| |
|
Within the limitation imposed on a comment of this sort, this short note presents a summary of the “descriptive meanings” of my writings , sufficiently detailed to demonstrate fully the inadequacy of what could be some of my readers' muddled understandings. In the Western World, pinning down one's argument structure in the field of critical reasoning requires the removal of “unnecessary” terms and statements. It also involves setting up strategies (subjective) for standardizing one's arguments – i.e. finding the main conclusion, premises, sub-arguments etc. All of these are done to find the acceptability conditions of that argument; in other words, to find if there is “a priori truth” that validates the argument (i.e. linking all the premises to the conclusion). In the 1980s, I was an unyielding follower of this rational school of thought, where any logic proposition may be true or false and nothing in between. To me, to be a rational and intellectual were the same. I was always eager to test and wish to dismantle any proposed argument's acceptability condition, by using operations derived from the logical/propositional calculus, to sniff unnoticed descriptions and inconsistencies. All I cared was to find someone who is wrong in order to prove that I was on the right track. I was plunged deep down into the rational world of “necessary truth”, where all necessary described truths are true in all “possible worlds”. When someone, like an “intellectual/rational” person, writes on any subject, I naturally expected an unusually high motive of a tautologous discourse (true statements by virtue of its logical form alone). However, after confronting my “imaginations”, I have abandoned my “active” rational approach to life, and began exploring “spiritual” or what some rationalist refer as empirical or “imaginative” approach to reason, combining knowledge in an unusual methods. Since then, it became easier for me to write or express my thoughts, not worrying to meet the credibility, logical or mathematical truths of my arguments. In fact, most of my descriptive meaning terms (attributive adjectives that are both descriptive and evaluative) are no longer imprisoned within quotation marks, which is a main strategy to validate an argument in the sphere of rationalists – for they are subjective terms that can easily be challenged or make non-sequitur (it does not follow). Still, descriptive words remained basically the piecemeal affairs ( isbaaro posts) of many Somali rationalists who often declare that the logical ignorance of the average educated Somalis has always been complete and shameless. Such Somali intellectuals have become so amazed with the unedifying character of much of the Somali writings posted on Somali websites in which ordinary Somalis are liable to be exposed. It seems that they have not yet ceased to wonder at the widespread “ignorance”, and have felt impelled to try and take some initiatives towards some remedy. Therefore, the object in writing this short note has been solely the earnest hope that difference in opinion and worldviews may improve and become lively and interesting. I am also fond of reading how the intense competition works to the benefit of not only of “intellectuals” but also of society as a whole. The Absurdity of Semantics In the 3 rd century of the Islamic calendar, when Muslim theologians ( Mutakallimuun ) become known as kalaam experts, critics poised to translate kalaam (which literally means disputation) as blah blah blah … Yet, critics believed that Allah is Caalim (The One Who Knows) and every knowledge ( macrifah, cilm ) or knowing event is Allah's involvement. They also were aware of the fact that in Islam the experience of knowledge is sacred. Then, why is there a difference within the community? The simple answer could be: “the difference of the community is a sign of God's Mercy.” There is no knowing without confronting variations; and experience is thus important. This brings an objection against the absurdity of semantics in my writings; that is, if my descriptive meaning is not apprehended within an “active” intellect of rationalists, the supposed inconsistency will vanish. My aim is not to consider the influence of Islam upon me to make clear the limits of language usage, and to argue against reason, because Islam is not antithetical to reason. All I am stating is the importance of my audience, Somalis (who mainly practice Sufi Islam, for centuries), who understand the interdependence of everything small to the larger picture of the world. Before they interact with the Western notion of Enlightenment, Somalis were exposed to Islamic Macrifah (Enlightenment) with its manifold perspectives of reasoning which refuses to accept one interpretation. Subsequently, I inherit my legacy of worldviews – including works on Somali Oral tradition, Islamic and Western Macrifah . I glory some of their works and thoughts. Admittedly, I am still seeking further meanings and evaluations in life – which often causes me to be being caught between indhow-garad and indheer-garad themes. Yet, I never cease to seek another “fixed position”, taking simultaneous bearings from numerous lighthouses of thoughts. In retrospect, some may describe me as “unrepentant” indhow-garad ; however, I might more accurately be described as a “seeker”. My writings on Somali affairs suggest that the descriptive term, indheer-garad could be used to describe someone who, while not believing in the mooryaan (ahl-saif) reality, finds value in the concept of “ahl-qalam”, as long as it acts as a symbol of and promotes the intellectual growth (reason as well as imagination) and enhances one's freedom of expression. Waxgarad literature centered on such an understanding of indheer-garad can be termed as progressive (that deserves no critical appraisal). As such, my concern, in the study of Somali local (clan) politics, is not so much with aligning the original meaning of descriptive words (i.e. maintaining the origin of its semantic phenomena) as with fitting local criteria for evaluating these descriptive terms – such as president, political independent entity (Somaliland etc), government, intellectual, mujaahidiin , anarchy, religious men etc. I attempt to describe all these descriptive terms/noun-adjectives in the light of Somali environment. It is true that products of media culture such as Somali websites provide images and symbols out of which we forge our identities. In other words, Somali websites such as wardheernews and Saylacnews (in my opinion) are forms of pedagogy – particularly a source that teaches us nationalism, freedom of expression, democracy, equity, as well as consequences of clan politics in Somalia . Reading , and then criticizing or resisting its contents, can therefore help many people to empower their intellect in relation to those who simply consume it. For example, one has to utilize certain types of textual analysis (both quantitative and qualitative) to understand the various forms of Somali-affair discourse in order to do the task of literary criticism. It is noteworthy to mention that each critical perspective has its own strength, limitations, and blind spots. Traditionally, various European ideology critiques (Marxian etc) have been strong on European discourse contextualization and weak on Developing countries discourse analysis. For example, in my writings, the term indheer-garad encloses, comprehends every Somali who exposed him/herself to the oral-history of the Somalis, Western and Islamic Macrafah – a definition that does not place any isbaaro /or limit to indigenous knowledge. In the Somali context, one would wonder how to distinguish the difference between the following attributive dichotomies: the history of clan-family vs. the history of Islam in Somalia ; the history of clan-family founders vs. the history of saints; ummah vs. reer ; political faction vs. clannism; Somali vs. Somalilander, Puntlander; Caalim vs. jaahil ; indhow-garad vs. indheer-garad nomadism vs. Sufism (seeking to unite with the “ barta Ilaah” , barwaaqo ). Without a doubt, indheer-garatada will find out that they cannot confine themselves to a mere Western rational philosophy, to the exclusion of this traditional discourse that created this intricate dichotomy of meanings. Even Western “Somalists” confronted the “absurdity” of Somali translation when the term “anthropologist” was translated to them (by the locals) as “ dad/kiisa yaqaan ” or “ abtirsi yaqaan ”. Thus, this causality defines both indhow-garad and indheer-garad as forms and attributes of the “ wax-garad ”. This is what the xadiith states when it says that: Allah created Intelligence and saw to it that it should include as many heads as are included in the totality of creatures . On balance, if the indictment brought against my literature (as some critics have already referred it as indhow-garad literature) is its denial to separate the above-mentioned attributive dichotomies, then wax-garad idealism has no case, since it mutilates the totality of the Somali experience. Still, I believe that people can cordially disagree. C/fataax S. Faamo See:
Copyright © 2005 Wardheernews.com |
