| « November 2009 » | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
Recently by quin
- That Day is a Grievous Woe
- TANGLED BADLY
- Behold! (Quranic Reflections on Nature)
- Theirs' a Wasteful Trade - Quranic Inspirations
- More Quranic Inspirations
- Whatsoever Happened to iLog Section (This is not a poem)
- MONA LISA SMILE
- Eternal Presence: Inspiration: Ayatul Kursi (The verse of Throne)
- Beginning of an Odyssey
- Gratitude - A Poetic Meditation inspired by Fatiha
- Regarding Love of Motherland_for Delirium, Mariposa & Zoyakhan
- Nightly Visitations
- A One Liner Primer on Pakistan
- meenug's "Is there God?"
- “Agony and Ecstasy” of Connecting
- A Prayer for the Day
Pakistani Culture - Further to Macbeth
“Culture? is defined in 164 ways, according to Wikipedia. However, often the best way to understand a word is to think about its root and the other branches which might have developed from that root. If we note that root of ‘culture’ is the same as that of ‘cultivate’ it becomes easier to talk about ‘culture’ and its corollaries. Asking “how much ‘cultured’ we are?? is the same as asking “how much ‘cultivated’ in our minds and manners we are.? With that slant, the tolerance in ‘Pakistani culture’ just shows lack of cultivation of our minds and manners. Intolerance and bigotry is not an aspect of ‘Pakistani culture’ as per se, but rather lack of ‘culture’ altogether in severely bruised Pakistan. In other words we don’t have any culture any more. Now this is a rather strong statement to highlight the point but it is not much far off from the mark.
Thinking about ‘culture’ in terms of mutual tolerance and ability to cooperate with each other, we can see that we can hardly call ourselves CULTIVATED as is obvious from our political, economic and moral scene. However, it does not negate the fact that there are finest human being, and millions of them, in Pakistan and of Pakistani origin (I being one of them – ha ha). But the point is that collectively we are not truly ‘cultivated’. The 'collective cultivation' in a society most often manifests itself in the form of art, literature and politics. In what state we are in all these three areas? And Why? What so called 'Pakistani Culture' can possibly offer?"
That is a burning question and a huge subject. But I do invite the readers to throw some ideas as it is most relevant topic. Thank you Macbeth for bringing this up.
Mutaal Mooquin
add to my favorite ilogs
flag objectionable content
Latest comments
Posted by Macbeth on
Sunday January 25, 2009 11:10 pm
Thanks Mooquin for ur interact and also for further continuztion of the theme.However after reading the interacts below i am more convinced that its a topic on which the more u talk/argue the more likely u r to go off the track. Anyways about this huge debate regarding Culture,'To weed or not to weed?" is quite an old one and the debate can also be trace in Aristotle's and Plato's views on Art.So i would say we need to do alot of work to achieve some sort of cultural unification in Pakistan as well as to promote it.And I am not convinced that Pakistan has no culture__no matter how much it is a bruised state i see people who are not even cultivated in thier mind and manner but quite promising too!(people like you and other on chowk all have this insight and vision abt culture) I am not disappointed coz i know the talent is there and Paskistan as a society has alot to offer all it needs is "right Enivironment" for the seed of culture to grow and it will grow even in a bruised soil!
Posted by quin on
Saturday January 24, 2009 06:14 pm
I like that - "natural and rational limits to tolerance". However, there have been thinkers and activist who had tried to teach us how to expand those limits. They considered the expansion of those limits to infinity as the way to develop our humanity infinitely.
To name a few of those thinkers: Gandhi, Tolstoy, Arabi, Thoreau, Luther King.
To paint Muslim societies with a broad stroke of brush is simplistic. There is a huge debate on these issues in so called Muslim societies.
We cannot remain slave of our terminologies, if we have to transcend the limits and expand the horizon to see the possibilities within ourselves and without.
To name a few of those thinkers: Gandhi, Tolstoy, Arabi, Thoreau, Luther King.
To paint Muslim societies with a broad stroke of brush is simplistic. There is a huge debate on these issues in so called Muslim societies.
We cannot remain slave of our terminologies, if we have to transcend the limits and expand the horizon to see the possibilities within ourselves and without.
Posted by Eklavya on
Saturday January 24, 2009 05:52 pm
Quin ji, different societies have different things that are sacred to them - things that are not allowed to be threatened, that are and must be protected tightly. In Muslim countries that is Islam - the basis of their morality, identity, and visions. In non-Muslim countries that may be something else. Either way, all socities must protect their core - the source of their identities, moralities and visions against mortal threats - no matter what shape these mortal threats take, violent or nonviolent.
Tolerance does not mean tolerance to mortal threats. That is the point I was making. Any discussion of tolerance without acknowledging rational limits to tolerance is a non-starter.
Again, the point here is not about religion, it is about natural and rational limits to tolerance for any system.
Tolerance does not mean tolerance to mortal threats. That is the point I was making. Any discussion of tolerance without acknowledging rational limits to tolerance is a non-starter.
Again, the point here is not about religion, it is about natural and rational limits to tolerance for any system.
