fine articles

othman

A Disturbance in the Force
this is my first post in sott I am a constant reader to this site and I find some articles that is good to be posted in this site:

http://tamimbarghouti.net/Tamimweb/English/Articles/1mainArticles.htm

they are some articles to a palastinaian writer Tamim Barghouti which I found them great and represint the other side

sorrey for my bad englsih
 
othman said:
this is my first post in sott I am a constant reader to this site and I find some articles that is good to be posted in this site:

http://tamimbarghouti.net/Tamimweb/English/Articles/1mainArticles.htm

they are some articles to a palastinaian writer Tamim Barghouti which I found them great and represint the other side

sorrey for my bad englsih
Thanks for the link othman and welcome. There are quite a few articles there, is there one in particular you recommend? why not select an extract from one of these articles that would illustrate your point clearly?
 
othman} this is my first post in sott I am a constant reader to this site and I find some articles that is good to be posted in this site: http://tamimbarghouti.net/Tamimweb/Engl … ticles.htm they are some articles to a palastinaian writer Tamim Barghouti which I found them great and represint the other side sorrey for my bad englsih[/quote said:
Thanks Othman. I read all the articles, and I found them very wise, and insightful.

So many of the articles have to do with contradictions: with the attempt to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Tamim Barghouti insight comes, I think, from recognizing both of these sides and then piercing through the illusion of each and present an original analysis of his own.

I foound this article extremely interesting, especially since it explores the way language creates world view.

In the following essay, the pattern of a word containing opposite meanings leads to the following insight:

Tamim Barghout said:
With all this wealth of words and meanings, the existence of the category of words that mean one thing and its opposite cannot be explained by desert born nihilism and lack of imagination. Taking a second look at those lists of antonyms, one can see that, with very few exceptions, most words relate to power and knowledge. The continuous fighting for water and means of livelihood among Arab tribes, the temporality of life and the cruel paradox of the desert coupling monotony and uncertainty, might have resulted in an instinctive position on power. Power is temporary, and is in itself meaningless. Temporary power is therefore the same as weakness, master and salve will both die in the end, so would the seer and the blind, and the blind might be more of a seer than the one whose eyes are wide open. Those couples thus deserve the same names. Power and knowledge become meaningful only if they result is something that is not temporary. To Arabs, all physical objects will in the end vanish and turn to sand, but ideas, will remain. Thus power is necessary only to create legacies, memories, epics, legends and poetry. One could trace this idea well into the pre-Islamic era. After the advent Islam, The concept of legacy was replaced with the concept of the afterlife.
Here is the article the quote is from.
Can this article be added to the linguistics thread?


"Antonyms and Synonyms.



Antonyms and Synonyms

Tamim Al Barghouti

I once wrote to a black haired relative of mine: “words and their antonyms are like sand clocks, you can never know which one is upright and which is upside down, they are the same. In times like ours only idiots and prophets can be happy, and since there are no prophets anymore, whenever I am happy I feel disturbed for realizing my stupidity, but when that causes me depression, I remember that that must a be a good sign about my human caliber! So I keep turning my sand clocks up and down”. Since this was supposed to be a love letter, I never got a sincere smile from that relative of mine again.



But the absurdities of the teenager might become the interesting questions of the researcher. Antonyms in Arabic are a strange phenomenon. There is a whole category of words that mean one thing as well as its opposite. For examples, the word, “saleem”, means the one who is cured, and the one who has just been bit by a snake, the word “baseer”, means one with great sight and insight, but also means blind, “mawla” means master and slave, “wala” means to follow and to lead, The word Umma, which is usually translated into nation, means the entity that is followed, or the guide, as well as the entity that follows and is guided.

