and feely :-) prasad
On 7/4/08, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *touche* > > On 04/07/2008, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> :-) >> >> Bobby, >> >> I read your blog and was reading it again. >> >> *Now with this anecdote, I feel much releived. >> * >> ;-) >> >> *prasad* >> ** >> ** >> On 7/4/08, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On a lighter vein, >>> Justice Bhattacharjee (former CJ of Bombay High Court) was teaching us >>> "ancient Indian Jurisprudenc" - essentially the smritis and mimamsas, and >>> the guy was showing off his knowledge of sanskrit and ended up conversing in >>> sanskrit with an LL.M student, who was sitting into his lectures - to the >>> consternation of the whole class, until one of our classmates got up on the >>> pretext of asking a doubt and abused in Kannada. When Justice Bhattacharjea >>> claimed he did not understand a word of this classmate's doubt, he responded >>> that the class had not understood a word of what had been going on. >>> >>> *This post is not up for discussion :)* >>> >>> >>> On 04/07/2008, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/3/08, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>If news, ideas, viewpoints etc are made known to the readers, viewers >>>>> or listeners through a medium then it can not constitute a public sphere, >>>>> even when there is a public who gather around that medium however >>>>> discretely >>>>> in space and time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It may not be the case if you take an Andersnian position and tries to >>>>> look at nation as a constituted public sphere. And in the vein of McLuhan, >>>>> can't utter "Medium is the message and massage".. >>>>> >>>>> the wonderful thing about Habermasian public sphere is that it assumes >>>>> an ideal *space for freedom of expression.* the medium itself need >>>>> not, but the way it extend human senses does the magic, perhaps >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Renju,' >>>> It would also be worth noting that Habermas himself has critiqued the >>>> very concept of "public sphere" in his work structural tranformation of >>>> public sphere. In one of the last chapter of this work on "Transformation >>>> of >>>> Public Sphere's Political Function", he is excplicit not only about the >>>> limits of the term but how the *manipulated public sphere is taken over >>>> by an acclamation-prone mood that predominates and result is that an >>>> opinion climate subsumes public opinions. (* Structural Transformation >>>> of Public Sphere, Polity Press, 1989) >>>> Habermas also points to the penetration of state and society with each >>>> other that brings forth a *middle sphere of semipublic*. (P231, ibid) >>>> The State-aligned NGOs are succesful in establishing such semi public >>>> spheres were the *urgency to consensus and immediacy to conclude on >>>> areas which contravene the entreched understanding* whether it be >>>> science, politics, secularism or any sort of trivia. >>>> >>>> Habermas further states that the politically influential representatives >>>> of cultural and religious forces the entreching of private interests in the >>>> face of the 'neomercantilism" which leads to *refedualization".* *The >>>> apparently progressives in society in the wake of a emergent popular >>>> radical >>>> politics retreats to the refedualize the public sphere*. Habermas >>>> concerns perhaps with the delimits and contravening forces within the >>>> modernity. But let us also think critically how the self-proclaimed semi >>>> public spheres are shaped in contexts familiar to us. >>>> >>>> *Public Sphere* from the inception of the term like Communism is a *social >>>> fantasy- and *hence* ahistorica*l. But like the impulsivity of >>>> historical materialism to locate Communism outside history, Habermas >>>> suitably finds a locale and period for claiming the historical specificity. >>>> Like the several 'idealized' *semi public spheres of our times, we find >>>> the supposedly 'ideal space' as discriminatory*. Habermas and *all >>>> those who still adores* the fantasy of 'public sphere" never saw or >>>> rather failed *to see the exclusion of different voices - - woman, >>>> dalit, muslim, sexual minorities- minoirty voices with a difference*. >>>> >>>> >>>> damodar >>>> >>>> >>>> PS: am also compelled go think of a kerala model public sphere, which >>>> could be artificially correct but politically wrong. But now; later. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (let me rethink . this s just a first response. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bobby Kunhu >>> http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ >> >> >> > > > -- > Bobby Kunhu > http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
