The Neverending Story

...
"Something has happened in Moldymoor" said the will-o'-the-wisp haltingly, "something impossible to understand. Actually, it's still happening. It's hard to describe--the way it began was--well, in the east of our country there's a lake--that is, there was a lake--Lake Foamingbroth we called it. Well, the way it began was like this. One day Lake Foamingbroth wasn't there anymore--it was gone. See?"

"You mean it dried up?" Gluckuk inquired.

"No," said the will-o'-the-wisp. "Then there'd be a dried-up lake. But there isn't. Where the lake used to be there's nothing--absolutely nothing. Now do you see?"

"A hole?" the rock chewer grunted.

"No, not a hole," said the will-o'-the- wisp despairingly. "A hole, after all, is something. This is nothing at all."

The three other messengers exchanged glances.

"What--hoo--does this nothing look like?" asked the night-hob.

"That's just what's so hard to describe," said the will-o'-the -wisp unhappily. "it doesn't look like anything. It's--it's like--oh, there's no word for it."
...

(taken from Ende, M 1983, The Neverending Story, trans. Manheim, R, Penguin, London, p. 19)


Fan's of The Neverending Story will enjoy the following story.

LINK

Richard Rorty

As most of us are now aware, Richard Rorty, the eminent American philosopher and Professor of comparative literature at Stanford University, died this week (June 8). I'm not going to write anything here as whatever I could, or perhaps could not, write just couldn't do the man justice. What I will direct the reader to, however, is the fantastic program The Philosopher's Zone that this week dedicated an entire episode to Rorty. The presenter, Alan Saunders, and Paul Redding, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney, discuss Rorty's life and works. The entire transcript is now available and for the next four weeks the audio is available to either listen to live or download. LINK.

Downer Keeps Fingers Firmly in Big Brother's Pie

The crisis in Darfur has been occurring, in one form or another, since the fourteenth century when Islam was introduced as the 'state' religion. Conflicts ensued from this right up 'till Britain, yes Britain, incorporated the Darfur region into neighbouring Sudan in 1916. This just led to further problems, the same sort of problems that occurred in other 'created' nations, problems such as economic marginalisation and no right to self determination. In 1983 and 1984 there was a major famine in Darfur which killed an estimated 95,000 people. Because of this, the then government was overthrown.

Move forward to 2003 and we find ourselves in the early stages of the current conflict. Two groups, The Justice and Equality Movement and The Sudan Liberation Movement, made the claim that the government was favouring Arabs and mistreating non-Arabs. This led to an attack on an area known as Golo by a group called The Darfur Liberation Front which, in turn, led to an attack by The Sudan Liberation Army on an area known as Al-Fashir. This humiliated the Sudanese government and what has resulted has been widely called 'The Darfur Conflict' with an estimated 400,000 people killed to date (2003-2007), among many other human rights abuses.

This week the Sudanese government agreed to let the United Nations send in peace keepers to try and diffuse the conflict. Now whether UN peace keepers are the best method to end this conflict is not what's at issue here. This is a major step forward with the Sudanese government recognising, internationally, that there is a fundamental problem that needs addressing and that it (the Sudanese government) cannot fix the problem on its own (it is widely acknowledged that the Sudanese government is killing and abusing more people than the various rebel groups).

Now today (15 June) we have Alexander Downer claiming that Australia cannot contribute to the UN mission...the 'numbers just don't add up'. What damn numbers does he need to see? Is not 400,000 dead people and uncounted human rights abuses not large enough? We certainly didn't need such large numbers to go and 'help' the Americans in their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor did we need such numbers to keep our friends in power in the Solomon Islands.

No, the only numbers that Downer could possibly be referring to are financial numbers. They are the only numbers that are lower in relation to the other conflicts we've either participated in or helped start. It is simply not profitable enough for Downer's government to engage in this conflict.

Believe me, I was a little surprised when I heard this news as participating in a UN managed peace keeping force aimed at preventing death and human rights abuses, deaths and abuses that are actually documented, would seem to be a politically smart move by a government that is facing certain defeat later in the year. I, naively it seems, assumed that helping innocent people escape from certain death and/or abuse would gain widespread public sympathy for the government. Perhaps in the elections due later in the year the coalition government is going to pull one of those alterity campaigns again. You know, the ones where the government claims that we need to fear the 'other'. We know how successful these campaigns are, our government is well practiced at pulling them off. Maybe we can't help the UN because African's will be the new Iraqis in this election, the 'other' that needs to be feared. Surely the government can't both help and slander the same people.

I would wager, however, that had Australia's big brother, you know the one, the Yanks, had said 'we're going into Sudan to help those God-forsaken Darfur residents, want'a lend a hand?', little John, along with Downer, would have almost ejaculated at the offer. We'd be in there quicker than the gleam that that appears in Howard's eye when Bush's name is mentioned. This is one of the reasons I chose to keep my New Zealand citizenship when I became an Aussie. You've no idea how embarrassing it is saying to people overseas that you're from Australia.

Islam and a New Mufti for Australia

Islam arrived in Australia long before Christianity did, it was a mere twist of fate that Christianity became the dominant religion in the country. More than two hundred years ago Islamic fishermen from nearby Indonesia visited the north-western coastline of Australia mingling with Australia's Indigenous inhabitants. Even to this day there are words and concepts in north-western Indigenous Australian languages that are distinctly Islamic.