Like many properties of Arabic, this has been usually attributed to the Bedouin origin of the language, the desert is said to impose unity, homogeneity, and therefore equality on all creatures. Sand is everywhere, and in the end everything turns into sand, the contradictory extremes of life seem to be the same in essence. But this traditional explanation, like many traditional explanations, does not explain much. For Arabic is not a poor language, almost every creature, object or feeling has tens of names. A sense of continuity and unity of the Universe might have been present in the desert community of Bedouin Arabs, but a sense of meaninglessness was not there. The way the ancient makers of Arabic language celebrated the smallest details of their world is really noteworthy; It is said that the great poet and linguist of the eleventh century, Abul-Ala Al-Miary, who was blind, stumbled into one of the princes at the court of Saleh ibn Mirdas, the autonomous ruler of Northern Syria. The noble guest lost his temper, especially because the poet was poor, and poor poets, are not supposed to stumble into rich nobility! So the guest called the poet an ignorant dog. Abul-Ala answered swiftly: “the dog among us is the one who does not know seventy names for the dog!” Of course the noble guest, the prince and half the linguists of the court could not count so many names. Later on, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the preservation of the language became an obsession, the seventy names were listed. They were not quite synonymous, for they did not all simply mean: “dog”, rather, they were descriptions of a dog’s conditions; an angry dog had a name different from a joyful one, the dog that had one ear pointing up and the other down had a name different from the one who had both ears up or both ears down. What is true of the dog is true of most other creatures. Up until this day the most famous seven names of the lion are taught to children in schools all over the Arab world: “Laith”, “Sab’”, “Asad”, “Qaswara”, “Ghadanfar”, “Dirgham”, and “Usama”. Love has seventy seven names, each of which has a slight but critical difference from the other. “Hawa”, is the light liking, it also involves an element of error, bias and irrationality, the old pre-Islamic proverb goes: “Hawa is the downside of reason”. Then you have “ishq”, which comes from entanglement, like two pieces of wood and ivory in a work of arabesque, the two lovers are inseparable yet still independent and distinct, then you have “hayam”, which comes from wondering thirsty in the desert, and “fitna”, which means love, infatuation, passionate desire, but also means civil war and illusion. You also have “izaz”, which is the kind of love that gives both lovers power and dignity, and “sakan”, which also means home and tranquility, the Quran uses this word to describe the relation between married couples. The highest stage of love is, paradoxically, “fanaa”, which means non-existence. This is the stage where the lovers loose their independent existences and actually become one another. This stage is usually used by Sufis in reference to divine love and the unity of existence.



With all this wealth of words and meanings, the existence of the category of words that mean one thing and its opposite cannot be explained by desert born nihilism and lack of imagination. Taking a second look at those lists of antonyms, one can see that, with very few exceptions, most words relate to power and knowledge. The continuous fighting for water and means of livelihood among Arab tribes, the temporality of life and the cruel paradox of the desert coupling monotony and uncertainty, might have resulted in an instinctive position on power. Power is temporary, and is in itself meaningless. Temporary power is therefore the same as weakness, master and salve will both die in the end, so would the seer and the blind, and the blind might be more of a seer than the one whose eyes are wide open. Those couples thus deserve the same names. Power and knowledge become meaningful only if they result is something that is not temporary. To Arabs, all physical objects will in the end vanish and turn to sand, but ideas, will remain. Thus power is necessary only to create legacies, memories, epics, legends and poetry. One could trace this idea well into the pre-Islamic era. After the advent Islam, The concept of legacy was replaced with the concept of the afterlife.



The history of Arabic literature is full of anecdotes were antonyms and puns were used to mock unjust power and authority. After Haroun Al-Rashid massacred his Persian ministers, one of their women told him “qarrat Aynok” which is an expression meaning “may god give you peace of mind”, but the literal meaning of the words is “may your eye stand still” i.e. may you go blind. In the Arabian nights, Shahrazad continuously addresses the angry king Shariar, who kills a woman every day in revenge for his wife’s betrayal, “Oh happy king, of wise judgment” in a context that means exactly the opposite.

Today, I think, one is in a great need of such words in everything, from love to politics!

Tamim Al-Barghouti

I would be very curious to see a similar analysis of English and the language itself affects world view.

Perhaps, if the all the people of the world understood each other's world view revealed through each language, we might have a chance at peace.

Just a thought.
 
webglider said:
Perhaps, if the all the people of the world understood each other's world view revealed through each language, we might have a chance at peace.
You seem to forgetting the reason why we do not have peace - psychopaths. Normal people want to live their lives in peace and raise their families and be happy - no matter what country, what language, what sex, what creed.

