Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

[Rrapatushja]

Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

Dedicated with all my love to Claire (who shall never read it), the omniscient and enlighted zygote of Pol. 381, 12:30, second floor, last row, inches from hitting the back lobe with the plexiiglass map of the world.


"To cave explores from the West"
Gyorgy Konrad

"We are the needy relatives, we are the aborigines, we are the ones left behind—the backward, the stunted, the misshapen, the down-and-out,the moochers, parasites, con-men, suckers. Sentimental, old fashioned, childish, uninformed, troubled, melodramatic, devious, unpredictable, negligent. The ones who don’t answer letters, the ones who miss the great opportunity, the hard drinkers, the babblers, the porch sitters, the
deadline-missers, the promise-breakers, the braggarts, the immature, the monstrous, the undisciplined, the easily offended, the ones who insult each other to death but cannot break off relations. We are themaladjusted, the complainers intoxicated by failure.

We are irritating, excessive, depressing, somehow unlucky.People are accustomed to slight us. We are cheap labor; merchandise may be had from us at a lower price; people bring us their old newspapers as a gift. Letters come from us sloppily typed, unnecessarily detailed. People smile at us, pitying, as long as we do not suddenly become unpleasant. As long as we do not say anything strange, sharp; as long as we
do not stare at our nails and bare our teeth; as long as we do not become wild and cynical."

 

[gjekec]

Re: Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

Contemplating Eternity....


one hundred and eighty degrees turn /pf/images/graemlins/smile.gif ???

 

[Rrapatushja]

Re: Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

Intelligent Miscommunication
(Ian's e-mail)

I'm sorry that my last e-mail was considered insulting to some people. It wasn't my intention to suggest that anyone is stupid or does not know how to read. Far from it. In fact, the point I wanted to make was motivated by the observation (often noted by recent scholars of politics and philosophy) that highly intelligent people are still prone to talking past each other and
overlooking the other's evidence and arguments. My criticism is directed precisely at intelligent people; the point is not to question their
intelligence, but to ask them how they apply it.

Here is an example. In November 2001, I watched a BBC current events show, hosted by the very intelligent Jeremy Paxman. The topic for this evening was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paxman's guests were Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, and a Syrian intellectual, now living in England, whose name I don’t remember. (Sad that Netanyahu’s name should be more memorable.)
First Paxman interviewed Netanyahu. Netanyahu spoke eloquently, in fluent English, about terrorism, civilized values and so on. I’ve often heard the man speak, and he has all the mannerisms and command of cultural references that make him familiar and easy to listen to for an English audience. He’s like “one of us”. Then it was the Syrian’s turn. As the camera shifted, I caught a glimpse of Netanyahu getting up to leave the table. He simply walked out. This
rudeness was not commented on. I mention this because of what was to come. Paxman turned to the Syrian and asked him if he supported suicide bombings. The Syrian said that the bombings had to be seen in context, and proceeded to
outline some of the history of the Middle East from what would be a left-wing Arab perspective. As he was part way through his statement, Paxman cut him off. “You haven’t answered the question. Do you support suicide bombings?” The Syrian tried to argue that this was not the most important question to talk about, and tried to carry on with what he’d been saying before the
interruption. That angered Paxman, and he repeated the question more and more aggressively; finally, Paxman leaned back in his chair with exasperation and said “This is going nowhere, I see no point in continuing.” There was just time
to witness the Syrian’s look of complete amazement before he was cut from the picture and the show moved on to its next news item.

Paxman had his own idea of what should be talked about. When the Syrian tried to talk about something else, Paxman did not give the Syrian credit for having valid reasons for doing so; he only understood the Syrian to be prevaricating,
dissimulating, or perhaps just making an irrational rant. And what’s important here is that Paxman had the POWER to dismiss the Syrian. He had the power to control the topic and the question.

And I wonder: why didn’t Paxman want to know what the Syrian had to say? Why wasn’t he curious? Just as I often wonder why so many intelligent people in North America shy away from reading or listening to accounts of what we and our
allies have done in Latin America, or of what we have done to the native people of this continent. I mean listening in a way that really takes this knowledge seriously, that really considers its magnitude and what that implies about our
values and our social system. What I see here is a widespread problem, a problem that Chomsky calls (rather simplistically, but simple sometimes is useful) “choosing not to know”.

As for people not knowing history, again I would refer to Edward Said, in his work on Orientalism. So many Western intellectuals have claimed to “know the Arabs”. But they have not been interested in listening to Arabs. The Arabs do
not get to speak for themselves in this unequal process of knowledge production. When they do speak, they enter a conversation that has been going on for a long time without them, a conversation with fixed parameters and
agendas that have been set by others; and they’re often told that they’re speaking “off topic” (which is funny, considering that they ARE the topic).

When you’re speaking against power, you have to speak a lot, much more than other people whose perspectives are just “common sense” and don’t need to be spoken.

The point I'm making, about the effects of power in communication, isn't my own. You'll find it in Chomsky, Said, Stuart Hall, and furthermore, in almost
any feminist text written since the 1980s. I think feminists were making this
point long before anyone else. It is not intended to insult people, and it does
not assume that they have bad intentions. It calls on people to reflect on the
assumptions and cultural prejudices that prevent them from using their
intellectual capacities in a more ethical and egalitarian manner.

 

[Ema]

Re: Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

Are you inviting people to become wilder then they are?
/pf/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

Re: Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

Why not /pf/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Ema]

Re: Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

!

 

[Diddy19]

Re: Distanca qe insistojne te mos kapercehen.

Perktheje moj vajze!Gjithe tema anglisht!Sikur edhe s 'lejohej me duket!

Une te ishte shqip dhe do pertoja ta lexoja gjithe ate ,jo me pastaj anglisht!

Pastaj s kuptoj se per cfare do diskutohet,levoja postimin e pare ne kete teme dhe komenti i vetem qe mund te bej eshte:"E pastaj??"