Post by giovanni on Jul 9, 2005 8:22:51 GMT
ON DIALOG
I put down these thoughts in September 2004, one week after the missing of two young Italian ladies who were in Iraq helping for the reconstruction of the country. They were there on account of a non-governmental institute, active in digging water sinks and schools. They shared the sufferance of Iraqi people, without any colonialist pose, their sole aim was to relieve people afflicted by an atrocious dictatorship then and, later, by a senseless guerrilla.
To my much surprise, the reaction to the foregoing was essentially aimed to avoid that this event be interpreted as a clash of civilizations, stressing the opportunity, if not the necessity, to be tolerant and to dialog.
I don't believe in the clashes of civilizations. History shows how civilizations that were very similar indeed often brought reciprocal wars: for instance, those of the Greek poleis or between the Romans and their italic neighbors. I think also to the struggles between catholic and protestants, or Shiites and Sunnites, both Muslims. From these examples it is quite evident the belligerents were trusting in the same divinity, wars were waged to conquer new lands and richness and, last but not least, our ancestors did not hide themselves behind solemn and hypocrite words, as it is required today by the political correctness.
The monotheistic religions, the so called "religions of the book", are in my opinion the source of the intolerance. From the assumption "one God, one book, one truth", men – above all those mentally disturbed – can easily pass to say "my God, my book, my truth".
Let us turn to tolerance and dialog. These words call up the concept of respect. We can tolerate the opinions of other people – but not all the behaviors: those outlaw must be firmly repressed – on condition that they are considered as human being, thus worth to be respected and treated with dignity, since they are at our same level. In the past times the masters didn't use to dialog with the servants and, at the present, nor does so the priest on the pulpit: he speaks "to" the devotees, not "with" them.
The dialog requires that men are at the same level, as revealed by the etymology of the word: from the Greek: dia, through; leghein, to tie. To tie together one's own thoughts, feelings and emotions and let them penetrate through the person, the “mask” (1), that each of us has built to defend himself. I am not referring to the physical phenomenon of the perception of sounds, but, rather, to the disposition to hear. To do so it is necessary to be at the same level, like things to be tied.
To be open to dialog man must be loyally ready to hear one other's reasons and to accept that his own ones may be wrong and therefore disputed; that the ideas of our counterpart may be better than ours. That nobody is in possess of the truth but we all are humble researchers. This does not imply that one becomes skeptic or nihilist: to the contrary, if we want to dialog we must keep the rudder firm on the lane, which is to consider each human being as an unique singularity, subject of equal rights and duties, whose freedom cannot be violated.
Failing these features, we can only ignore our antagonist or, in extremis, use the strength, which is not the devil's daughter, having rather a deep esoteric meaning as witnessed by the statue of Hercules in our Temple.
_________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "person" from Latin "persona", mask, because that of the actor echoes (personat) his voice.
I put down these thoughts in September 2004, one week after the missing of two young Italian ladies who were in Iraq helping for the reconstruction of the country. They were there on account of a non-governmental institute, active in digging water sinks and schools. They shared the sufferance of Iraqi people, without any colonialist pose, their sole aim was to relieve people afflicted by an atrocious dictatorship then and, later, by a senseless guerrilla.
To my much surprise, the reaction to the foregoing was essentially aimed to avoid that this event be interpreted as a clash of civilizations, stressing the opportunity, if not the necessity, to be tolerant and to dialog.
I don't believe in the clashes of civilizations. History shows how civilizations that were very similar indeed often brought reciprocal wars: for instance, those of the Greek poleis or between the Romans and their italic neighbors. I think also to the struggles between catholic and protestants, or Shiites and Sunnites, both Muslims. From these examples it is quite evident the belligerents were trusting in the same divinity, wars were waged to conquer new lands and richness and, last but not least, our ancestors did not hide themselves behind solemn and hypocrite words, as it is required today by the political correctness.
The monotheistic religions, the so called "religions of the book", are in my opinion the source of the intolerance. From the assumption "one God, one book, one truth", men – above all those mentally disturbed – can easily pass to say "my God, my book, my truth".
Let us turn to tolerance and dialog. These words call up the concept of respect. We can tolerate the opinions of other people – but not all the behaviors: those outlaw must be firmly repressed – on condition that they are considered as human being, thus worth to be respected and treated with dignity, since they are at our same level. In the past times the masters didn't use to dialog with the servants and, at the present, nor does so the priest on the pulpit: he speaks "to" the devotees, not "with" them.
The dialog requires that men are at the same level, as revealed by the etymology of the word: from the Greek: dia, through; leghein, to tie. To tie together one's own thoughts, feelings and emotions and let them penetrate through the person, the “mask” (1), that each of us has built to defend himself. I am not referring to the physical phenomenon of the perception of sounds, but, rather, to the disposition to hear. To do so it is necessary to be at the same level, like things to be tied.
To be open to dialog man must be loyally ready to hear one other's reasons and to accept that his own ones may be wrong and therefore disputed; that the ideas of our counterpart may be better than ours. That nobody is in possess of the truth but we all are humble researchers. This does not imply that one becomes skeptic or nihilist: to the contrary, if we want to dialog we must keep the rudder firm on the lane, which is to consider each human being as an unique singularity, subject of equal rights and duties, whose freedom cannot be violated.
Failing these features, we can only ignore our antagonist or, in extremis, use the strength, which is not the devil's daughter, having rather a deep esoteric meaning as witnessed by the statue of Hercules in our Temple.
_________________________________________________________________________________
(1) "person" from Latin "persona", mask, because that of the actor echoes (personat) his voice.