If the entire planet spoke exactly the same language, we still would not have peace as long as psychopaths were in positions of power - that is the key.
 
anart said:
webglider said:
Perhaps, if the all the people of the world understood each other's world view revealed through each language, we might have a chance at peace.
You seem to forgetting the reason why we do not have peace - psychopaths. Normal people want to live their lives in peace and raise their families and be happy - no matter what country, what language, what sex, what creed.

If the entire planet spoke exactly the same language, we still would not have peace as long as psychopaths were in positions of power - that is the key.
Wishful thinking on my part. But perhaps if everyone spoke the same language, the small percent of those who are psychpaths would find it harder to divide and conquer.

It makes me wonder about who created The Tower Of Babel, and why. It does say that if the people all spoke the same language, they would be as great as God.

I think the article is really relevant to the Linguistics thread. Can it be moved there?
 
webglider said:
Wishful thinking on my part. But perhaps if everyone spoke the same language, the small percent of those who are psychpaths would find it harder to divide and conquer.
Considering that psychopaths have no trouble dividing and conquering within their native societies, in which the same language is spoken, I don't know whether that would make a huge difference or not.

wg said:
It makes me wonder about who created The Tower Of Babel, and why. It does say that if the people all spoke the same language, they would be as great as God.
Out of curiousity, who/what is 'It' that says this? The idea is, for some reason, reminiscent of the 'esoteric circle' - where all understand each other, there can be no misunderstandings and no actions not based on this understanding - it, of course, has nothing to do with language spoken - but interesting nonetheless.
 
anart said:
The idea is, for some reason, reminiscent of the 'esoteric circle' - where all understand each other, there can be no misunderstandings and no actions not based on this understanding....
Seems to me that the only way that could be achieved is if the mind, thoughts, and intentions of all were somehow transparently available to all -- a characteristic, perhaps, of higher destinies? And, as you say, that has nothing to do with "language", which, by its very nature, is subject to infinite forms of manipulation.

There's an old joke: "How do you know when a lawyer is lying? Answer: If his lips of moving". I'd suggest that's probably true of third-density humans in general, in that our "words" are usually used for for the purpose of manipulation far more often than for "truth-telling"....
 
pepperfritz said:
Seems to me that the only way that could be achieved is if the mind, thoughts, and intentions of all were somehow transparently available to all -- a characteristic, perhaps, of higher destinies?
Not necessarily of higher densities (I assume you mean densities and not destinies) - but of esoteric development and a certain state of 'being' in this density. Have you read any Mouravieff, pepperfritz?
 
anart said:
(I assume you mean densities and not destinies)
Yes, apologies for the typo.

anart said:
Not necessarily of higher densities... but of esoteric development and a certain state of 'being' in this density.
Could you expand on that a little? Seems to me that if you accept the C's assertion that all third-density humans on earth are STS in nature (and can hope to aspire to be "STO candidates" only), then such "transparency" would not be possible. But I am, of course, open to another way of looking at it....

anart said:
Have you read any Mouravieff, pepperfritz?
I read "Gnosis" some years ago....
 
anart said:
webglider said:
Wishful thinking on my part. But perhaps if everyone spoke the same language, the small percent of those who are psychpaths would find it harder to divide and conquer.
Considering that psychopaths have no trouble dividing and conquering within their native societies, in which the same language is spoken, I don't know whether that would make a huge difference or not.

wg said:
It makes me wonder about who created The Tower Of Babel, and why. It does say that if the people all spoke the same language, they would be as great as God.
Out of curiousity, who/what is 'It' that says this? The idea is, for some reason, reminiscent of the 'esoteric circle' - where all understand each other, there can be no misunderstandings and no actions not based on this understanding - it, of course, has nothing to do with language spoken - but interesting nonetheless.
Here is the quote from Genesis which I should have looked up instead of just paraphrased:

Genesis said:
Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel11Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2And as they migrated from the east,* they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3And they said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.’ And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’ 5The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. 6And the Lord said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.’ 8So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused* the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Descendants of Shem
The Lord is the one who gave the order to destroy the tower.

It's interesting though that The Lord also refers to others, "Come, let US go down, and confuse their language there so they will not understand one another's speech, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

There does seem to be evidence of alarm in these words, and the cause of it does seem to be mutual understanding of some sort. The source of understanding seems to come from a shared language, which must be garbled to bring confusion. Then everyone is scattered across the earth.

