Greetings, Darryl, Nargess and Elliott,
You are putting your fingers on a critical issue: language. In the evolution
of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, language has become a battlefield,
along the lines that you both suggest. I do believe that we won't have much
of a possibility for a settlement without working on the language, much of
which our discussions here have been about -- a struggle to craft a language
that works for both sides. I only wish that a Palestinian were here to even
out the discussion a bit and provide it with a greater authenticity.
You, Elliott, eloquently ask us to go beyond the argumentation and imagine
the actual lives of people locked ino the conflict. I wonder if this is what
Nargess is calling for.
Best regards,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of
> ehallmark@macalester.edu
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 12:51 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Quality of language
>
>
> hi darryl,
>
> Darryl:
> > I don't pretend to be either rational enough or educated enough
> to disarm
> > the terms being thrown about -- or to suggest alternatives. I
> do think I
> > am able to see that things as they are will not progress for either the
> > discussions here or the ones in the real world until some work
> is done on
> > the language we are employing.
>
> Elliot:
> I think the problem is that we give one term for the slaughter of
> innocent
> people a good connotation and another a bad one. It is ok to
> kill for what
> we believe in, it is not ok for others to do the same. someone said in
> another discussion that the further we are displaced in time and
> space form
> the events, the more reason plays in and the less emotion and
> other values
> not part of reason do. the only solution to me is to let emotion play a
> role in yourself. Imagine what it is like to be "a terrorist". These
> people are not animals, imagine what conditions you would have to
> be under
> to take your own life. How confused and full of pain they must
> be. Reason
> is a static pattern while emotion is the cutting edge of reality for
> humans, it is the perception of quality. therefore empathy is the most
> highquality way to address the problem. however it is not the author who
> can do this, but only the reader, so i see no solution to the language
> problem except to let the reader develop his own emotions rather than
> hiding static emotional patterns in the connotations of words. Perhaps
> simpler words would work, using human being or the persons name instad of
> terrorist or alqueda.
>
> What really needs to happen is that people need to stop thinking
> along the
> lines that the lives of real human beings are as simple as those of TV
> stars. We need to imagine our best frined, our brother and our father
> doing these things (or atleast draw paralleles to things that we CAN
> understand, such as the motivations of the american revolution). What
> would it take for me to do that?
>
> Yes, i have no solution,
>
> Elliot
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST