If we take the discussion in this thread as a combined effort at exploring uncertain domains, I find no reason for anybody to withdraw. Dialogues proper happen when everybody involved is uncertain in different levels. What is the point in communicating if it is for asserting one's convictions?
Let me foreground an interesting contradiction in this discourse thus far. It is self avowed secularist Satchidanandan who speaks like a believer at times whereas those arguing for a postive acceptance of religion ( including me) speaks in the 'secular' ,'dry', 'modern" vocabulary. Sorry, if I am deviating from the thread ( if nobody deviates,how will we identify the thread?!) But, isn't it frustrating that" we " are still caught in the limits of our languages? On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:16 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we are not just victims of developmnt > developmnt is not theround only point of reference of marginalisation > when u talk abt devpmnt u target modernity and on the other hand eulogise > tradition > > we r victims of tradition as well > the sound pollution of tradition is the biggest threat > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