Move forward a couple of hundred years to just after the second world war. During this time there was a great deal of immigration to Australia and one of those immigrants was the then twenty three year old Fehmi from Lebanon. In 1957 Fehmi and a small band of friends formed the first Islamic prayer group in Melbourne which eventually led to the formation of the Islamic Society of Victoria which, in 1976, appointed Fehmi as Imam. Fehmi's first project was fund raising for a large Islamic centre in Melbourne's north, a place called Preston. To this day Fehmi has run the Preston Mosque although Fehmi is now more reverently known as Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam.

Some of you may remember earlier in the year there was created an Australian National Council of Imams who are most well known for their position on the then Mufti, Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilali . They effectively told the Sheikh that his tenure as Mufti of Australia was up. Today this same council, despite their earlier statement, reappointed Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilali as the Mufti of Australia. Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilali , however, turned down the position instead declaring that Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam should be the next Mufti of Australia. So, for the next two years, Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam will be known as Mufti Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam, the Mufti of Australia.

It will be interesting to see the nation's response to the new Mufti, someone who has resided in this country for longer than many other people and someone who has undoubted talent in community building. Gary Bouma, Professor of Sociology at Monash University, claims that 'He is very able to present Australia to the Muslims and Muslims to Australia. He's been very good at presenting these two communities to each other, in a way that promotes co-operation, promotes understanding, promotes mutual interest and reduces fear.' Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam certainly seems to be a very good choice for the Mufti of Australia, I doubt that anyone else with his qualities could be found in this country.

Perhaps the greatest concern with this appointment is the new Mufti's age. Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam is currently 77 years old. I've already heard criticism claiming that due to his age he will be out of touch with the community, both the local Islamic community and the wider national community. Do remember though that Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam played a very important role in shaping the Islamic community of Australia and is well known for his work in interfaith and faith/secular dialogue. If anyone has any doubt as to his credentials then turn to the Order of Australia; Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia for service to multiculturalism and to the Muslim community, particularly through the promotion of community harmony and tolerance and to multi-faith understanding. I don't think that a better man could have been given the job.

How 'Humane' is Your City?

How 'humane' is your city? Well if you live in the United States of America you may be one step closer to finding this out. It's a shame that we Australian's don't have anything similar to go by, although I'm fairly certain that all our cities are 'in-humane', however, the Humane Society of the United States has undertaken a study to determine the most 'humane' cities in the USA. You can find the study HERE, and, if you're not inclined to follow the link, San Francisco came out on top and Chicago came up with the wooden spoon.

But is this study accurate or even necessary; is it even logically valid? Now, I'm not pretending to have access to the methodologies employed in the procedures of this study nor am I claiming that I even have access to the uncollated information, what I am claiming, however, is that according to the Humane Society's published information (link above) there are quite a few holes. It seems that there were only twelve criteria identified for a city to be measured against which all seem quite emotive in their focus. Quantity of 'seal protectors' for example or 'puppies in windows'. Euphemism is a general tool for hiding inadequacy, not something that an international organisation should be promoting.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue, however, is in the use of the word 'humane'. What is meant by this term? Is it relative? How do we judge its application appropriately? I think that the term 'humane' is logically inconsistent and is nothing more than an overt expression of prejudice and chauvinism. Most critics of the Humane Society seem to focus on some inconsistent claim like that we should not be treating animals 'humanely' because that would entail us treating them as if they were humans. This, I think too, is illogical, prejudiced and chauvinistic. Why devalue an animal's uniqueness by equating it with a human? Humans and most other animals are innately different and these differences are, necessarily, irreconcilable; they will likely remain so until someone, at least, answers Nagel's question 'what is it like to be a bat?'.

No, my hang up is in the question 'what is it like to be human?' Obviously the term 'humane' is to be seen in relation to the term 'human' but what do we mean when we use the term 'human'? From a brief exploration of the Humane Society of America's website, focusing on mission statements etc., it seems that what it is to be human is the possession of reason. I completely agree! This seems to be where the the Humane Society gets confused (Maybe they aren't confused however there are no documents on their website pointing otherwise). Their statement of Principles and Beliefs includes '...[w]e seek to forge a lasting and comprehensive change in human consciousness of and behavior toward all animals in order to prevent animal cruelty, exploitation, and neglect, and to protect wild habitats and the entire community of life...' So, to the Humane Society, the term 'humane' means a procedure of changing reason to make it more in line with a Moral Universalist's perspective. This universal morality places equal weight on the rights of animals as to the rights of humans.

I'm not going to make a claim here either for or against Moral Universalism however the Humane Society really needs to go over their statements and get some things straight. If I'm going to argue for a universal morality and a universal morality that limits reason, because reason will have no place in this universal morality as what is and isn't morally valuable is already decided, then how can I call this humane? Of course, as I've mentioned, the Humane Society seem to equate the term 'humane' to such a definition, one in which reason becomes limited, but this is not, at least in my opinion, what it is like to be human. Human = ability to reason not I will tell you what you can and can not reason about.

If you're going to remain logically consistent the please remove the term 'humane' from your name.