of them in the world. Too they aren't homogenized. Perhaps expand the quest for infinite forgiveness on to Muslims in practical terms as well, having voided yourself of sensationalized headlines? You'd find, i think, that they/we are human beings... i could say "i fear Amerikkkans" or "i fear Jews" or "i fear ambidextrous people", for perfectly valid reasons, but realize this generalization is unjust. If it's jihad you worry about--i personally don't find anything to fear in the jihad which wishes to liberate Muslim lands from foreign occupation, whether ideological or military... as for "power in craftily ambitious hands", yes, the principle can be misused (and is). At the same time, though, i trust in the fundamental human quality to prevent corruption from spreading too far. Also, every principle is misused, not simply Muslim ones--to single out the power of jihad is bias (i'm not accusing, just pointing out).

Huntingdon--fierce proponent of the "clash of civilizations" theory, and who, along with Fukuyama ("the end of history"--sickening arrogance), is of the neocon heart-list.

i agree on the anti-utilitarianism... Islam too doesn't see nature as something to be "conquered" (in contrast to the industrial West). However, i do not think i shall side with you on respecting all with humility--my respect must have some basis; i can have no respect for a system or institution which does not meet certain criteria.

I skimmed two ebooks tonight (huntington with a "t"). i would not be able to tell you what a "neoconservative" is. However, I do not beleive that incompatable culture is "the new conflict". However, I feel that I am missing a piece of the picture (travel this summer should bring some greater insight).

Granted, people and institutions must be held accountable for their actions - there can be no excuse. However, people must also be given a chance, an acknowledgement of human nature which is to mistake but have an essence of purity; that is, account and be forgiven. Some things will require a greater deal of penance - and a great deal of empathy in their forgiveness (which, of course, makes the persuit of it more strenuous).

Allow me to clarify: I do not fear Basit (who is a Muslim). And, resistance to occupational forces in one's homeland would be a justified jihad. But, there was that thing, a few years back, where a few men sacrificed their lives and the lives of thousands of others, and, according to a face on television (who reprasented Middle-Eastern Muslims to the relatively ignorant industrialized west), this was in the name of a holy war - extreme devotion? no. Irrational manipulation of a sacred law? maybe. If one could ignore the murder (which, sadly, the media makes all-too-easy) and examine with cool reason: this did not strengthen anyone's position save for the US, who jumped on the excuse to invade two countries in less than four years, using an Alimo cry to unleash their own crusade. And, I am scared. What happens next, when the rulers of the world decide to push with even more force and more ambition, and then back the desperate warriors into a corner? What sort of lashing-out will be dealt, in the name of God, in a frustrated howl, with sacrificial devotion? Yes, I fear the Muslims. Yes, I fear what WE (the west - as beurocratic and powerless as canada is, as pascifist as I am, it is my people who turn the blind eye, who talk about the weather, who deny the existence of true struggle) will force them to do.

Why can people not coesxist? ha! becaue few take the time.

Parents teach their childeren how to hate rather than how to love; kids go to school to be ignored by overly-ambitious and over-worked teachers. Very few wiling to make the effort. However, I have been lucky and no doubt that you have also been lucky; we are fortunate. I have met many that have not been so lucky.

On liberal-democracy: it doesn't matter. the system of governance can change and communities will still develop as they like. For, if the government doesn't provide, people will provide for themselves - the black markets are not all bad things. For instance, my uncle is not allowed to work (sever post-traumatic stress or something). However, his government compensation of $550/month is not enough for him to provide for his two childeren. However, he maintains contacts in his local community, who exchange not money but "gifts". He builds houses and fabricates solar-panels for boiler systems, counsels troubled teens and provides hope for autistic childeren. his door is never locked, he worries not about safety. he never sees or discusses money. He has been known to come home and find his fridge full, no bills arrive at his doorstep. By being involved (in a very mosaiced community, no less), the community provides - this doesn't infringe or account for any sort of politics, it is possible with and without them.

However, there is, of course, so much more to see and learn. so much unresolved immediate conflict (if the global community might only adopt some of the attitudes of the closer-knit pockets.

How do you see the global conflict; of today and the future? is there solutions? can the mosaic live in peace, or must everything be divided into colours?

alright, well, this is much overdue, but here i am at last. also this responds both in part to the immediately previous and the bernard lewis of morerecenttimes.

Your clarification falls short of exoneration, i'm afraid, when it comes to "fearing Muslims". i do hate on Bernard Lewis, i find his books and ideas repulsive and the fact he is the modern guru of all things doing with "Islamism" (sic) odious...i say his works are laced with poison, he foists propaganda subtly or blatantly anti-Islam upon the unsuspecting reader. Do i have this right--you "fear Muslims", because of their capacities for global jihad? (i'm paraphrasing) If so, i still think that is sad--first you homogenize, depersonalize Muslims as an anthropomorphic mass, and then apply popular stereotype. If i were to look at simply the first and second world wars, i could be totally turned off by europeans--their capacities for mass murder, genocide, brainwashing en masse, make me ''fear'' them... does this logic work?

Also, you relate "that thing a few years back" to "irrational manipulation of a sacred law"--even that is problematic. If one were to examine the causality behind these actions, what really would one find? like, truly? leaving aside the fact that the official story of what happened in "that thing a few years back" is very patchy, disconsonant, even if we accept it without question, what really is the root cause? is it irrational manipulation of a sacred law? or is it reaction to injustice, plain and simple, boiled up generational anger finding release in destructive ways--and given a "means", or a "cover", by that same "sacred law"?
Even so, i think some good has emerged out of this mess, that being in that lines are being drawn, ambiguities are being clarified, people are forced to make choices they might not otherwise make...in absolutist terms, this is a good thing.

Secondly, and this isn't necessarily a point you raise but that i'm going off on a tangent here once the word "liberal" is spotted, i snark at the easy devaluation of the world into "right" / conservative and "left" / liberal hemispheres. If people ask where i sit on this so-called ''political spectrum''--a spectrum i find both extremely limited, eurocentric / westocentric, as well as exclusive... as in, i resent dichotomies like that, always end up asking for the third option--i don't really think i can answer, period. Socially, i think i'm more conservative than i let on, but i'm also more liberal than i let on--it really depends on the issue, setting personal hypocrisies aside, and that's also a problem i have with political parties per se: i end up agreeing with stephen harper on some things, though i'd be terrorized if he ever ended up in "power". the same goes for layton...i guess it's just a question of prioritizing issues, but meh. On economics i'm mildly leftist, though vitriolic'ly rejectionist when it comes to today's status quo; politically, ideally, i'd aim for a modern theocracy, see in iran's model much to emulate, but seeing that i'm in canada at the moment, urge onwards for decentralized grassroots democracy--if only because i want government accountable to me, personally. heh.

Governance *does* directly affect society, i'm sorry to say...

Erm. i think i'm done--can't find anything else to raise hackles at, on the moment, so am off.

cudos, and a blessed thanks; I may respond later when I have time to properly read your post, but from skimming, it seems that there is some good points in there.