By Ebissa Ragassa, freelance writer
What Lays Beneath
“A child that is born in prison fears the free world”
Thus far the appearance of Ethiopia has been perpetuated rather than the nature of Ethiopia as it really is. Each successive government continues to affix its own veil rather than shade some light on the causes of Ethiopian’s dysfunction. Massive energy, vital resources are spent by ruling groups in indoctrinating, creating a hypnotic state among its varying citizens and imposing flowed model of thinking, rather than encouraging mutual reality. All different Ethiopian citizens or people of that land are contending based on their own individual or group’s appearance of what the state of Ethiopia is, or what it should be. Henceforth the fundamental nature of Ethiopia has not changed since its inception. For some Ethiopia is a step-mother for other it is their biological parent. For some it is source of empowerment for other it is causes of agony. For some Ethiopia is ancient country for others it is a two century old in the process of becoming. The clash of these competing ideas is the present day drama of Ethiopia. Whether the drama will unfold in tragic end or in a new beginning remains in our determination to look beyond the appearance, unwrapping the veil of Ethiopia and hoping over the propaganda and the bias of ourselves entering the domain of the truth.
We must recognize that Ethiopia is just an idea that exists in our mind a not a nature’s phenomenal like the sun set and sun rise that continues independent of our thought. Ethiopia is not a fixed entity despite the common perceptions. Although some group do entertain that Ethiopia is a natural phenomena that can only be transformed by divine intervention, but rather I contend that Ethiopia is thought that can be altered to transcend us, elastic enough to stretch us. Since Ethiopia is an idea, it does not belong to no one, no ethic group has patent over Ethiopia, while Ethiopia’s past history is contrary to this idea. Note Ethiopia is not a static entity that confines our existence to narrow field, restrict our freedom of thought, the power to redesign her lays within us, so it can keep up with the needs of its people and the rest of he developing world. Its in realizing these truths that the veil of appearance can be broken and prosperous future can be forged.
Ethiopia’s defects exist within our own mind not in some external location or physical entity, but rather Ethiopia is fluid mental state dependent on our own mental imagination. This is a comforting thought for it builds the correct framework necessary to over come our self-imposed challenges. But to do that we must understand what makes up Ethiopia is our collective thought, experience, our triumph our failure, happiness and sorrow not an individual wish, or group’s influence as it has been in the past. Our failures to recognize and to integrate these different ethnic experiences are the core problem of Ethiopia that manifest in different form such as liberation struggle, indifference, secession, lack of greater vision and inefficient collective participations.
Secession and lack of vision are symptoms that something fundamental is wrong with Ethiopia, just like a headache is warning single that vital things are in jeopardy that requires a solution on the level beyond the veil of appearance, at the same time liberation movements are warning single that requires our immediate attention to remedy the source of the problem. It is also erroneous to conclude the problems with Ethiopia are liberation movements and different groups seeking secession, therefore any energy, resources spent on countering these problems will only produce a temporary relief that will soon return unless the fundamental causes of conflicts are not rectified. Fundamental change will only come in recognizing this important distinctions that liberation struggle are not the problem but rather a call to look beyond the apparent problem seek the sources of the problem.
These competing forces have been able to super-impose selective history and experience upon others alternatively, there by creating a dire reality for the people of that land, exposing its citizens to unnecessary migrations, poverty, regression. But the key to overcoming these problems still lays in deeply scrutinizing our own thought and looking beyond ourselves, opening our spectrum of thought to the aspirations emanating from other as well. A perception based on sole individual experiences and thought that is based on appearance is destined for demise. The first step in overcoming superficial existences are to examine the bias we harbor.
The bias we harbor creates a perception and perception is our door to the outside world. We act based on our past, present perceptions, what we think the world appear to us. Whether we choose to or not we are the product of our parents, grandparent’s perception, and past history. That is way relying on history, lineage, emotional ties will not produce an authentic result. That is why our thought must be active and strong enough to be free of these influences. It’s the collections of individual’s perception that molds the national directions. If defect lays with our perception, so is in Ethiopia, it is critical to notice the dominant individual bias dictates the Ethiopia’s overall agenda. As ironic this may appear the eye can’t see itself, except what is outside of it, also our thought can not perceive itself as separate from perception, with out genuine self-examining, without holding ourselves to higher ideas.
At this point it is important to know what appearance is and what lay beyond the appearance. Appearance is a reflection, as what we look like has nothing to do with who we are, and has no bearing on our spirit. Appearance can be thought of as headache, headache is not an illness it is just symptom of something major. We can temporally relief headache with painkillers but if we don’t seek the source and remedy it the headache is guaranteed to return. The people of Ethiopia are the cause, its collective history are the apparent. An important concept we must grasp is the appearance rarely leads to the sources, the source is the vital truth we are after.
A progress of man is measures by his ability to discern these appearances from the cause while doing so may cause a temporary discomfort, but the results are lifetime of freedom. Also Ethiopia’s progresses are measured by degree of her citizens to discriminate between myth and reality, fact from opinion, symptom from cause and information from propaganda. This also the phenomena that distinguish a baby from an adult that babies are fooled and base their worldview on appearance on the other hand as the baby gradually grows he overcome appearance steadily enter the reality of his own domain and takes control of his/her own destiny. Age is not a gap that measures adulthood that must be filled with passing of time but rather how quickly one discriminates appearance from reality. Hence some individual easily mature, while others struggle. This is because age is a superficial, rather than a title to enter adulthood. This is the case of Ethiopia we are fooled by appearance, cycling through false reality with government that chants different slogan, yet sinking back into the pervious appearance. Manipulating appearance does not yield change to reality; it is only the truth of reality that changes appearance, liberating the mind of people.
The reason such superficial appearance are continued into 21st century and maintained is that when the appearance favors us we guard the appearance despite the harm it creates to other, until of course we lose control than fight to restore the pervious circumstance that favored us. This cycle of changing appearance for another appearance must end. This cycle has created modern day stoned age country and egotistic political governance, which mistakes peace for the appearance of peace, mistakes freedom with subjugation and failed to deploy liberated self-sufficient citizens that invents, explores, discovers and able to enjoy the natural resource endowed to him by god.
Once the veils of appearance are broken the problem of Ethiopia are not a dire situation at all but a natural beauty. Ethnicity, which is the apparent cause of conflict in Ethiopia, we must recognize it as symptoms rather then cause as most people considered including the author. On the surface indeed ethnicity is an apparent problems, but this is the outer layer of the problem what lays beneath should be our first for most interest, including the coming generations. Since ethnicity is the cloth Ethiopia wears it must be dealt with outermost care, ignoring will in fact widen the apparent reality we hold creating separate mindset.
One of the most difficult aspect of reality is that it is hidden deep beneath the many layer of appearance, thereby requires strong will consciousness, scientific mind, authentic approach to solving Ethiopians problem. History is the mask of appearance; it is an effect of our mental processes. Change, rearranging history does not change the outcome, but what will bring authentic change is changing our mental attitude of what Ethiopia is. Appearance rarely leads to progressive outcome, but the cause that triggers’ events of history are the real idea we must investigate. The reason many years has passed to notice the chain of appearance place up us is that appearance exists as multi-dimensional layers. Only diligent investigation, consistent endeavor can uncover the veil of appearance and requires a combined effort of many generation to leap through appearance and enter plane where our thought is cause of our existence not a subjugation of appearance. The western world is in the last phase what I call the age of appearance, and its beginning to embarked on the next plane that alter appearance with technology. While it is at the last phase of this apparent-age, it has yet to embark on spiritualism
Because our society is infested with apparent reality no national visionary leaders have emerged to tackle these problems. Now and then ethnocentric leader may emerge to address Ethiopians issues but yet to provide lasting fundamental solutions. There are times also when a local leader have emerged to tackle Ethiopia’s problems yet failed to succeed because failed to incorporated the whole Ethiopian citizens because the solution focused on narrow view of what Ethiopia is. Ethiopia’s exists in apparent reality because no leader or organizations have been able to introduce its people to the nature of the truth; therefore “The true nature of Ethiopia has not been conceived.” While many people may contest this idea the truth lays in deeply examining the condition Ethiopia is in at this time. A country that possess a glorious past, long history, that had the advantage over other countries, yet unable to capitalize, transform herself into a cutting edge country, rather next to last in poverty and sustainability list of world record. Does the problem lays in lack of resources? Does the problem lays in her people? Or the solution could just as simple as paradigm shift to wakes-up us from out disarray. Could the solution be as simple as mental switch that turns on truth rather than apparent reality?
______________________
Ebissa Ragassa can be reached at [email protected]
31 thoughts on “The present day drama of Ethiopia – Ebissa Ragassa”
It is a well written article which is thought provoking even though it needs another round of editing for minor errors here and there.
We all agree appearance decieves but the writer failed to spell out the truth for us which is very helpful for a lot of people who can’t dig deep for the TRUTH.
Ebissa, you hit the nail on the head. It is an excellent and insightful diagnosis of the core problems plaguing the country. It is encouraging to see that more and more patriotic Ethiopians are coming to understand the underpinning problems of the country and the bold measures that need to be taken to extricate it from those. It is becoming clear to most of us that appearance alone won’t cut it. Each of us must thoroughly and honestly examine the reality of our country with our naked eyes without any self-imposed or other prescribed prisms (prejudices, biases, developmental (acquired) false perceptions or myths). The more honest we are to ourselves, the more honest we are to our country and the better understanding we have of our country. The better understanding we have of the realities of our country and its problems, the better prepared we are to serve our country and resolve its problems. All of us need to have changes of attitude. Is it better to live in a false perception or face the reality and get down to work to solve the problems that have shackled our country for too long? The choice is ours to make. We cannot blame the others for our failures (actions or inactions, proactive or reactive) always, and except in rare cases, we live with the consequences of our own decisions – good or bad. The good news is the Ethiopian people are transforming fundamentally. However, we have not yet reached the critical mass we need to effect the kind of real (not in appearance like for instance empire, people’s democratic republic or federal democratic republic) changes the country begs for. Hopefully, we will get there very soon.
Ayenew
Nice article…
I like the way you ended your article by posing important questions to the reader.
I strongly believe the solution lies in our ability to examine “the bias we harbor” to use your own phrase. We need to place ourselves in each others shoes and try to understand the grievances from each side.
Whether we believe it or not, none of us are doing whatever we are doing just for fun. Those who raised arms and sucrifice their and others’ lives cannot do what they are doing without a cause (perceived or real). Those who are against these groups must understand this fact if there is going to be a solution for the suffering of our people.
Good news is that more and more Ethiopians are getting this attitude. The challenge remains how to build on this until the group of Ethiopians with this attitude is strong enough to shape the political situation of the country.
Hello Ebisa:
Thank you for doing a great job!
Well done.
Cheers,
Alethia
Dear Mr Regassa:
I like your last name for it reminded me of a good man I know in my childhood. We used to call him “Ababa Ragassa”, a very graceful gentleman with smiles on his face always.
I read your article with great interest. I do share to some of your diagnosis of the problems in Ethiopia. I do agree the ethnic problems must be addressed with great care.
As you said liberation struggles are not the problems on their own. They are the result of bad governances. I believe a movement that works for the establishment of a good government where the law rules and citizens are equally respected regardless of their age, ethnic group, gender and religion will end Ethiopia’s misery.
You wrote:
“Ethiopia’s exists in apparent reality because no leader or organizations have been able to introduce its people to the nature of the truth; therefore “The true nature of Ethiopia has not been conceived.” While many people may contest this idea the truth lays in deeply examining the condition Ethiopia is in at this time.”
Dear Ato Ragassa,
I may not have grasped you deep philosophical arguments. What you mean by “the true nature of Ethiopia” may not be understand by me as you had in your mind. As you predicted, there will be people who contest your idea. From what I thought what you meant, I am one of them.
I believe there is hope; there is vision and there is a movement that can lead us to a better United, democratic multi-ethnic and prosperous Ethiopia. I believe there are leaders that have introduced us to an Ethiopia that will be for all.
Wasn’t war and hate the true nature of Ethiopia? Wasn’t tyranny and lack of good governance the true nature of Ethiopia? Wasn’t the polarizing ethnic politics introduced by the OLF/TPLF the true nature of Ethiopia? Weren’t the ethnic killings in Arsi, Jimma, Harargue, Sidamo, and Gambella …the true nature of Ethiopia? Aren’t all these based on hate?
I believe Kinijit leaders have clearly understood the true nature of Ethiopia that Ethiopia is a country embroiled with politics of hate, ethnic bigotry, oppression, poverty and corruption. They have proposed solutions and offered alternatives. The movement of love and dialog and brotherhood they are leading is geared and determined to include all Ethiopians and empower the strength of Ethiopians to solve their own problems.
Kinijit has put on the table a vision that will change Ethiopia from its old history of bloodshed, mistrusts and hate to brightness and progress. Its leaders have been preaching the politics of the 21st century to all groups of Ethiopians without any discrimination.
Kinijit believes that with the complete respect of individual rights and group rights (as long as it does not infringe individual rights) the ethnic problems of Ethiopia would be solved. Kinijit believes that harmony can be achieved with dialog and accepting democratic, legal and transparent principles.
Their might be some wishes from separatists. In the name of inclusiveness do we have to accept, for instance, the demands of the OLF? How do we know that the OLF is representing the people it claimed to represent? It says it represents the Oromo people? Who are the “oromos”? Are there any criteria to identify “oromos”? Is it by self identification? Is it by first language? Is it by the ethnicity of the father? What about multi-ethnics, with half Oromo and half Gurage or Amhara? Will they be considered as “oromos”?
You see…accommodating demands of all sorts of separatist groups does not bring solution to Ethiopia. It gets more complex and may further create more tensions, displacements and chaos.
The solution to Ethiopia is only a complete establishment of democracy, one man one vote. With unrestricted individual rights , those who consider themselves as “oromos” will have the right to speak “oromifa” and expand their culture not only in places like Gimbi but also in Debre Markos or Desie or Mekele or jijiga … Their right will be respected all over Ethiopia.
Why not struggle to get the right of all Ethiopians respected in all Ethiopia that to struggle for the right of the few to be respected only in a much localized place?
There need to be recognition that there are problems (ethnic problems). There are groups of our fellow countrymen who do not consider themselves as “Ethiopians”. Some still struggle to get a free “Oromia” or separate a chunk of land from Ethiopia and Join Somalia. These forces, I believe must be respected, engaged and approached. They must not be considered as enemies and demonized. We must recognize that they have the right not to consider themselves as ‘Ethiopians”. (As we have the right to consider them as Ethiopians)
Efforts must be launched to address the root cause that created in the first place these separatists activities. The separatists cannot just be brushed of. After all if we believe they are Ethiopians, we have the responsibility to deal with them and bring them into the tent. Let us make them comfortable and show to them what “ETHIOPIA” is in deeds. If they see love and respect from us, they start visualizing Ethiopia as a place of Love and Respect. Who would not want to be part of country where love and respect flourishes?
Dear Mr Ragassa:
Kinijit is determined to do just that. Maybe the latest unfortunate crisis created by Ato Hailu and his friends may have overshadowed you. Please take a closer look at the visions and goals of KINIJIT. I am sure you will reconsider some of your statement in your last paragraph and start having hope and support this movement of hope ..:)
Regards,
GK
Hi All:
I’ve been trying to develop and share the importance of facing truth for its own sake and even more so for dealing with the fundamental problems that plague Ethiopia as a country and a society. You can read or might have read some of my reflections on truth and character on other sites such as Addis Voice and Ethiomedia. The point is that without doing an extensive and intensive soul-searching as to who we’re individually and collectively we, Ethiopians, will not solve our societal problems by appealing to democracy for democracy cannot solve all problems as anyone reasonable person can see.
A solution for Ethiopia’s fundamental problems that does not address what I’ve also tried to address in the articles that I’ve alluded to and that which does not attempt to solve the ethnic problems head on will never succeed. I’ll develop this elsewhere but I say this now: democratic solutions must presuppose democratic values in an ethnically diverse country such as Ethiopia for it to effectively work; that means, a democratic solution for Ethiopia’s deeper problems that does not address ethnic problems more than any other will fail.
Ethiopia’s most fundamental problems are ethnic;hence, a democratic solution that does not take into account the deeper ethnic problems will fail. Yes, I’ll argue for that at another time. But I’d like to see how other fellow Ethiopians would react to such views.
Cheers,
Alethia
Even though I didn’t agree with all of your thought and opinion, I really appreciate your work. You tried to see the problems of that country from different prespectives. That wasn’t bad. The bad thing is you didn’t want to rock the cover to uncover “truth”! why? Let me tell you one Oromo proverb which goes “Arabini dhuga dideefi xagarani muka sodateefi hin ababu” whcih means “the toung that feared to speak the truth and the axel that fear to hit the tree couldn’t live longer” why you scared to uncover those “truth” that makes some to feel that Ethiopia is their stepmother whereas others thinks she is their biological mother? Why those who stand againt subjugation are labelled as “yenat xuti nekashochi” with out even acknowledging the existance of the problem these people stand against. What onset liberation movement fighters?, Have you ever seen a person let alone a group or organized political elite, who acknowledged the existing problems in Ethiopia is partly related to Ethnicity? Have you ever read a line or so that the elites of this country wrote to acknoweldge the problems of Ethiopia pertaining to ethnicity or unrepentant behaviour of certain ethnic group leaders that drove this country to present crisis and unfloding tragedy even today? almost over half of them says the problem of Ethiopia is not the problem of Ethnicity. Is this dealing with appreance or facing the with uncomfortable thruth that we need to face today? always trying to cover up the truth get us to today’s Crisis. Have you ever seen any Ethiopia related website with the exception of ER that even post any controversional idea on their website? they reject every idea that doesn’t fit into their old spirit of “oneness” whereas we are hundred and could see any sign that tie us together. It seems to me as you don’t want to rock the “truth” where the core Ethiopia problems lies. Why you didn’t unviel those “truth” remain myth to me? you know them in detail. But you don’t want to name them. As one Anuaka leader said this week ” they call as Ethiopian when we are in the room and when we are not we are invisble” why many northerners are not happy to uncover those “truth” and why it is a contesting idea to raise those issue among those who feel ethiopia is their biological mother?whereas it is not for those who see her as stepmother. I will leave the answer to those who can speak out their mind freely! if this is the end of your article on this issue your article is incomplete or you don’t want to face the “truth” or you feared critics of those who don’t want to uncover the veile of that country. But want to pertained with the appreance rather than rocking the cover to uncover the truth and face the reality today before it is too late.
Chapeau, Girma Kassa, what somebody have to say besides agreeing with you to better his own destiny in his own country.
Unified we will be more successful to topple any problem in that country.
Unless somebody set out by a spontaneous desire, to take a paper and pen to lay down some philosophical analysis about our well-understood and established problems, what good can we achieve from brooding over and over again.
Instead any individual who care and identify himself as a part of the whole, should consecrate his time and intelligence to find the potion, that once and for all solve the nagging problem.
– Instead many writings have a tendency to favor separation, and the advocates are locked into it and preach as the only way out. Many believe such an attitude, as irresponsible and inconsiderate, because it doesn’t serve the people interest.
Many intellectuals mention and have enormous desire to talk about stereotype comments between ethnic groups to justify the separation, consequently realize their hidden agenda. Negative comments exist all over the world, it seems it’s human nature sometimes not welcomed, generally when it became offensive to one group of the society it become a penalty clause and barred by the law. No healthy mind take this as a reason to divide a country, we have so many things in common that can be addressed and talked over, if we challenge positively ourselves first and weigh the pro and con of our writing, in regard to the long run of people’s interest.
Could be open to interpretation. If it means what I thought it meant, I agreed with it.
Certainly not a lot of self appointed yappies yahoooing all over and shouting loud the word Ethiopia do not understand what Ethiopia means or who Ethiopians are. A frustrated old immigrant from Gonder never thinks of a Dorze, Shankilla, Adere, Kembata, etc. when he visualizes Ethiopia. For him Ethiopians means Gonderes. That has been the freaking problem in Ethiopia. Ethiopians don’t know who Ethiopians are.
I simply laughed at Girma Kassa’s sometimes patronizing and at others contempt in his response to Ebissa’s short analysis of Ethiopia. The Ethiopia and CUD Girma Kassa is trying to sale to readers is to deceive and mostly to maintain status quo in the name of Ethiopian Unity.
But what Ebissa is advocating is to leave behind the Ethiopia filled with human misery and rethink Ethiopia in terms of the consent of all its people – Democratic Ethiopia with a consuititutional governance. Girma Kassa however is trying to tell us that we can’t handle the truth or the lies are for our benefit.
In my humble opinion what Ebissa is telling us is to watch for the falsehoods originating from Girma Kassa’s and the likes which have greatly contributed to our current predicament. He further argues that if we don’t get them (the GKs) out of the way or jump over them we will remain in the same misery.
I hope CUD neither shares the hidden chauvinism of Girma Kassa nor harbours and nurtures them among its supporters. Let’s not make it worse by believing in lies that are designed to exascerbate the situation and keep the vast majority of Ethiopians from getting involved in the decision making process.
Selam all
Alietha wrote:
“a democratic solution that does not take into account the deeper ethnic problems will fail.”
I agree one of Ethiopia’s major problems are ethnic problems. There are ethnic questions that need to be addressed.
In the United States there is democracy. However the democratic system does not address the main issues of the working poor and minorities. Because campaign finance is not public and media is for those who had dollars, individuals who contribute a lot will have more access to policy makers. So this american democracy is not addressing the concerns of millions.
The same with Apharteid South Africa. There were democracy, but the democracy was benefiting only the few.
So it depends of the democratic system that we establish in Ethiopia.
Also Alietha raised about ethnic problems. We need to identify also what these ethnic problems are. There are various ethnic demands from some corners. (the right to be independent from Ethiopia for instance).
So Aliethas asseertion is open for interpretations. It depends on what the ethnic problems are and what kind of democratic institution swe established.
From my view, a one man one vote , all political campaigns publicly funded , and the media open freely to all will solve ethnic problems (absent of cessation).
GK
Dear ER; I really enjoyed reading your article from start to finish, a beautiful philosophical piece ever appeared in Ethiopian-related websites so far. How many more great and beautiful works are in-line, E, since I am of the opinion that you didn’t complete your investigation and reflection (truly worthy of the name “reflection”)? Isn’t this the first in a series of articles you are intending to publish, please? Honest, this is a model paper for making philosophical arguments about/on Ethiopia and there are lessons to be learned by all, including those who are making infantile, incoherent, even nonsense claims using the appearance and mask of philosophy and philosophical training. Thank you very much.
Hi GK and Misgana:
Thanks for your response, GK. I was already writing a piece on ethnic and political/national identity when I read ER’s paper and now my piece has been sent to some of the web sites, including this one to post, and you can read what I started to share my reflections on the nature of ethnic identity and political identity and what it means for us to understand what “Ethiopia” means for all of us.
Yes, I’ve no problem arguing for the value of democracy in the present context of Ethiopia and how much role it can play but then as I’ve briefly said democracy cannot solve all of our multitude of problems. The examples you gave are great ones to show that democracy has not and would not solve the problems of racial/minority issues in the most democratic countries of the world.
Democracy is a necessary condition as a solution for some fundamental problems of Ethiopia but then it’s not a sufficient condition as a solution for some of the problems we as a society have. If we’re not clear as to what democracy can and cannot accomplish in Ethiopia we’ll certainly be disappointed and it’s good to be clear about the cause of our society’s problems and what solutions are proper to address the problems. Ethnic issues are among the most challenging problems we face as a society and that is a complex problem no one can just solve by appealing to democracy.
Misgana, I share your sentiments as to how you liked the paper that triggered this discussion but then I was wondering what you had in mind when you said the following: “Honest, this is a model paper for making philosophical arguments about/on Ethiopia and there are lessons to be learned by all, including those who are making infantile, incoherent, even nonsense claims using the appearance and mask of philosophy and philosophical training.” Would you just give us some examples of writings that would show your claim to be true since you seem to have some such writings in mind in order to say what you said. It’d help fellow Ethiopians learn from one another if we can learn from good writings and also bad writings in different ways, of course. Any thoughts and pieces of evidence to support your claims?
Cheers,
Alethia
Misgana ;I deeply share your comments. Ebissa Ragassa gave us an excellent work to reflect on, it is another thing to agree or not with what he argues and claims. I hope he will continue his posting. Indeed, there are those “who are making infantile, incoherent, even nonsense claims using the appearance and mask of philosophy and philosophical training.” I cannot agree more, there are some out there indeed! It is no good to call names (I still read some of them making comments more than their share…even on this article). Incoherence in writing implies the inability to focus and do clear and coherent thinking in the first place. Those who dare to “enlighten” readers on substantive and issues of importance should clear their thinking process first. Unless one thinks clearly; unless one knows what one talks and writes about, one cannot write correctly and clearly. That is how “netters” end up with stupidly boring articles while masquerading in the name of whatever discipline they anoint themselves with. I love to read a lucid, logical and clear article, if even I don’t agree with the position the author takes. Besides, “self-referentiality” is both an academic taboo and a moral failure, particularly when a “no man” tries to convince the readers by CITING HIMSELF OR HERSELF (either his/her earlier or future articles) as a point of reference in the absence any established intellectual and academic credentials. I saw some committing this errors over and over again and I would like to ask them to refrain from such mistakes, I appreciate their efforts though. Those who share their Opinion to their readers shouldn’t necessarily be “intellectuals” of the fist class, no, that is not the issue. Those who share their opinions without any expertise background and established tradition in what they write shouldn’t ask us to believe them because they say it and because of their earlier or latter articles of opinion. Thank you.
Selam Ato Balcha:
I wish you have listed down the items you disagree instead of characterizing as “hidden chauvinists”. I would have elaborate further my ideas.
Below is two paragraph from the comment I wrote before. I do not see which lines can be seen as chauvinists?
” The solution to Ethiopia is only a complete establishment of democracy, one man one vote. With unrestricted individual rights , those who consider themselves as “oromos” will have the right to speak “oromifa” and expand their culture not only in places like Gimbi but also in Debre Markos or Desie or Mekele or jijiga … Their right will be respected all over Ethiopia.
Why not struggle to get the right of all Ethiopians respected in all Ethiopia than to struggle for the right of the few to be respected only in a much localized place?”
Look forward to hearing from Ato Bulcha and discuss further this in civility and openly. AFter all dialog and discussion may help narrow differences.
Regards,
GK
Hi Paris2:
It’s really good to see some comments such as yours and Misgana’s when bloggers or as you’d call them “netters” value articles that are “lucid, logical and clear article” as you put them. I cannot agree more with you in that I do love and value pieces written in the way you described them. I started to wish to see an article or so by those who say and value such things and I’d encourage you, among others, to share such pieces with fellow Ethiopians.
Having said the above now I wondered whether who you had in mind when you referred to the idea of self-reference to one’s writings as something undesirable and even as an “academic taboo” and also a “moral failure”. I feel like I’ve committed these two “sins” on the list of sins that writers should avoid, according to your value judgments, since in one place or so I’ve said that there is some related issue on which I’ve also written without mentioning such things by name for a simple reason that it’d be using a space here in an unnecessary way when my sincere intention was simply to point to whoever interested that such a person can find them somewhere else.
If you refer to such allusions and references that are meant to encourage readings and interactions with fellow Ethiopians as something that is “an academic taboo” and “a moral failure” I cannot feel sorry enough for a mind and heart that shows such thoughtless and misguided comments in the middle of and in the name of sharing one’s values for good writings of substance, etc. If you included the present commentator in such comments, since I can only speak for myself, I do not know how to respond to you other saying asking you if you’ve any idea what it means to commit an “academic taboo” since this comment cries for some such explanation and justification. You might want us, your readers, just believe you as if you’re an authority on what is a decent way of doing an academic writing and what is a taboo. Some might believe you but I’d not for I cannot take some such claims without asking for further justifications since you’re the same person who stated that such calls for justification are good things to do. I’d not ask you to say anything about what you mean by a “moral failure” since I cannot trust you for a morally sound judgment if your idea of morally sound judgments is how you’ve showed in your comments.
I can’t stand “a typical Ethiopian mind” anywhere and at anytime and nothing is as sickening as observing “a typically Ethiopian mind” at work in some subtle comments such as the one I’m commenting on and if anyone wonders what I’ve in mind when I say “a typical Ethiopian mind” I’ll explain given opportunities and to justify my claims, if need be. What would have been better to do with an opportunity to share one’s reflections in places such as this: sharing one’s honest thoughts on issues that matter to fellow Ethiopians or just pontificating on what “an academic taboo and moral failure” is and is not by referring to a fellow commentator’s sincere suggestions about what he/she thinks is the case and have said something about them somewhere else too?
If anyone here is trying to argue points, I know there are some, of course, and wants to make progress with ideas please let’s do that as it’s a far better thing for us to develop ideas and share them with one another and grow together instead of just popping up at one or the other blogs and dismiss what others might be sharing out of sincerity as something they believe to be the case etc as if such commentators (like Paris2) have avoided saying something about themselves with what has been said! Do you want to challenge the ideas that the present commentator has written elsewhere (!) and even here once or twice before? Please go ahead just do that! Do you truly value truth and logically argued and coherently written pieces, please go and do just challenge the ideas in some such writings for all of us to see who’s speaking the truth. Otherwise, for “a typical Ethiopian mindset” I say, what a pitiable mindset!
Let’s talk ideas please.
Cheers,
Alethia
Hi All:
Just an additional thought or two: I think what the article that triggered this discussion has shown us is what one can also argue from a different angle. A significant number of Ethiopians hold false beliefs, and destructive values starting with those in places of influence, like political leadership, and including a significant number of the population. Yes, many of us hold false beliefs about ourselves, and also inherently destructive values, and also misguided desires that are shaped by the false beliefs and destructive values that manifest themselves in destructive actions. The combination of these three, false beliefs plus destructive values and desires shaped and guided by the previous two are the causes for most of our actions and ways of living our lives.
