From: bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi)
Subject: Re: People and Ideas (was: Re: Civil War)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 11:58:22 GMT
Organization: falsafeh 

In article <1992Jul30.123802.6375@fmg.bt.co.uk> ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:
>In article <_8nm00a.bavafa@netcom.com> bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:

******  Warning:  This is a long post.  Please exercise caution as to whether 
******  you would like to read it or not.  The subject, I guess, is people's
******  ideas and our reactions with respect to those ideas.

>> ==========================  For Hossein B. R. only  ========================
>> I am learning from you; I only laugh at the idea and not the people who 
>> represent the idea.  Never mind the double standard anyways!
>> ============================================================================

Hi, Hossein!

Your post opened the door to more understanding of your statements.  I am
going to address some of questions you asked.  While doing so, I found
new topics for discussion such as racism and the concept of sameness.

You said:
>People do not represent ideas.

I said:
>>. . . people who* represent the idea.
[* I will make a point about _who_ at last. - HFN]

Two apparent opposing views, ain't it?  I am sorry but I have some shortage of
understanding right here.  If I can pass through this statement, then I could
probably digest the rest of your arguments.  Perhaps we could start from a
common ground.  Two approaches come to my mind:  1) determine if we both
agree on the definition of 'represent,' 2) perhaps you could translate your
above sentence in Persian in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of 
language barrier for me ( I am the problem not you :-) ).

Why don't I offer the first?  The American Heritage Dictionary defines the
verb represent as follows:

1.  to stand for, symbolize: 'The eagle represents the United States.'
2.  to depict in art; portray.
3.  to present clearly to the mind.
4.  to draw attention to by way of remonstrance or protest.
5.  to describe as an embodiment of a specified quality.
6a. to serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for.
6b. to act as a spokesman for.
7.  to serve as a example of: 'a mammal represented by seven species.'
8.  to be the equivalent of.
9a. to stage (a play, for example); produce.
9b. to act the part or role of.
[The root of the word deleted for brevity - HFN]

I am satisfied with definitions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6a, 6b, 7, 8, and 9b.

>People may represent race, ethnicity, colour
>and so on.  These are in-born and unchangeable.  But ideas are changeable.  If
>you ridicule a race then you are ridiculing a people.  The same is true of
>colour and ethnicity. But ideas are not in this category.  You may change your
>idea or any other acquired features and be the same person, but you may not
>change your in-born characteristics, ok?

OK, sir.  I could accept your argument wholeheartedly, as long as I can pass
through the first global statement for which you presented your reasons per
above paragraph.

Two side notes
==============

[ From here all references to 'he' could be replaced with 'she.'  Same is
applicable to his for her, and him for her. - HFN]

First, if a person changes an idea or adopts a new acquired feature, I submit
he still represents the newly acquired idea.  It just happens that it is
another idea.  I appreciate your above paragraph to demonstrate your global
statement earlier.  Nevertheless, my first statement 'people who represent the
idea' has not been nagated.  I mean they don't necessarily cross each other.

=======================  For Aref and Amoo joon only  =======================
This is not another typical 'my statement is better than yours' discussion.
I am trying to exchange few ideas with hossein.  I have risked by assuming
the same on his behalf.  Henceforth, we are not disputing, creating a new Civil
War at sci, or engaging in a flame.  Furthermore, it goes without saying that
this is not a private discussion either; all are welcome to participate and
share their views.
=============================================================================

Secondly, if a person changes his idea or any other acquired feature, is he
still the _same_ person?  I submit more likely NOT!  Of course we could 
again go through the process of establishing what we mean by sameness.  I
simply believe sameness should not be taken as the same flesh or body.  It
ought to transcend beyond the material existence.  The mind, the brain, the
idealogy, the philosophy, the mental station as possible starts?

Example:  A person believes that in order to reach his objectives it is OK
for him to kill innocent people.  He has killed many people and is identified
as a murderer in the society.  Later he learns that there is another way of
life that says killing is not OK, and he determines that in order to reach his
objectives he should not resort to killing innocent people.  I submit that he
is not the same person because he no longer kills in order to achieve his
objectives.

I appreciate your points that 1) killing was not an in-born characteristic 
(never mind those who argue it could be), and that 2) the person can change
his idea.  It just seems to me the murderer has changed his sameness.  Wait
a minute, though!

How could I refer to the newly changed person as a murderer?  That's where
I see the problem with the word sameness.  This person is not the same person
anymore; I cannot even refer to him as a murderer becuase he no longer 
subscribes to the idea of killing.  He does not represent a murderer or the
idea thereof of murdering.

