Think of it as a history of consciousness, process,
but that each person must come to an acceptence of who they are, what their
conventional assumptions are and confront them in the ways that these characters
do. Find the root meanings of words and follow their
evolution. That is what great literature and art is all
about. You finding your own way by learning from others in their own
journey. After you accept the conventional assumptions then rise
above them.
We use the metaphor of the tree. The
roots are the books and the stories while the leaves and branches are unique but
follow natural patterns evolved over millions of years. The
higher the tree, the more deep the roots need to be unless you live in a forest
in which case you all support one another. In some cases every tree
is simply a sprout off of a primary root system that covers hundreds of miles,
so there is a collective. In other cases there is an Oak or
Pine tree with ancient roots that are singular. Perhaps the
time is coming when we will be able to share roots rather than demand that
everyone suckle at the same sow or be killed.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:46
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Riots in
Riyadh?
It
may be a guide to building a society, rules about procreation, health,
community, etc.
But
there is much too much in there for me. Each time I start I get bogged
down in: Why would anyone believe in this?
Being a deacon in a Baptist church, I can speak
with some authority. You can read the Bible in several ways. One
is as grand myth - e.g. Genesis, Exodus and all that. Another is as
poetry and philosophy - e.g. the Psalms, Ruth, Job. And yet
another is as prophesy - e.g. Revelations. And, of course, there is
lots and lots of moral instruction.
But one should not read it is as the litteral
truth. Reading it that way has always led to trouble with a captital
"T".
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:35
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Riots in
Riyadh?
You can't know unless you read
it. But don't stop there. There is wisdom
and idiocy everywhere.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003
11:17 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Riots in
Riyadh?
All I was saying is that the Bible has never had any meaning for
me.
But what if I am wrong?
arthur
Yes, everything is really about a small
country 4,000 years ago in the middle of a desert.
Can't we get beyond this? There are other ways and
we can learn from each other.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003
10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Riots
in Riyadh?
In my more gloomy moments it seems that the
Biblical prohecies seem to be unfolding
inexorably. Armageddon. ...
arthur
US policy is being used for a narrow set of interests: the
Christian evangelicals seem determined to create a clash of
religions -- Christianity vs Islam. Oddly, a branch of
them, the Christian-Zionists, have added to the portfolio an
Israel-first agenda. Given the Christian-Zionist belief that all
non-Christians will be destroyed, it seems strange that some
elements in Israel have embraced an alliance with these
Christian-Zionists, but then the Israelis probably don't think
that God has that in store for them, so don't much care for
the beliefs and values that lie behind Christian-Zionism, happy to
settle for the political support the Christian-Zionists offer
Israel.
In case any of you missed it, by Christian-Zionist I am
referring to people like Tom DeLay -- see the very interesting
speech he gave to the Israeli Knesset
recently.
Right now, the Christian evangelical and Christian-Zionist
agenda is powerfully placed within the Administration: Rove,
DeLay, Feith, Perle, Bolton, Reed...et al. US policy toward
the rest of the world generally and the Arabs and Muslims
specifically has been hijacked by these folks, and is now working
against the interests of the country. Sometimes these US policies
are justified by the 'war on terrorism' -- one of the inventions
of the Christian evangelicals -- but the sad fact is that the 'war
on terrorism' is actually aggravating the terror threat, not
diminishing it. This is a pedantic way of saying that Americans
will die thanks to these Christian
evangelicals.
As the rest of the world reacts to what they see as a US
out of control, we will see a broadband resistance to the US take
shape. Not only will there be further terror attacks on US
interests, but trade relations will suffer, and cultural ones. I
don't know if you ever had a desire to take your art overseas, but
the chances of that happening have taken a nose-dive in the last
two years. Then, also, we have the trillions of dollars that
this 'war on terror is costing us, or rather costing future
generations. And the impact on US civil liberties, e.g. the 'sneak
and peek' and unlimited uncharged detention policies pushed by
Ashcroft and the President.
The Christian evangelicals simply do not care about these
costs to the US and our interests: they give their religious goals
precedence over US interests.
The American public is gullible. How many Americans have
ever traveled to the Muslim or Arab worlds (other than in a tank)?
How many Americans even know Arabs or Muslims who live in this
country, as their neighbors? Hell, how many people even on
this list???
Americans are patriotic. Combined with their gullibility,
this leaves them open to being exploited, to being conned into
giving their support, if only a passive support, for policies that
would readily appear inimical to a populace that was more
knowledgeable, thoughtful, and skeptical.
While the gullibility of Americans is saddening, the
pernicious behavior of those who are willing to exploit this
gullibility is nothing short of
criminal.
Could you speak more about
this?
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November
02, 2003 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework]
Riots in Riyadh?
Excellent article -- thanks for posting
it, Keith.
If Turki al-Faisal is criticizing US
policy and actions openly, this is indeed serious. I figure it
will take the US and UK about two decades to repair the damage
they have done to themselves overseas.. What an unnecessary
penalty we have to pay for the ignorance and narrow-focus
agenda of the US administration.
The Shah tried the White Revolution, and
found that it led to greater demands for civil liberties and
economic freedom, not fewer. Then with US advice and advisors,
he created SAVAK, an instrument of secret and not so secret
repression. And so he was overthrown and a counter-revolution
swept into power, instead of the moderates who led the
anti-Shah effort. I don't think the Saudis will go this
way; the Saudi populace is more united and coherent than
Iran's (and smaller), and they have the tribal structures of
governance, which are accepted generally by all, to fall back
on. Specifically, I am referring to the diwanniya and
succession practices.
There is no intrinsic reason that the US
and Saudi Arabia should not get along. Attacks on Saudi Arabia
have been pretty well organized by those who want generally to
poison US relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. These
same people have orchestrated a series of actions by the US
that is designed, in my opinion, to harm US relations with
these countries, and so to set the US and Arabs/Muslims
against each other long term. Unfortunately, no one in the US
government seems ready to denounce these
efforts.
The following, by our best foreign reporter, John
Simpson, with a long-time experience in the Middle East, can
be read as an adjunct to my previous posting (Crystal ball
gazing on Saudi Arabia) with the FT's interview with Prince
Turki al-Faisal.
There have been reports of small
riots in Jeddah and other smaller towns in Saudi Arabia from
time to time, and there have also been small riots in
Riyadh, the capital, using football matches as excuses, but
John Simpson writes here of what seems to be the first
serious riots in Riyadh. If, as I suggested previously, a
future riot starts getting out of hand, then that will give
the opportunity for someone to mount a coup d'etat --
probably someone in the
military.
KH
<<<< SAUDIS FEAR
THAT BRITAIN SEES THEM AS THE NEXT IRAN
John
Simpson
There was silence among the orderly lines of
men sitting cross-legged down the length of a hall in the
King Abd-al Aziz Mosque. Someone looked at his watch.
Another man fiddled with the box of food in front of him,
caught the disapproving looks of his neighbours, and
stopped.
Then came the stuttering of a microphone,
and expectant movement in the lines. The instant the
muezzin's voice proclaimed the end of the day's fasting, the
hungry men pulled their boxes open and started eating. The
warm evening air was filled with the smell of chicken and
saffron rice. Iftar, the evening feast, had
begun.
The holy month of Ramadan is a bad time to
visit Saudi Arabia if you want to do business. This year it
is worse then usual: to the irritation of the Saudi
government, the British Foreign Office and the American
State Department have warned people not to come here unless
they have to.
Half a column-inch in the newspapers
here hints at the reason: a senior al-Oaeda figure, Abu
Mohammed al-Ablaj, has sent out an e-mail promising
"devastating attacks" during Ramadan. This is presumably
part of the information the British and Americans have based
their warnings on. It looks to me as though al-Ablaj is
talking about Iraq, but now that people have taken to suing
their governments for not telling them the obvious, the
State Department and the Foreign Office tend to warn first
and ask questions afterwards.
This has, of course,
got up the nose of the Saudis in no small way. The
government here maintains that it has a very firm grip on
the security situation. Six hundred suspects have been
arrested since April, and 3,500 Muslim clerics have been
sent for "re-education". At Friday prayers two days ago, the
sermon I heard could have been written by the Ministry of
Information, it was so politically correct.
The
irritation with Britain and America is widespread throughout
officialdom, from Saudi Arabia's urbane ambassador to
London, Prince Turki al-Faisal, to his relative Prince
Sultan, the minister of defence. Last Thursday, choosing his
words carefully. Prince Sultan told a group of generals who
came to offer their Ramadan greetings that there was a smear
campaign against the kingdom. "We are neither terrorists nor
parasites," he said.
In other words, he was
responding angrily to accusations in Washington that Saudi
Arabia, the recipient in the past of so much American
military support, is somehow behind the new wave of
anti-American violence.
Here, most people seem to
take it for granted that the United States has shifted
decisively away from Saudi Arabia as a result of the
September 11 attacks. They see the invasion of Iraq as being
America's way of securing a safe supply of oil for the
future, and assume that the shifting of US military bases
from here to Qatar and Iraq symbolises the parting of the
ways.
As for the British attitude, it is a source of
annoyance rather than anger. The Saudis expect a greater
sensitivity and understanding from the British, and feel
that they haven't had it. Senior government figures scan
British statements anxiously for any sign that London
believes that Saudi Arabia is going the way of Iran, a
generation ago; and they feel they can spot
them.
Having watched the course of the Islamic
Revolution in Iran, I think the similarities are exaggerated
-- and yet the danger is clearly there. The Shah, too, tried
to re-educate his clergy, but he did it the hard way and
simply reinforced their anger and willingness to be
martyred. In the teeming slums of Teheran his soldiers shot
down the demonstrators, while he himself vacillated between
toughness and conciliation.
The Saudis are aware of
the precedent, though they feel that the experiences of a
Shi'ite state have little relevance to them. Perhaps they
are right, but history never repeats itself precisely. Two
weeks ago, hundreds of Saudis demonstrated for economic and
political reform in the streets of Riyadh; since
demonstrations are illegal here, the police dispersed them
with tear gas and arrested a hundred or more.
As in
Iran in 1978, the opposition comes as much from liberals as
from fundamentalists, and they have a tendency to make a
brief, tactical alliance, though it doesn't last long. Like
the Shah, the Saudi government is experimenting with a
little ultra-cautious liberalisation: press restraints are
marginally fewer, and there will be limited elections next
year.
These are nerve-racking times for the Saudi
government. It feels abandoned by its friends and
increasingly threatened by its enemies, and the princes who
control most of the ministries cannot agree on the right way
forward. Maybe Ramadan will pass off without the attacks the
Americans and British have warned about; even so, the
political choices here won't be any easier.
John
Simpson is the BBC's World Affairs Editor
Sunday
Telegraph 2 November >>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>,
<www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|