False beliefs are generated by failing to know the truth about whatever may be the case, most importantly about us. For example, we hold numerous false beliefs about what “Ethiopia” is, and above all, who we’re and who the others in our communities are, etc. The appearance-reality description is simply a difference between holding false beliefs and true beliefs. Our perceptions are the windows into the external world, the world outside of us, but all our perceptions are not inherently problematic; rather most of our perceptions of the external world around us such as chairs and tables, plants and animals, are mostly reliable and realistic and hence true.
It’s perceptions, or rather beliefs, about ourselves and other human beings that have potentials for being wrongheaded and false in virtue of the difference between human beings and other things. One does not just perceive a human being for a human being is more than the perceptible (observable) physical thing that we call a human body. It’s the aspect of us, human beings, that is not perceptible with our naked eyes in which our true identities reside, harbor and develop. That is the “place” in which our beliefs and values and desires are stored and lead us into actions with the observable thing that we call our bodies.
Yes, humans have a potential to misrepresent reality and distort the truth, that is what we call lies and deceptions and it’s with our human interactions that we suffer from acquiring massive mismatches between truth and falsehood. Just imagine what one ethnic group thinks of the other under normal circumstances, not to mention the much exploited and aggravated or rather publicized distortions of truth about one or the other ethnic group in present day Ethiopia. It’s in such areas as these that we should be talking about and calling for much needed soul-searching individually and collectively. In order to do a valuable soul-searching, one needs to understand what truth is, what we mean by truth, a belief, values, and desires and how they lead and guide our actions and shape our characters, etc. Without having an idea about truth one can hardly judge what falsehood is supposed to be; without knowing lies one can hardly judge something to be truth and we all need to be as active in search for truth about ourselves more than at any time since we encounter more “truths” that masquerade in the name of truth proper, be it about ourselves or our ethnicity or Ethiopia, whatever it is. The Ethiopian society has quite a long way to go in search of its soul and finding the truth about it and practicing the truth that brings us back in tune to reality, which is what we need to properly live as humans in a proper human environment which we might call Ethiopia or whatever.
Maybe only a ‘typical Ethiopian” would say such a thing to belittle his/her fellow Ethiopian. That is, of course, a “typical Ethiopian way” as anyone who knows a “typical Ethiopian” would immediately see what I’m talking about but only with sorrow and horror. It’s with such people among us that we crave to grow and mature and become people who know truth from error and who know what it means to be open to learn from others with even a little sense of humility and open-mindedness that knows a desire to change and grow and become fully human.
Cheers,
Alethia
Dear writer,
It is a nice article.Minor editing such as sign of, unless problems are rectified etc are in order. Please make the corrections.
Thanks,
MR
P.S.
This paragraph is missing just before the last paragraph:
I’ve tried to share my reflections on all the above in a bit detailed way elsewhere that I’ll be happy to point to for those who’ve a sincere desire to see what I’m trying to share here in greater detail elsewhere but the likes of Paris2 would start giving away what is in their hearts by saying this person has started to refer to himself/herself.
Cheers,
Alethia
Dear Alethia; my greetings, please. To begin with, paris2 made a general comment, there was nothing personal when that remark was made. After reading Ebissa Ragassa’s beautiful piece paris2 shared an appreciation thereby seeking same from other contributors who want to enlighten us on issues of importance when possible – lucid, clear, connected, coherent, not repetitive, not boring, and beautiful. If your writings fail to meet either of these epistemic and aesthetic requirements, then paris2 stands by the comments made and your suspicion is to the point. But, if you think it was your article/s (and not you in person as your reaction, not response, speaks), paris2 and our readers owe an explanation as to how you did get at that, it is deep digging and the wizard of Oz wouldn‘t succeed at that.
It is really puzzling as to how you did come to identify that your article/s was a target of paris2’s comment: what made you think and believe that it was your article/s that paris2 have in mind when there are many articles by many blogers, contributors, and commentators on this Site or many other Ethiopian related Sites? Your unfounded reaction reminds of an Ethiopian proverb, “F…Yalebt Zilayi Aychilim,” although you don’t like “the typical Ethiopian mind set” expressed by such idioms and proverbs. However, such idioms are constitutive of “the Ethiopian mind set” and it is difficult to understand why you disparage them while being deeply concerned with the affairs of Ethiopia as you sound.
To make your “honest” ideas have an organizing and transforming impact, try to write like the Ebissa’s and GTA’s of the Ethiopian websites (just some), if in case your suspicion of your articles were in paris2’s mind is correct. Also, when writing or responding to comments, (1) don’t make it personal, (2) make it precise, clear and short when possible, (3) avoid verbally abusive attacks, it doesn’t make anyone, including you any better or/and wiser, (4) don’t forget that there are good readers as there bad writers and I don‘t have to prove that by submitting articles, unless I choose to do so, I understand you are well versed in democratic principles also, and (5) reconsider your view and conception of yourself, for I read an inflated and grandiose self from your reactions (since you are reading into paris2’s mind to establish your case, paris2 shouldn’t be deprived of this “privileged access,” ok?). Beterefe, Selam-Hun; Berta.
Hi All:
I’m trying to post again this which I tried to post before but only one paragraph seems to have been posted so far. If there is a repetition just ignore the one or the other.
Just an additional thought or two: I think what the article that triggered this discussion has shown us is what one can also argue from a different angle. A significant number of Ethiopians hold false beliefs, and destructive values starting with those in places of influence, like political leadership, and including a significant number of the population. Yes, many of us hold false beliefs about ourselves, and also inherently destructive values, and also misguided desires that are shaped by the false beliefs and destructive values that manifest themselves in destructive actions. The combination of these three, false beliefs plus destructive values and desires shaped and guided by the previous two are the causes for most of our actions and ways of living our lives.
False beliefs are generated by failing to know the truth about whatever may be the case, most importantly about us. For example, we hold numerous false beliefs about what “Ethiopia” is, and above all, who we’re and who the others in our communities are, etc. The appearance-reality description is simply a difference between holding false beliefs and true beliefs. Our perceptions are the windows into the external world, the world outside of us, but all our perceptions are not inherently problematic; rather most of our perceptions of the external world around us such as chairs and tables, plants and animals, are mostly reliable and realistic and hence true.
It’s perceptions, or rather beliefs, about ourselves and other human beings that have potentials for being wrongheaded and false in virtue of the difference between human beings and other things. One does not just perceive a human being for a human being is more than the perceptible (observable) physical thing that we call a human body. It’s the aspect of us, human beings, that is not perceptible with our naked eyes in which our true identities reside, harbor and develop. That is the “place” in which our beliefs and values and desires are stored and lead us into actions with the observable thing that we call our bodies.
Yes, humans have a potential to misrepresent reality and distort the truth, that is what we call lies and deceptions and it’s with our human interactions that we suffer from acquiring massive mismatches between truth and falsehood. Just imagine what one ethnic group thinks of the other under normal circumstances, not to mention the much exploited and aggravated or rather publicized distortions of truth about one or the other ethnic group in present day Ethiopia. It’s in such areas as these that we should be talking about and calling for much needed soul-searching individually and collectively. In order to do a valuable soul-searching, one needs to understand what truth is, what we mean by truth, a belief, values, and desires and how they lead and guide our actions and shape our characters, etc. Without having an idea about truth one can hardly judge what falsehood is supposed to be; without knowing lies one can hardly judge something to be truth and we all need to be as active in search for truth about ourselves more than at any time since we encounter more “truths” that masquerade in the name of truth proper, be it about ourselves or our ethnicity or Ethiopia, whatever it is. The Ethiopian society has quite a long way to go in search of its soul and finding the truth about it and practicing the truth that brings us back in tune to reality, which is what we need to properly live as humans in a proper human environment which we might call Ethiopia or whatever.
