Wednesday, October 21, 2009

dear basma,

i must insist, that whatever i may comment might come off as completely irrelevant - but this is not the point, it has never been - relevance, in itself, on its own - is completely irrelevant - it is, believe me - or don't, at least - acknowledge
now, to your status, i feel the need to translate - translation rips the essence of things - mutilates them, but makes them more and less understandable - and this ...i shall use

{damn a nation, overflowing with sects and lacking religion}

--damn a nation--

in general, damn a nation. damn the nation. damn our nation(s).
(s) - what is our nation to begin with
1.pan arabia, my orgasm lines of dead politicians...republics/kingdoms

when talking about 1.
if considering pan-A, it exists only in the head - and if it does, this whole thing become irrelevant - if it exists in the head, we are all fine - but i dont think it does, to most people - sometimes it is better to un-think of it, as a young thing, i used to draw my own playlines - around the borders of arabia, and just .. color the whole thing as one - and i think - in my lifetime, some atlases will be printed as such - and after i die, many will, but i'm not sure if it would still be arabia, damn it.
when talking about 2.
then this in itself is a damnation, why would countries sharing history, religion*, blood, babies, households, food have boundaries (ask dead polititians when reading al-fati7a on respective graves) -- (or not)..(or don't read al-fati7a).. anyways, since defining the boundaies lies at the core of introverted mentality, simply - damn the nation, the concept of such nation - damn sects that call themselves nations, damn religion* altogether

--overflowing with sects--

define sects? no. wikipedia is too interesting, too interesting, use it. based on the prior /damn the nation/ protocol, i must insist, that
1. nations are sects

let's talk about 2.
what is religion? we can all agree that utopia does not exist, platonia is too boring, yet still - irrealistic, so why bother. so the almighty decides to tickle us with a piece of information:
find utopia
i think it's a joke, depeche mode too.. i mean,
anyways, beside blashpemous rumors - -
to me, religion is the ultimate political dream, why? because god said so - angry? exactly.
so screw it, if you want to pray, pray at home - you want to masturbate with otello, at home too, you want to suck pencils, please do - at home. nations are not built on sentiment, they must build sentiment..but not on residues of the latter. hence, religion only exists on the fault between two sects - religion, in eqation is always less that sects - this would work better with a diagram, so look:

excuse the quality (phone pic)

so, this is hyperoptimism... religion::sect = 1::4
so again, damn a nation becomes a postulate according to
{damn a nation, overflowing with sects and lacking religion}

--and lacking religion--

alone, this is music to my ears, but in context, it makes no sense - because it is an utter statement of the conclusive obvious - yes, sects exist as majority to religion in any way or form - if not at moment of initiation, then at moment of perception.
and because this is a populative equation i.e

1 religion = 1+ sect = x...

let's lack religion, a sect antidote - to maybe undamn a "nation", let's not call ourselves ..nationals - with a "nation", until i find another more appropriate name for us (never), let's enjoy being nothing extra - nothing more than producers and consumers - more tangible, i wouldn't mind being called a consumerist, when i buy a farroukh album, collaborate on spatial development or buy a decent newspaper everyday...maybe drinking home-brewed coffee.. am i ending this another quote, basma?

ويل لأمة تلبس مما لا تنسج

im not into
ويلin general, so - i cannot agree with quotes, in general - anyways,
yes...i'll make myself some coffee,

much love


Basma said...

Dearest Raafat,

I will follow the same logic. I will dissect the saying and will explain it as I fathom it.

If I tell you that i just gathered 5 random people in a closed room and asked them to introduce themselves by answering the following question:

What are you?

Based on the social structure that, let’s say exists at AUB or around me at least, the answers will probably be:

Jordanian of Palestinian origin

Then I ask them:

What are we?

Here, I'd like to define the word “we.”

We is according to

1. Nominative pl. of I.
2. (Used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3. (Used to denote people generally): the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4. (Used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party, etc., that includes the speaker or writer): We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.

I will take the 4 definitions one at a time.

