My response to this view:
1. Abdelwahab Medeb is considered a traitor by many Muslims, because he said he did not "want to take a step with the Palestinians."
2. His interpretation of events is relatively Western, in the sense that the West despises the advantage of geographical borders and without technicalities. It would satisfy our Western categories to assume that this revolution has spread through the canvas. Now the painting has been one of the vectors, human effort to challenge the risk of physical bullying, so heroism did the rest. Overall, we imported as soon as we began to know, in our interpretation of these events, our usual categories of struggle: the revolution was made by the fabric, for women, brief accomplished by what is commonly called "the ideology of progress." It is wrong, secondly, to say the Internet and its subsets, its applications, its hosts are without design: someone has invented the world wide web, the U.S. military, and some have regained control: google, facebook, twit. The United States has dropped as the flange of the operational aspect of control over the Internet. They have delegated such control that because of their preference for private companies on state management. When Internet was invented, it was said that was the surefire way to finally transparent information. The information is relatively transparent effect, but the average is not foolproof: they can cut and seal in Internet entire countries access to certain sites. It was evident that they would change that. Any information system, any "democratic forum," unfortunately secretes its censorship systems.
3. Abdelwahab Medeb wrong to say that this third millennium, the best and the worst came to land of Islam. For worse, we're not sure. Not that I deny the official version of September 11: I do not see what was the interest of Americans to provoke themselves to the risk of being injured in their reputation for invincibility, though they have is then used political and belligerent than we know. But the U.S. has the worst they live? Because a symbol collapses? That's the hallmark of a media company than to think, because a media company based on the symbolic. We can not both want to relocate an event and at the same time, claim Muslim-centered the best and worst. Claim that because the best and the worst came to the Islamic era of influence is unknown to him recover a geographical interpretation of events. One can not help to recover it, since it responds to the reality of experience and life experience.
4. The media company is a company symbol. It is the vice of that company, in a sense because human rights is symbolic. But man is only symbolic of spiritual or religious. When one moves from religious politics, when we go in history, we should leave the symbolic order, for what happens to man has nothing symbolic, what happens to humans is real. Vice is a media company to have believed we could do with a company legendary history. Hence the focal blind, including not only intellectual, but informants do not speak. This is partly contribute to the persistence of this symbolic order as saying that the worst is the worst because it came in the focus that the world is less blind. It is instead to make the information necessary evil to disqualify the silence of the intellectuals in favor of a gradation strange, however, who first designates this silence as "understandable" because it referred to events unheard of then as "unforgivable", and finally as only "guilty".
5. It does not seem healthy to confuse "the sacrificial body" Mohamed Bouazizi with the Christ figure, first because Mohamed Bouazizi launched a political message and not spiritual because it is then reinforce the idea that sacrifice is necessarily the price of freedom. However, we can recognize Mohamed Bouazizi of having designated himself as the "scapegoat" whose life demanded vengeance, causing the company to do anything other than to designate an imaginary enemy. How could react Rene Girard about the persistence of sacrificial gesture to the principle of a political act? Is that Christianity has failed to remove the sacrifice its actual value, if allowed out of the sacrificial logic on a symbolic level. Beside this, it is doubtful, for if the redemption is gained at the sacrifice of Christ is that is not extended, all it takes to join the sacrifice of His heart, repentant and broken the sacrifice of the Body of Christ. That's the whole logic of "representation of humanity through one man" who is being examined by this apparent failure of the output of logic sacrificial temporally. As for this barbarism What the self-immolation, it is true that we have seen people wanting to die as "living torches" it is also true that there is the precedent of the Prague Spring, but the courage and intellectual honesty command to examine Islam in its atavism inflammatory and sticking. One can feel quite reassured to see a revolution inaugurated by an act which even self-inflicted, said the worst tortures of the Middle Ages.
0 comments:
Post a Comment