It does seem that this understanding is very threatening to the powers that be and that there will be no tolerance for masses of people working towards a common aim. I wonder if that common aim is symbolized by the image of the tower itself.

It reminds me of why it is so hard to escape the Law Of Accident. A few may, but only if they don't call attention to themselves.
 
Having read over the tower of Babel in the wave series (I'll post the link if you want webglider), I thought I'd quote the cassiopaea glossary on the subject.
It may be of some help. I highlighted the part at the end for clarity.

http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=138&lsel=

Cassiopaea Glossary said:
Babel, Tower of

From the Book of Genesis:

11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

11:3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

On the surface of things, this would appear to be a story about the creation of different spoken and written languages. On closer inspection, it makes more sense to see this as the destruction of spiritual unity. We are not talking about a language in the conventional sense but about a mode of being and teaching which allows people to understand each other in the esoteric sense. This involves a group automatically acting as a unit since the same meanings and the same purposes are evident to all. At a certain level, one cannot both understand and disagree, nor can one act in contradiction with one's understanding.

In the outer circle of humanity, which Ouspensky incidentally calls the circle of the confusion of tongues, precise understanding between any two people in any matter of relevance is virtually nonexistent. Only when approaching objective reason through esoteric work does man approach meaningful shared understanding.

The Genesis passage is a sort of left-hand path compliment to the power of precise shared understanding. The control system saw this as such a danger that it was worth destroying.

The following verse from Genesis further confirms that we are not speaking of language in the ordinary sense here:

10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

This clearly implies that prior to the tower episode various languages were spoken on Earth and that this was an entirely normal state of matters.

The Cassiopaea material states that building the tower was an effort at spiritual unification of the masses. This was to be accomplished by the use of a crystal. The control system, i.e. lizards destroyed this by brainwashing the public.

We note that in the Old Testament text, the God in question does not even claim to be anything but a prison guard of humanity.
 
webglider said:
It's interesting though that The Lord also refers to others, "Come, let US go down, and confuse their language there so they will not understand one another's speech, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
When I was young, I remember this being among one of many passages I read in the Bible that made me think, "No thanks". Why would a "god" that loves and cares for humanity do something that would cause such chaos? It seemed like a big bully who was saying, "I'm up here, and you're down there, and that's the way things are going to stay because I say so. And so help you if you try to do otherwise...". With a "god" like that, who needs a devil?

webglider said:
It reminds me of why it is so hard to escape the Law Of Accident. A few may, but only if they don't call attention to themselves.
I think they could call attention to themselves all they like. It's just that the General Law keeps everyone else looking the other way. Sort of like a small, talented band singing on a side stage that gets drowned out by the abrasive noise of the death metal band on the 100KWatt main stage.
 
PepperFritz said:
anart said:
Not necessarily of higher densities... but of esoteric development and a certain state of 'being' in this density.
Could you expand on that a little? Seems to me that if you accept the C's assertion that all third-density humans on earth are STS in nature (and can hope to aspire to be "STO candidates" only), then such "transparency" would not be possible. But I am, of course, open to another way of looking at it....
It seems you may be confusing issues just a bit, because the concept of the 'esoteric circle' is rather separate from the concept of STS/STO. Here are some quotes from Gurdjieff that might clarify:

Gurdjieff said:
"The process of evolution, of that evolution which is possible for humanity
as a whole, is completely analogous, to the process of evolution possible
for the individual man. And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain
group of cells gradually becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other
cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its
aims and not merely eat, drink, and sleep. This is evolution and there can
be no other kind of evolution. In humanity as in individual man everything
begins with the formation of a conscious nucleus. All the mechanical forces
of life fight against the formation of this conscious nucleus in humanity,
in just the same way as all mechanical habits, tastes and weaknesses fight
against conscious self-remembering in man.""

[...]

But as I pointed out before, the evolution of humanity can proceed only
through the evolution of a certain group, which, in its turn, will influence
and lead the rest of humanity.