We is the plural of I. so I+I+I+I=We? i.e. Student+Muslim+secular+maronite+jordanian of Palestinian origin=We?
Denote oneself and others: the example they give is “We have two children”, i.e. they used We to identify something in common, a common denominator, which is the two children.
The third one is just as the second one. We use “We” to denote people by stating a thing in common, in this case its “taking something for granted.”
Used to indicate a group, e.g. Lebanese+Christians+Druze+8th of March+anti-weapons groups+Arabs....Etc=We

Which one do we prefer? Before we answer that, you may tell me we don’t need to be the same. I’d say: correct! Each of us is their own self.

I can be a student now and then stop being that. I can be a Maronite now and then decide to be Catholic. the thing is, “I” is dynamic because we experience life individually and change according to our each experience. But this cannot be generalized. not everyone changes their religion, not everyone is atheist, not everyone feels the same tie to a specific land, not everyone believes in consumerism or communism. Thats why private choices, that affect oneself are crucial to be maintained. It is the definition of you.

If then another person tells me that We= group A+group B+group C, makes more sense.
so if group A is a sect, group B is a political party, and group C is a nationality, which of them is we? There are no common denominators here as well! Groups are driven by private interest. Just like individuals, and thats fine. A society can have individuals and groups in it. That is what pluralism is. But that is not we if each group is fighting the other. We need to be more stable so “we” has to have a common denominator.

I think i will settle for the fact that we are concerned and concerned are we!
We, the concerned people have realized that there is a huge problem. We don’t know who we are. We don’t know what we are.


Basma said...

Sect is I and sect is group, and I have explained to you that i see groups not being components of we; but of life in itself. So if we want to have a we, we cannot have sects dictating how “we” should live.


Religion is a private interaction between man/woman and his/her belief. Would you agree?
For instance, if i believe that this man is my saviour or that to get to heaven i must fast, that is something that is not for collective knowledge. I do it for me. i believe it for my own perceived good. To fix a society we need values and not practices. See, to drive in Lebanon i need to understand the other drivers. I would need to anticipate whether they will pass a red light or not. Do i need to understand a colleague based on their ideas? Or by the Cross/Quranic verse they hang around their neck? Do we want to label each other? Being religious is being spiritual and not separatist (advocating divisionism), or clustering society into sub-societies.

So a nation is doomed if sectarian politics takes over and if religious-in the definition i explained above-takes over. There is no majority based on group politics that fulfills democracy (or rule by the people), because if 80 percent are muslim there are 20 percent unrepresented. and those 20 percent will or will not fight for their rights. Do we want a big “We” and multiple mini “We”s next to it?


رأفت said...

so what is your stand? what do you think? you can..not have one - i mean, i agree that we don't have a clear identity, what do you think we should do?
i thought we had a clear identity, an enslaved one - and the answer, is to make everything..more tangible -
tell me what u think abt that, not your quote, i know you know your quote

Basma said...

my stand is that, there is a crisis of identity.. and we need to figure it out.. u want to know the way i see that too?? i will have to go home, have lunch and sit in my PJs like yesterday..

u'll wait? if yes, while you're waiting, how about you answer: what are you? and who are we?

رأفت said...

first, i must insist that this is a question that tends to being rhetoric - it wants to, seriously, it is DYING to, but - isn't, so what the heck - i'll answer - knowing that i am answering of a past self, in a while - ill be changing my mind BUT for the sake of PJs, here we go:
who am i?
raafat - i decided, a while back that i must reset - i am not a big fan of history or grudges per se - so i decided that i must choose a capsule - raafat. in this capsule are pieces of things i want, pieces of things i have (not had) - i am, whatever i filter/bounce
it makes more sense when i am nothing, .. i think, more of a transitional constance of temporary transit, basma - you puzzle me, is this question even relevant, can it be more of a
this acknowledges context . .
it would be a HOW DO YOU ________
about something in particular, a situation - making more relevance to..'reality'
now the {WE>}...argh
i do not function in groups, except when tasks are well organized, maybe this is how we can define ourselves, temporarily, through the {WE}
{WE} = cookie factory = sum of {i}
{i1} = chef
{i2} = baker
{i3} = monica bellucci
{i4} = delivery boy
{i5} = investor
hence, within a construct, every {i} knows its function, and within this construct we can ask {who are you?} and get a definite answer
without this construct, it doesn't make sense.
and {i}, within this construct, dear basma*, am enjoying this...