Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (1814)	11/1/2002 10:33:08 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6901

I wasn't so sure he was lying, by the way. I think he believed what he was saying at the moment he said it My understanding that the entire relationship to words and rhetoric in traditional Arab society (I don't know anything about Afghans) is quite different than in the west. The need to tell the truth will play second fiddle to the need to maintain honor, particularly in any situation where honor is felt to be at risk; there is also a tendency to indulge in rhetoric and substitute high-flown rhetoric for action. The best source I know for cultural anthropology on the Arabs is Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind. Here's what Patai says about conflict resolution in traditional Arab society: In the Arab world, mediation on the tribal and village level has for centuries been the traditional method of settling disputes, and the same method has, in modern times, been adapted for settling political and military issues within and between Arab states. In tribal and village society, the role of a mediator (wasit) or mediators in resolving conflict has been, and still is, a crucial one. In every conflict those involved tend to feel that their honor is at stake, and that to give in, even as little as an inch, would diminish their self-respect and dignity. Even to take the first step towards ending a conflict would be regarded as a sign of weakness, which, in turn, would greatly damage one's honor. Hence, it is almost impossible for an Arab to come to an agreement in direct confrontation with an opponent. Given the Arab tradition of invective and proclivity to boasting and verbal exaggeration, any face-to-face encounter between two adversaries is likely to aggravate the dispute rather than constitute a step towards its settlement. The function of the mediator, therefore, is first of all to separate the fighting sides, to make it impossible for them to continue the conflict, to force them to stop fighting, and at the same time to enable them to do so without incurring the shame of exhibiting weakness or admitting defeat. After the actual fighting has stopped, the presence of the mediator imposes restraints on both sides, if not over the actual demands or positions, at least in regard to their verbal expression. The entrance of a mediator into a conflict has the same restraining effect also in cases in which the two sides are not involved in actual hand-to-hand fighting but maintain a status of inactive belligerency. This restraint results from the respect in which the mediator is held by both parties to the conflict. The greater the prestige of the mediator and the deeper the respect he commands, the better the chances that his efforts at mediating a dispute will be successful. For this reason, the role of mediator is in many parts of the Arab world traditionally assigned to members of special descent groups, who as such have a high ascribed status. from Chapter XIV Conflict Resolution and "Conferentiasis"

To: Ilaine who wrote (1814)	11/1/2002 11:07:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

CB, I don't think you were prejudiced [if that's the right word]. Some cultures are based on the idea that property is in limited supply, life is a zero-sum game and the necessity is to take things away from other people or trick them out of them. To dominate, confiscate, steal, lie, deceive, kill. That culture is the age-old human culture going back to our chimpoid beginnings where it was absolutely true. In modern cultures, life is a matter of co-operation, synergy, specialization, trade, free will, symbiosis and there is no limit to property despite the fact that it is obvious that there are only so many tonnes of oil, gold, water, salt etc on earth. There is an enormous overlap - the cultures do not live in different countries. They occur to a greater or lesser extent in all countries and all individuals. But some individuals are strongly oriented to taking, dominance etc. Others are strongly oriented to libertarianism. The line between good and evil is the line which runs right through the heart of each person! [Approximate quote of Ghandi] Then, overlay that with identity - we and them. Where is the division between we and them? No wonder there's a lot of mayhem going on. Saddam is firmly in the chimpoid culture. He's not retrainable, so he has to go. The clash of civilizations which we have been embarked on for centuries [millennia actually - it's not something new, as some would have us believe] is between the zero-sum dominance hierarchy of lies, fraud, confiscation, theft, murder and mayhem and the caring, sharing, peace, light, harmony, happiness, prosperity and longevity world of co-operation, synergy, creativity, intelligence, symbiosis and love. Mqurice

To: Ilaine who wrote (1814)	11/2/2002 8:16:14 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 6901

Afterwards, he and his wife said that the judge did not have God with him. And I guess the winner of the suit did?? Kind of reminds me of the Civil war, where soldiers on both sides were, in general, quite religious, yet both sides prayed to god that their side would succeed and vanquish their opponents. But to reflect upon the article Nadine posted, I think language is the conveyor of cultural values. The culture demands that language convey those values it holds most dear.. Thus, we can readily discern the nature of the culture by performing a comparison and contrast between languages and how they absorb not only words, but thoughts and ideas, from other cultures. Hawk