"Are we able to say that such a group exists? Perhaps we can on the basis of
certain signs, but in any event we have to acknowledge that it is a very
small group, quite insufficient, at any rate, to subjugate the rest of
humanity. Or, looking at it from another point of view, we can say that
humanity is in such a state that it is unable to accept the guidance of a
conscious group."

"How many people could there be in this conscious group?" someone asked.

"Only they themselves know this," said G.

"Does it mean that they all know each other?" asked the same person again.

"How could it be otherwise?" asked G. "Imagine that there are two or three
people who are awake in the midst of a multitude of sleeping people. They
will certainly know each other. But those who are asleep cannot know them.
How many are they? We do not know and we cannot know until we become like
them. It has been clearly said before that each man can only see on the
level of his own being. But two hundred conscious people, if they existed
and if they found it necessary and legitimate, could change the whole of
life on the earth. But either there are not enough of them, or they do not
want to, or perhaps the time has not yet come, or perhaps other people are
sleeping too soundly.

"We have approached the problems of esotericism.[...]

"The inner circle is called the 'esoteric'; this circle consists of people
who have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom
possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an
indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control
over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man,
and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to
their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by
actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no
differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-
ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because
it is based upon a common and identical understanding."
 
Gurdjieff said:
But two hundred conscious people, if they existed
and if they found it necessary and legitimate, could change the whole of
life on the earth. But either there are not enough of them, or they do not
want to, or perhaps the time has not yet come, or perhaps other people are
sleeping too soundly.
In the above excerpt, Gurdjieff presents a nume of conditions that would, if met, "...could change the whole of life on the earth."

These conditions are

1. A critical mass of two hundred conscious people.
2. The decision of these two hundred to change the whole of life on earth.

He also presents conditions where such an effort may not take effect:

1. There are not enough conscious people
2. They do not wish to change the whole of life on earth.
3. The time is not right.
4. Other people are sleeping too soundly.

Yet there seems to be enough concerted effort in the Genesis story of "The Tower Of Babel" to alarm The Lord and those he refers to as "US" that the Aim of building the Tower may actually be realized that he calls upon them to "...deliberately confuse thier language so that they will not understand one another's speech."

webglider wrote:
It's interesting though that The Lord also refers to others, "Come, let US go down, and confuse their language there so they will not understand one another's speech, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
There does seem to be recognition that humanity has the power - IF it is awake and focused - to overthrow the spell of the Control System]

Redfox quoting Cassiopean Glossery said:
The Cassiopaea material states that building the tower was an effort at spiritual unification of the masses. This was to be accomplished by the use of a crystal. The control system, i.e. lizards destroyed this by brainwashing the public.

We note that in the Old Testament text, the God in question does not even claim to be anything but a prison guard of humanity.
Why then did this attempt fail? Is it because there was not the requisite number of two hundred conscious people working together? Or is it because the matrix is too strong for all of humanity to escape its control, and the possibility of escape is only allowed to the few
that fly under the hyperdimensional radar?

So my question concerns identifying the conditions that may have caused this effort to fail.


1. There are not enough conscious people

This does nto seem to be the case:
From "Genesis"


1Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2And as they migrated from the east,* they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3And they said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.’ And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’

2. They do not wish to change the whole of life on earth.

They do seem to want to effect change:

From The Cassiopean Glossary:
"...building the tower was an effort at spiritual unification of the masses. This was to be
accomplished by the use of a crystal."


They also seem to know the consequence of failure to build the tower:

Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’


3. The time is not right.
This is unclear, at least to me.

4. Other people are sleeping too soundly.

It does seem that enough people were awake to fulfill this Aim.

Now the strange result of this story is that they did effect change, but it was change that was opposite to the stated AIM.

So that leads to another question: Is there any chance, even if Gurdjieff's conditions are met, of escaping the control system?

Again, language seems to be the key; however one may define language. It seems to me that each group of people has some key to the puzzle, since it was necessary to scatter everyone so that putting the pieces together would prove impossible.
 
Hi webglider,

Just a note that I don't know that the 'tower of babel' idea is in any way connected to Gurdjieff's conscious nucleus, just that one brought to mind the other, so the ideas you've presented above might be a bit of a stretch. Or not - but just to clarify.
 
Back
Top Bottom