I’ve tried to share my reflections on all the above in a bit detailed way elsewhere that I’ll be happy to point to for those who’ve a sincere desire to see what I’m trying to share here in greater detail elsewhere but the likes of Paris2 would start giving away what is in their hearts by saying this person has started to refer to himself/herself.
Maybe only a ‘typical Ethiopian” would say such a thing to belittle his/her fellow Ethiopian. That is, of course, a “typical Ethiopian way” as anyone who knows a “typical Ethiopian” would immediately see what I’m talking about but only with sorrow and horror. It’s with such people among us that we crave to grow and mature and become people who know truth from error and who know what it means to be open to learn from others with even a little sense of humility and open-mindedness that knows a desire to change and grow and become fully human.
Cheers,
Alethia
Look; stop talking about persons, including paris2. I didn’t see anything bad in his/her comments. S/he asked the “netters” to be clear, lucid…in their articles as a reader. What is wrong with that? Yes, from my reading of your (Alethia) articles, I saw some of the things paris2 commented on; sure your articles and comments are very self centered if that is what is meant by “self-reference.” From your “knowledge by acquaintance” of the CUDP leaders, to your “theorizing” of the relationship between the correspondence theory of truth and the virtues and characters of those leaders, you are self-referencing yourself as a reason to believe what your are claiming. As much as you know or even more, readers knew these leaders and I don’t think they (these leaders) asked you to introduce them to us. Check again the comments there. If even you are free to go away with your claims here (doubting its factuality, though), you didn’t establish how the virtues and characters of the Ethiopian oppositions leaders is derived from and explained by the correspondence theory of truth and how the political crisis in Ethiopia is simply a crisis of virtue and character. I guess you know the problem of the point of view from where to measure and prove this (I say you knew because you seem to know almost everything since you write on any thing!). And in all cases you are the ultimate authority. Since you always comment and post from position of knowledge, you cannot be excused for your omissions, unlike other humble persons who share their ideas really with honesty. Besides, there are ample redundancies and boring repetitions. I was always at pain to read and finish them. That is why I used the quote you asked me explain, although it was not directed to your articles in particular. I said, “…. there are lessons to be learned by all, including those who are making infantile, incoherent, even nonsense claims using the appearance and mask of philosophy and philosophical training.” If this characterizes your articles, be it as you choose, Sir. Paris2 made 5 points, which I agree. Let me add few more, please: (6) let us not write or comment on areas which we don’t know or have no clue, (7) let us not answer to each and every comment repeatedly, for this diverts focus and attention from comments on particular author of interest. This is what is happening here now, for instance: we are moved far away from ER’s article and exchanging on extraneous points, which the original author is not responsible for. Unless we are infected by the view that “I am always right”, it wise to ignore or leave behind most of the comments. Besides, it again takes us back to the question clear thinking before writing and posting. One shouldn’t end up paraphrasing and defending her/his position by saying “I don’t mean that”,; “you missed my point” or even winds in personal verbal insults that are not appropriate. Like paris2, I am offering this just looking for beautiful and coherent articles, for you are an educated person who claims to know well. I am not sure whether Paris and paris2 are same persons but, paris2, please try to post few articles of interest, for I read very few of your comments elsewhere, too. Peace!
Hi Paris2:
Many thanks for promptly responding to my post that directly addressed you based on your comments that drew my response. I want to thank you so much for being gracious in responding to my reactions/responses and asking for some justification for what I said above.
First, you said and made it sound as if I took your comments personal when you say, “…there was nothing personal when that remark was made.” One way to take your remark in the preceding quote is the way I took it to mean to address a person who wrote some comment whom one can indentify as “Paris2”. That is the first sense of speaking personally that has nothing to do with taking things personal. That is why I addressed my response, which you twisted to mean a reaction in a negative and hence a second sense, which seems to be based on taking “personal” in another sense such as of being offended, etc. Your take and my take are entirely different and hence how you look at your remarks in a different way from the way I look at yours. A solution: I addressed you personally as Paris2 without taking anything personal. I did react in the sense of a personal reflection on what was being communicated. These do not necessarily carry any meaning of taking things personal as you wanted your readers to take you to mean. This I do not think is right for the reasons I just shared. Nothing is being taken personal here.
No worries about the epistemic and aesthetic beauty of writings, since I was not responding to that aspect of your comments other than saying I agreed with you that we both value much similar things. But how then did I come to believe whether who you had in mind could possibly be some subtle reference to my comments and hence to me, the writer identified as Alethia?
No need to dig too deep to justify my suspicion from your comments that begin with “Besides, self-referentiality is an academic taboo and a moral failure.” Please re-read the rest of your comments that begin with the preceding quote all the way to the end of your comments. And show me if there was any other commentator on Ebissa’s article who referred to his/her own articles they way you said about them, before or even after I did for the reasons that I shared what I did why.
That is more than adequate reason for me to make conditional statements that start with “If you refer to such allusions and references …” and another conditional statement that goes by saying “If you included the present commentator in such comments….” These being conditional statements should not be automatically concluded to mean what they would unless the consequents of what I was attributing to you were true. You can deny the truth of the consequents in each of my if statements and then we’re making progress.
But as far as I could tell you did not give us any reason why any one of your readers should not even conditionally conclude that what you’re trying to talk about had nothing to do with any one of the preceding commentators, including Alethia, and hence an altogether general comment. If you were honest enough and careful enough, you might claim both, you could have avoided the implications of what you’ve written which gave me initially an adequate reason to share my responses the way I did. Still you general remarks do show why you said what you said in the paragraph that drew my response to your comments.
If you take yourself to be a good and logical and careful and concise and coherent writer why would you say things that have the implications that they did which any careful writer could easily have avoided. All of those who’ve written anything worth one’s time and effort certainly know how easy it is to recommend to others virtues of good writings that one does not practice. If you were more careful about what you wrote we’d not have been talking about these issues at all.
Hope the above response explains what I was trying to say and why. Thanks a lot for your clarifications.
Cheers,
Alethia
Hi Misgana:
Thanks a lot for responding to my question about what piece of evidence you had in mind when you wrote what you did in your first comment.
Now, yes, we’ve been distracted quite a lot in responding to each other, losing some opportunities to deal directly with the message of the article that should be more central to our exchanges. At least to make up for some such digressions I’ve tried to share a little bit by way of what I thought might be helpful as an addition to ER message. Except some comments on persons/commentators/bloggers, etc., I’ve not seen any contribution by way of ideas from you nor the person you’re set out to defend yet you’re still accusing another person, this time Alethia, for what you’ve partly triggered for Alethia to respond to. Just some responses to your comments for the sake of clarification and to, hopefully, help us in any possible future exchange of thoughts among us.
I’d be brief as to your reference to some of the articles that I’ve written elsewhere, whether those articles were meant to establish and what you think they’ve failed to establish etc. I’m in the process of continuing to write series of articles as part of a long term project and what I’ve shared so far is a work in progress and it’d have been a great service if you’ve shared with me where such a project fails or succeeds instead of just mentioning the articles as a short refutation of their claims. A sincere person would go beyond what you’ve just done and if you still mean sincere go ahead and send me an email as a way of your constructive response that I should take into consideration for future development of the ideas in those articles. I said an email so that an unnecessary digression could be avoided from here. Or, the best would be to post your response on any website for myself and others to learn from your wise counsel and constructive criticisms.
I’ve no clue where you got the idea as to whether I claimed any authority about whatever I’ve shared in public. It’s so easy to refute a straw man and that is not going to do any good to any of us at any rate. What made you say that there is a sense of “ultimate authority” in what you’ve read from whatever I’ve written? You seem to have a familiarity with some literature from what you’ve shared in your comments, yet on another hand, you seem to confuse a style of writing with an attitude of the writer. That is a pity. Defining words and concepts and arguing for them has nothing to do with being authoritative (an attitude of the writer) for anyone who has had a college education that requires doing such things (styles of writing). If one thinks that one’s definition is wrong, or arguments are wrong it’s the reader’s responsibility to show where one’s gone wrong, yet you’ve not done anything like that anywhere to what I’ve said but here is your perfect refutation of the straw man! What a pity again. When a person argues for a view that person is committed to saying, at least for the sake of argument, that his/her views are true or right or correct but that is what seems to draw such ill-conceived reactions as yours and the others whose names I do not need to mention again and again.
I also hope that you and Paris2 will share your own reflections on some issues in the form of articles or something like that so that you’ll also experience what it means and also requires to produce logical, coherent, well argued articles. Criticizing the writings of others without doing one’s home work to write some is so cheap a thing to take a pride in and my hope is that some of the ones who recommend virtues of writings will show us what it means to practice the same virtues as well.
Thanks a lot for your response and look forward to reading something positive from your pen too.
Cheers,
Alethia
Alethia; thanks. I am observing how many strides you came since this conversation begun in terms of clarity, lucidity, coherence…although I didn’t appreciate the ‘wuug’ at the end of your [this] comment. I really appreciate you for leaving aside/behind many of the things suggested by paris2 and Misagana in this comment. Keep it up! Just drop the sentential or verbal attacks and come clean no matter what.
Having said this, as suggested by you, I went back to my original comment and read where you asked me to go over again. I still see my statements as very general and I didn’t have in mind your article nor any ones in particular. You commented, “…show me if there was any other commentator on Ebissa’s article who referred to his/her own articles they way you said about them, before or even after I did for the reasons that I shared what I did why.” I didn’t say any one including Alethia committed the stated error within the bounds of ER’s article; no, may be that is where you missed my point. I summarized my observation saying, “…I saw some committing this errors over and over again and I would like to ask them to refrain from such mistakes, I appreciate their efforts though.” In terms of common sense, the expression “over and over again” stands for repetition and recurrence of certain events over time, and in the linguistic and analytic tradition, “over and over again” pictures and represents point-events in a space-time continuum. Neither you nor anybody committed such an error within the limits of ER’s single article.
Now, allow me to refrain from entertaining the argument on the use of the “conditionals”, since I read and understood your use of it in its ordinary English language sense, context, and meaning (not carelessly as your comment implied , though), and not at the level of sentential logic or the logic of higher order syntax and semantics, supposing that you meant to be understood in the later sense. I think there is no need to entertain a truth value interpretation of the use of conditionals at this level of the conversation unless one intends to hide behind the formal beauty and ‘obscurantism’ of formal language accessible only to the likes of formally trained persons. Thank you very much for your cheers.
Hi Paris2:
Thank you so, so much for your very sensible and thoughtful response to my earlier posts.
You brought up some issues including somewhat technical phrases (like “point-events in a space-time continuum”, “a truth value interpretation of the use of conditionals” among others), which made my day (!) since that is the world I live in day in, day out . Please note this, however, I’ve mightily resisted to use such phrases in a public discourse where they are at best irrelevant as well as unnecessary, though after reading your comments I think it’d be natural for me to think that you’re familiar with so much in the philosophy of language.
If (again “if”), my inference is correct, then I think it’d not be going too far if I also think that you know the issues about conversational implicature, speaker intention, what sentences implicate vis-à-vis what speakers implicate in the literature on Gricean program. When I responded to your comments that triggered my response I was reading your comments with a possibility that your use of “over and over again” could be intended to cancel what your other sentences would seem to implicate what I suggested that they might have done.
For someone like you who seems to be pretty conversant with such issues I’d think that, given the evidence that at least one of the commentators before you, viz., Alethia, happened to refer to his/her articles (without even noting the implications again that you wanted your readers to take you to mean by them), the best and more careful way of cancelling the sentence implicature would have been by simply saying, “I do not mean to address so and so, for example, Alethia” and that would have avoided all the ensuing discussions, which I think are irrelevant to what we should have been discussing.
One other point for future exchanges of ideas etc that I’d like to mention is this: again please re-read one of your sentences from the earlier post, “Those who share their opinions without any expertise background and established tradition in what they write shouldn’t ask us to believe them because they say it and because of their earlier or latter articles of opinion.” Such ideas are sad manifestations in the middle of comments on a paper. Who are you, some of your readers might want to ask, to tell us who an expert is and who is not? Why even bring up such issues when there was no piece of evidence to show what you’re saying was true of anyone at all?
And also, I do not want to quote again but please go re-read how you opened your last otherwise thoughtful comment. You seem to be the police, or a self-appointed professor of writing with such criteria as “clarity, coherence, logically argued”. I’m suggesting this in a truly friendly sense, do not go to web sites to make just these points, please.
Since you do not know just from their pen names etc who is who among those who write and contribute to blogs etc, it’s unwise to say such things as if you know all the contributors on the blogs lack credentials and expert background etc. You know that you might even have no clue as to who is who on the net. Humility requires that such pronouncements are going too far away from truth and even common sense.
The best way to encourage the best way of writing articles is by writing them and sharing them with your people. That is simple commonsense: become an example and teach others by being an example and you know that is the best way of teaching compared to telling people what to do the way some on the net are addicted to doing.
By the same reasoning as the one you used in the following quote from your earlier post, “… “no man” tries to convince the readers by CITING HIMSELF OR HERSELF (either his/her earlier or future articles) as a point of reference in the absence any established intellectual and academic credentials”, one can rightly say to you, who’re are you to tell writers and bloggers and “netters” how to write, etc, “…in the absence any established intellectual and academic credentials?” I’m applying your logic to your own writings. Do you see my point? This I do not think is the best way of teaching by example.
I’ve shared all the above with the hope of sincerely encouraging you to share your share of responsibility by producing good articles on any issue you think is important and timely since you seem to be very capable of doing more than such things. Otherwise, “I would like to ask [you] to refrain from such mistakes, I appreciate [your] efforts though”. These are your own words applied to you to help you see the implication of your own points and how unnecessary and irrelevant they were and are.
Thank you so much for your otherwise engaging contribution. I hope that some of us have learned something out of these exchanges, with some lessons for the future, if we’re humble enough to learn from one another.
Cheers,
Alethia
A P.S.
Paris2:
I was wondering if you’d like to drop me a note at [email protected] and then we can talk issues in philosophy that are irrelevant to the public but that are of intrinsic interest to both of us, assuming that they’d be for you as well.
I’d really appreciate that and feel free to drop me a note and let’s chat philosophy without having to worry of being irrelevant etc
Your friend,
Cheers,
Alethia
Ale; greetings again. You asked me “who you had in mind when you referred to the idea of self-reference…” I told you neither your article nor any one else’s was in mind and said that I made a general comment:“…I saw some committing this errors over and over again and I would like to ask them to refrain from such mistakes.” Then you came up with the conditional statements interpretation not to give up the suspicion that I had Alethia’s articles in my mind thereby refusing to give up your contention. Now you are telling me, “the best and more careful way of canceling the sentence implicature would have been by simply saying, “I do not mean to address so and so, for example, Alethia”…” I love and appreciate your knowledge of and exposure to the philosophy language topics such as “conversational implicature, speaker intention…and the Gricean program.” I was saying “I don’t mean that…” just in plane non technical everyday English language use. Would you be satisfied if I say, going out of my way, “yes; Ale, it was your article in my mind when I made that comment”? If we want our conversations to be open and going, we have to refrain from holding “the right man attitude” and avoid “who are you to say this” frame of mind, I know this, to, will provoke another “who are you…” reaction.
