Dear Organlearners,
Barry Mallis <bmallis@markem.com> writes:
>I read the last posting of Nov. 15 with great interest. While
>coming late to the dialog, I nonetheless was riveted by the
>distinctions you two made between indaba and the European
>model, such as they are. Thank you for provoking my mind.
>
>One other form of communication in which humans speak to
>one another in a group is the sohbet. Within Islam, I believe it
>has many variations. Among some Sufis, for example, ......
Greetings Barry,
Thank you very much for this information. I did a search in our library on
Sohbet and scanned the few books on Islam for what they have to say on
Sohbet, but with no results. So I will have to begin searching somewhere
else.
In the meantime, I will appreciate any information and comments from
fellow learners on the Sohbet. It is for me very important to get as rich
(complex) picture on the dialogue as possible.
It was a formal goal of the government(s) during the years of apartheid to
encourage a "christian-nasional" way of life in South Africa. Thus one
will find here an excess of literature on christianity and nationalism.
Sadly, the literature on other religions and political outlooks suffered.
A number of reasons can be given:
* lack of funds and commitment
* fear for "promoting the other side" by making information on it
available
* little understanding of how diversity (otherness) is to creative
thinking
>I think that in its most easily understandable form, the sohbet
>is akin to this LO site, but with the kind of presence and form
>which only comes from human proximity.
Very intersting observation, this "form which only comes from human
proximity". How much does it have to do with "mitsein" (together be)?
A strange pattern emerged during the TRC (Truth and Reconcilliation
Commission) hearings on "apartheid crimes". Almost in every destructive
event for which a person applied amnesty for, such an event ended by the
perpretators coming together for a barbeque. You can imagine what the
victims or their families during the hearings thought of this practice --
a celebration of the perpretators on their crimes.
But I think it goes much deeper than this. It was a search by the
perpretators for justification "coming from human proximity". And it
seldom gave them the justification which they seeked because these
barbeques usually ended in an excessive use of alchohol to drench the
memories of such events. The human proximity which they seeked with their
superiors who gave them the orders in the first place, was denied to them
because of the hirarchy in the military style "Just do what you have been
told and do not question it." Many of them expressed their disillusion and
disgust during the TRC hearings and afterwards that those who gave the
orders in the first place, found a way to side-step the TRC hearings and
other investigations. Their silence is so appaling that even the deaf can
hear it.
Interestingly enough, these persons applied for amnesty and not
justification during the TRC hearings. It was the task of the TRC
commisionars to find political justification for their deeds and hence
grant them amnesty. The TRC hearings were nothing else than seeking "form
which only comes from human proximity".
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>