Posted by quin on
Saturday January 24, 2009 04:19 pm
Sir Eklavya ji, sorry, I am not going to get sucked into a discussion about religion here. your words like 'fundamental duty' reek of 'fundamentalism' of a different sort.
And the 'guns' and 'words' cannot be equated like they are equated in your sentence.
That too is the unfortunate aspect of our Indo-Pak culture. Every other discussion ends up in a discussion about religion.
Natural limits in a genuinely cultured society are indeed posed by freedom of expression. Ours can hardly be called cultured societies in this age of non-reason.
The real points raised by earlier posts are different and I would like to stick to those.
And the 'guns' and 'words' cannot be equated like they are equated in your sentence.
That too is the unfortunate aspect of our Indo-Pak culture. Every other discussion ends up in a discussion about religion.
Natural limits in a genuinely cultured society are indeed posed by freedom of expression. Ours can hardly be called cultured societies in this age of non-reason.
The real points raised by earlier posts are different and I would like to stick to those.
Posted by Eklavya on
Saturday January 24, 2009 03:47 pm
Of course, that includes Pakistan too. So we shouldn't run too far with freedom etc. There are natural limits that any intelligent system must impose.
Now, what those limits are will differ widely depending upon the nature of the system itself.
Now, what those limits are will differ widely depending upon the nature of the system itself.
Posted by Eklavya on
Saturday January 24, 2009 03:46 pm
No quin ji. EVERY system has a fundamental duty to protect itself from utterly destructive elements, whether they hope to destroy with guns or with words.
Consider an Islamic society. It has an absolute duty to weed out, control elements - violent or non-violent - that hope to, aim to, destroy Islam or call Islam itself into question.
Consider an Islamic society. It has an absolute duty to weed out, control elements - violent or non-violent - that hope to, aim to, destroy Islam or call Islam itself into question.
Posted by quin on
Saturday January 24, 2009 01:47 pm
No doubt Eklavya, you have come up with a clever counter metaphor. But the question your metaphor begs is what is CROP and what is WEED.
This is a treacherous metaphor and dangerous tyrant will be happy to use it: any Hitler any religious or national zealot; any self-righteous despot.
Once we allow this type of unexamined imagery to take over us, the whole idea of our progress towards ‘cultural development’ is slashed into pieces.
What you are, however, trying to possibly say is that there is need for checks and balances a.k.a. controls. In a cultured society those checks and balances are created by freedom of thought and its expression.
What we must support is freedom of VOICE and not freedom of GUNS, which seem to be implied in your argument. In nature and as well in society, for thousands of years, life and culture has advanced in spite of all ‘weeds’ and ‘tyranny’ mainly by a CULTURED mechanism of checks and balances. By supporting ‘bigotry’ as propounded by your argument, we will strangulate any possibility of cultural refinement. We will end up as brutes. Is that our goal?
This is a treacherous metaphor and dangerous tyrant will be happy to use it: any Hitler any religious or national zealot; any self-righteous despot.
Once we allow this type of unexamined imagery to take over us, the whole idea of our progress towards ‘cultural development’ is slashed into pieces.
What you are, however, trying to possibly say is that there is need for checks and balances a.k.a. controls. In a cultured society those checks and balances are created by freedom of thought and its expression.
What we must support is freedom of VOICE and not freedom of GUNS, which seem to be implied in your argument. In nature and as well in society, for thousands of years, life and culture has advanced in spite of all ‘weeds’ and ‘tyranny’ mainly by a CULTURED mechanism of checks and balances. By supporting ‘bigotry’ as propounded by your argument, we will strangulate any possibility of cultural refinement. We will end up as brutes. Is that our goal?
Posted by Eklavya on
Saturday January 24, 2009 11:17 am
Mooquin sahib, with your kind permission, I would like to present a contrary opinion, -not merely to be a contrarian, but to highlight a rival hypothesis - that the world needs far more bigotry, not less, and that tolerance has become the bane and the greatest danger the world collectively faces.
To take up your cultivation metaphor, all cultivation needs two things - support of things that add, and removal of things that destroy. If we fail to remove weed in time, the crop can get run over. If we fail to remove harmful insects and rodents (who may be serve excellent purposes in their own environs) faster than they can multiply, and thus control their population, there will be no crop either.
IMHO, all ethical and moral systems are based, and realistically must be based on that principle of control and bigotry. Where we fail in our duty to apply the needed degree of control and bigotry, the system will be destroyed in time, replaced by fields of weeds, insects, and rodents.
That is a crop as well, just not the ones we have in mind.
To take up your cultivation metaphor, all cultivation needs two things - support of things that add, and removal of things that destroy. If we fail to remove weed in time, the crop can get run over. If we fail to remove harmful insects and rodents (who may be serve excellent purposes in their own environs) faster than they can multiply, and thus control their population, there will be no crop either.
IMHO, all ethical and moral systems are based, and realistically must be based on that principle of control and bigotry. Where we fail in our duty to apply the needed degree of control and bigotry, the system will be destroyed in time, replaced by fields of weeds, insects, and rodents.
That is a crop as well, just not the ones we have in mind.
quin
- Interacts: 306
- iLogs: 241
- Gallery: 12
- Page views: 46406
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Nov 21 2007
- Last signin: Dec 31 1969
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