>. . . Racism is evil because
>the one who is born black (say) has no choice but to stay black.

A true statement and I am in total agreement with you on this one, so far.

>But if I am born and then _taught_ to believe in a certian ideas I have a
>choice to continue with them or change them.

Another true statement as long as you run it as an stand-alone program by
itself.

Let's see if I can demonstrate that no matter whether racism is evil or not I
can continue to live with it, once I combine the two true statements and run
them together.  Perhaps that's what I meant by referring to double standard;
perhaps the choice of word was not proper.  Permit me to address the issue of
double standard and accusation toward the end, because I do not wish to loose
my flow.

How do you argue against the following position?  Please take this as a bonus 
question. :-)

I have decided to continue with my belief (read racist idea) since I was 
_taught_ that way, and as a result I have found my comfort zone within its
corridors.  I have decided that I do not want to change.  I would like to
continue to remain racist.  Yes, yes, racism is evil becuase the opperesed one
(say black person) did not have a choice to change (say his skin color).  But,
what do I care?  I was raised and taught that way, and despite your repeated 
education that racism is evil I have found my fathers' education plausible,
at least to me.

>If I decide to continue with these ideas
>then I should face the possiblity that some people may find them ridiculus.
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Then it is in _my interest_ too to _know_ that these ideas may look ridiculus
>to some, so that I may save my own embarrassement by knowing where and to whom
 ^^^^^^^
>I should express these ideas.

A very well argument.  I would only venture to suppliment the argument that it
was people's mind who found the idea ridiculus.  Nobody can really prove
it ridiculus.  That has been my warning about broadcasting global statements
like this.  The idea of ridiculing originated in the mind of the ridiculer,
whatever our definition of mind is.

It looked ridiculus to some, as you said it, but nobody has proved it
ridiculus, or at least up to this point.  Now, I am not suggesting that after
some found the idea ridiculus, they should not express their findings.  I 
simply think they should say so, but take all precausions and care as not
to infringe upon the first person's freedom of expression.

The safeguard is not a difficult one.  As long as they do not make a global
statement and send a message to the original person to stop, they can say
whatever they want.  I cannot digest the thought that because in my limited
brain I found Joe's idea ridiculus, I have the authority to announce that
he should stop.  Can you read me, my friend?

>Now, it is not nice to embarrass somebody by ridiculing their ideas.  (That
>goes without saying.)  But by doing this, you may actually be doing them a
>service.  And what if somebody tries to tell you that people are laughing at
>you because of this or that idea you are expressing?

No problem.  Say so, but be careful not to advocate that they ought to stop 
because you thought it was ridiculus.  You do not know for sure if the
idea was _absolutely_ ridiculus outside you.

>I would say that only the most die-hard and "kabk-e sar be zir-e barf karde
>ha" wouldn't appreciate that.

No comments here.  By now I hope you have ralized that I have no problem with
appreciating the fact that some people told me - to do me a service - that my
idea was ridiculus.

>And talking of "double standard".  I am most offended if you meant that I have
>been using double standards here.  Please be specific, and if you are accusing
>me of it give your "dalil"s.
>
>-hossein

I am not accusing you, so I would hope to spare giving my 'dalil' for I do
not have any.  The idea did not even cross my mind.  Apparently you read
something in my sentence that was not my intent.  See, I acknowledge that
my sentence could have made you think so.

Furthermore, I did not say that you had been using double standard either.  
Your statements conveyed such thought to me.  Here the situation is reverse,
that is, if I understand you correctly you did not use it at all but I sensed
it so among your sentences.  Please do not feel offended because I found 
double standard in your sentences.  It was my finding, and who said that I
was absolutely correct in my understanding?

Finally, offending you is not in my list of attaining your presence.  Please
forgive my 'gesArat.'

As for the word 'who' I should say in spite of all these that I did not say
that all people represent an idea.  I only said 'those people who represent
the idea' to leave room for not making such a global and one-way street 
statement.  In other words, I recognize some people who would represent an
idea, while there are many who won't.  If that helps at all. :-)

Thanks for your ears and patience.


Regards,
Hooshyar F. Naraghi
bavafa@netcom.com
(415) 324-1055


PS.  Why don't you review the book 'The Alchemy of Race and Right' by
Patricia Williams?  In the light of your example of racism, I feel positive
that if you read it you will learn how we can play with words to safely be
able to ridicule race or sex or all those in-born attributes, and still come
out of it as a non-racist.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian