On 6/29/08, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *M.Muralidharan (1-6-1958--- 1-12-1995), a great thinker Keralam has > produced*,
*No doubt. * ** ** Dileep, I opened mail box to crticize you on your previous mail remarks on 'framework". After reading this excerpts from the unpublished work of Dr. Muralidharan, I withdraw and keep quite. damodar . wrote with a sophistication and brilliance rare among conventional > academics.The following passage is taken from his unpublished paper "Hindu > Community Formation in Kerala: Processes and structures under Modernity" > (1994): In recent years , the most sedate defence of modernity has been > that it makes possible a communicative ethics, a sociality of ideal-speech > and validations.Such attempts that point to an implicit human condition > permeated by understanding and free from coercion will have to confront > communities that are actually made; religious, national or ethnic. Outside > the university communities in Western Europe, modernity has witnessed the > shaping of such groups.Any celebration of what they free in human nature > will have to be shown too be not bound up with what they chain.The ethics > of ideal speech faces the paradox that in a torture cell, the right to speak > becomes an obligation. > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Habermas and Ziauddin Zardar >> >> >> >> Whereas Habermas is a distinguished hardcore philosopher, Ziauddin Zardar, >> should I describe him, as a futurist? >> >> >> >> Habermas belongs to the tradition of European philosophy; Zardar belongs >> to the thinking emerging in the postcolonial context. >> >> >> >> Habermas belongs to the great Frankfurt school tradition of critical >> theory and is located in Germany; Zardar is located at England and writes >> passionately about Bollywood cinema. >> >> >> >> Zardar is devout practitioner of Islamic religion; I know nothing about >> Habermas except the remark in MG Radhakrishnan's mail that he is friend of >> Pope. >> >> >> >> As I understand, ( may be there is -donno) there is nothing in common >> between their thinking and writings. >> >> >> >> But both concern themselves to the problem of secularism in a world >> increasingly determined by multi-religious or inter-religious exchanges, >> sometimes pleasant, some times violent. >> >> >> >> Habermas is perhaps popular to Malayalam writing since 80s, I guess >> because of his engagement with Marxism. Public sphere, his antithetical >> position on students left movement, his idea of the 'In complete project of >> modernity' and his dialogues with Focault are popular in Keralam. >> >> >> >> But Zardar, I think is not much popular. >> >> >> >> Habermas engagement with secularism is contextualized in European >> modernity and in a particular context where state-promoted multiculturalism >> and the created fear of "terrorism" has made the 'civilized' states >> xenophobic and resulting in 'irresistible' rise of new Artru Uis. >> >> >> >> I've found (with my minimal knowledge) there is a deep sense of tragedy >> underlying Habermas' writings. That has become his style. Though a bit >> 'flexible", same syntactic intricacies, conceptual complexities and semantic >> density can be seen in his description of "post secularism". >> >> >> >> A sense of mourning pervades his description. This can be best described >> in Rushdie's words "last sigh for a lost world in Moor's Last Sigh. He opens >> up to a new world but there is 'nostalgia' for the lost world. So I don't >> wonder a large gap, a widening chasm between the thinkers who live in the >> lost world of Nehruvian Nationalist Secularism and Habermas who wakes up to >> engage the emrgent context. The world of Nehruvian Statist secularism >> is bygone and cannot be recaptured. (and pls. don't!!) >> >> >> >> But then Zardar is refreshingly new. He engages religion and new emerging >> ideas of secularism as a value. He engages with a non-European world where >> multi-religion is a historical condition and perhaps ravaged by Colonialism >> and later neo-colonialism. Wriiting is full of enjoyment and a sort of >> pleasantness spreads through his works. >> >> >> >> Habermas is least self-reflexive. (The maximum he can be, as he states is >> that he is a "sociological observer") There is no "Habermas's" in his >> writing, where as Zardar is self-reflexive. One can engage with Habermas in >> a "disciplined and dispassionate (and cozy way) " keeping his 'self' in a >> comfortable closet (looks like a scene Bunuel's from "Phantom of Liberty). >> But to engage with Zardar, one has to be self-reflexive (if at all he/she is >> sincere). All the solidity of discipline and dispassion liquefies. >> >> >> This is my tentative reading, slightly undisciplined and passionate. (pls. >> do visit: http://www.ziauddinsardar.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dileep R I thuravoor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