Yes, I stated: “Those who share their opinions without any expertise background and established tradition in what they write shouldn’t ask us to believe them because they say it and because of their earlier or latter articles of opinion.” Isn’t this a standard protocol? Why “Such ideas are sad manifestations…” and why does “the who are you” follow from this? If this attitude were adopted as a criterion of conversion, conversations wouldn’t have taken off in the first place. I think, it is at once anti-conceptual and epistemically undemocratic. (Oh; who am I to say this?) It is one thing to show why comments or suggestions are wrong or unacceptable, quite a different scale to measure those ideas on the personality and authority of the authors. When I read your articles or anybody else‘s, I deal with the logic, flow and content of the ideas, not who Ale is and who my many others are. My acceptance or rejection of the ideas is not dependent on the certificate they hold, the particular disciplines they come from, their ethnicity, religion or gender, the position…of those who produce their works. Similarly, if they refuse what paris2 says, then I believe they don’t base their evaluation on who I am or what authority I have. This has always been my position, that I separate the authors/owners of various theories and ideas from those ideas. By doing so I avoid attacking these respected people when I argue against and reject their position and their ideas. If in case I disagree, my disagreement is with those ideas for some plausible reason; I don‘t disagree with the owners and authors of those ideas. Kick the ideas if all the logical and factual grounds for refuting and rejecting those idea are met; never, ever touch and attack (physically or verbally) the owner/author of the idea. I don’t think one should start yelling and sweating because her or his ideas come under question, for ideas are meant to be critiqued to death until they pass the test.
Ale, given this ethic of evaluating ideas in view to reject or accept them, I don’t buy to your claim: “Since you do not know just from their pen names etc who is who among those who write and contribute to blogs etc, it’s unwise to say such things as if you know all the contributors on the blogs lack credentials and expert background etc. You know that you might even have no clue as to who is who on the net.” Ale, I don’t have to know them, never, although I deeply respect them, I like them! Pass my best regards and deep love to them all please! That includes you, too. If I meet them alive in life, I will give them a big hug, shake hands with them, kiss them on the appropriate spot and invite them for a tea or beer as they wish. As I said, I am dealing with their published works or posted articles, etc. If I found their ideas valuable and worthy of feeding my intellect, fine and good; If I don’t agree with what they write and post, again, well and good. In both cases, I will extend my arms to them as brothers and sister in the market place of ideas.
Ale, I don’t understand your characterization of me in this sentence: “You seem to be the police, or a self-appointed professor of writing with such criteria as “clarity, coherence, logically argued”. Then, you add, “I’m suggesting this in a truly friendly sense, do not go to web sites to make just these points, please.” (Ale; who are you to say “do not go to web sites to make just these points, please.”? Look where it takes us!) From my life in the world of ideas (printed or visual), for good sometimes now, it is easy for me to detect flows in formation, construction and development of ideas, including the one at hand. Relying on this background, I made just a suggestion and expressed my liking for clear, coherent…ideas. We all were thought to write and speak this way since our early days in school. Then, how does that make me “the police or a self-appointed professor of writing…, why does it provoke “who are you stuff? And I don’t take a bad mouth for a friendly gesture/sense and, I feel, it is unbecoming of you as an educated person with credentials of some kind and authority. If you don’t agree with my suggestion, just ignore it, just leave it. Boy/Gal, why verbal attack and sentential abuse. I asked, even begged you to drop that since we started this conversation. Please, Never Again, ok? Again, that doesn’t make you or anyone else better or wiser (Oh, who am I to say that?). Besides, you shouldn’t appear as speaking for the blogger community out there since you were not elected to defend their rights and interests or let me know if that is the case.
Also; yes, I claimed: “… “no man” tries to convince the readers by CITING HIMSELF OR HERSELF (either his/her earlier or future articles) as a point of reference in the absence any established intellectual and academic credentials.” I expressed and shared my take and disagreement on self-referencing, that provoked and kept this exchange of dead bullets. I still think that self referenced authority, in the absence of any other evidence is wrong. Isn’t this part of the established protocol and culture in the print…world, unless they fail to meet the expectations? That is how I view the matter; may be I am wrong. Just tell me why my position is unacceptable without attaching it to your articles or making it personal. I am not telling “the bloggers how to write… because of my authority or because I am “the police, or a self-appointed professor of writing.” As reader, I like to go through good pieces. I think the bloggers/netters, too, would like to offer us the best of their labors and will not fail to live by that standard when possible. I don’t think it wrong to seek and expect excellent works from any one and to see them excelling wherever their hands and minds are on. Well, if anyone wants to do better to their client-readers and supporters, then there are ample pieces of beautiful works all over; your paris2 need no write an exemplary paper in this regard or to prove his claims. So, I don’t take your challenge as a gesture of goodwill on your part, Ale. Besides, I will do it on my own terms and when I feel and decide to go very public like you, I appreciate you courage and effort very, very much. So, when one takes out the “who are you” mind set from the equation and tries to evaluate the ideas of authors/netters/bloggers…on the basis of their logical and/or factual merit, most disagreements and verbally abusive attacks will go away. BTW, isn’t “the who are you” that typical mind set you referred earlier? Break that vicious mind set and see ideas as ideas and for what they. Otherwise, you are an asset, rich, conversant, lovable (Sorry, who am I to say this?. Ale; Thank you very much and please help me not to come again. [BTW, I will not wirte you an email, I will come and see you if you share me your address as soon as I land in US, if God wills, pray, pleases.)
Hi Paris2:
Thank you very, very much for your characteristically engaging response , once again. Now I’ll be relatively brief for now for the following reasons:
1)I’ve not been here on this blog/net to argue with a fellow or two like you in the direction this exchange has been heading. Confession: I do personally love good arguments with a person like you, deeply engaging and full of life, etc. You’re much valued and loved, this I say. But the purpose I’ve come to this blog was/is not to carry out such extended dialogues with just one person or the other at the expense of what I (and probably you) have come to this blog for where “our paths crossed”. This is meant for a public discussion of an article by ER whose ideas we’ve not explored to the extent that we should because of these personal exchanges. I’ve provided you with my email address in order to leave such personal exchanges behind to which you declined and which I do sincerely respect.
2)Now confession two: I’ve a tendency (due to perhaps my academic background which is to blame (!)) of discovering inconsistencies and things like that in an otherwise beautiful writings like yours. I’ve already seen several of them in your latest response that I’d have loved to engage you with but I’ve already promised not to do such a thing under (1) above for reasons I explained there. Hence, I leave it to you and to our readers for themselves to discover what I’m talking about and also I want you to see them for yourself for your personal exercise from which I hope you’ll also learn something useful.
3)Your playful sarcasm aside, I’d love to engage you with extended discussion of ideas if you were to accept my personal invitation for exchanging ideas by way of email exchanges but since you declined my offer I wish you all the best in your life in the future and you’re also quite an asset and rich and conversant in issues of mutual interest to both of us. Thank you so, so much for sharing your engaging responses with me so far. This is my last response to you and to anyone who wants to engage me personally for I’d like to leave a public forum for what it’s intended to be used and anyone who wants to share some thoughts about what has been raised these couple or so days is most welcome to drop me a note and I’ll try to respond when I can.
Cheers to you all and
Cheers to my friend Paris2
Alethia
what a wonderful writing full of insight. One of the most interesting and thought proving piece . Keep on writing the future belongs to those who seek the truth.
Thanks Ebissa
the best ever, never seen writing like this on the ethiopian topic, this a model paper to build the future of ethiopa
Thanks Ebissa