Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Not Just in My Mind by Dr Ignatius Ganmesia

Not Just in My Mind by Dr Ignatius Ganmesia

Ratings: (0)|Views: 57|Likes:
This dialogue is a privileged window for my readers to dwell in my so-named controversial thought process. As a relativist, I am not controversial but controversially rational in never being autocratic. Confused? That’s the way I feel.
This dialogue is a privileged window for my readers to dwell in my so-named controversial thought process. As a relativist, I am not controversial but controversially rational in never being autocratic. Confused? That’s the way I feel.

More info:

Published by: Dr Ignatius Gwanmesia on Feb 21, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/23/2010

pdf

text

original

 
The Philosophies in me
Not just in my mind, my mind is in it.http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/21412036-iggy55.As my many articles in the cyberspace show, I am addicted to the criticalanalysis of issues perceived as either controversial or on which opinions arehighly polarised. With ignorance and chronic subjectivity serving as nurturers of naivety and gullibility, I never intentionally seek to impose my opinions onothers, but rather to develop different perspectives to presenting issues so thatpeople can synthesise objectively. Sound confusing? I feel the same way.Nevertheless, in response to the reader who wrote asking whether I amcontroversial; the answer is simple; I am not controversial but controversiallyrational. Does this sound rational? I will attempt to elucidate.Having embarked in human rights abuse campaigns ever since my early teens;ranging from family feuds for succession through to political repression andvendetta, I have seen and experience their extremities. Being controversiallyrational is what I have become as a result thereof. Consequently, through andin my trials and tribulations, I have fine-tuned my senses to the seeminglyirrational but logical philosophies of the people I met. For example, inCameroon, I met and questioned a traditional chief why it was that their womenare not allowed to participate in local politics yet rhetorically; they posit or synonymise women with Godliness? Without hesitation the reply left His RoyalHighness’s mouth without restrain; “Yes Youngman” he turned to me like aregiment commander, “Just like God, let the women remain invisible while themen take care of politics.” Although the irrationality of the invisible participatingin governance seems to logically legitimise the autocracy of the visible mengoverning, conversely it justified the prevalence of gender discrimination in thatindigenous culture to the extent of near total female subjugation. Needless topoint out that, this local dogma of ‘
governance exclusion’ 
based on invisibilityconflicts with my orthodox dogma of the invisible supreme omnipotent patriarch(God) who, though external, is governor.
 
His Royal Highness went on to elucidate on the minutia of governance andethics in his heritage. “You see”, said His Royal Highness delicately sippingpalm wine from his royal buffalo cup, “When we men sit in counsel, womenhave to sit away from us, making sure that their hands rest on their knees whilethe men can support their heads in their hands. This is because men’s wisdomto govern comes from their heads (brains) but by thinking with their legs,women have inherited stupidity. Since women are not gifted with reasoning, byresting their hands on their knees, the counsel is safe from women contributingstupidity to deliberations.Now, before feminist become hysteric with the passivity apportion to their human kin, or human rights activists screaming at what may be perceived assexual discrimination, I dare ask, ‘who are ‘
You 
’ to seek to transpose conceptsconstructed base on Western ideologies to sovereign cultures? Conversely tothe perception of the counsel of governors as chauvinist or sexist, you can betthat they will perceive your universal concept of Human Rights as Modern-Dayimperialism. If my controversial rationalising is to be objective, believe me, ‘
inno way is the current concept of human rights not synonymous withimperialism’ 
Within the context of this indiscriminate universal human rightswhich blatantly breaches the very rights of independent, free-thinking sovereigncultures it purports to uphold, I suggested to the council of elders that allowingchildren to work longs hours without rest violated their rights and deprived themof their childhood. His Royal Highness replied with wisdom and fortitude; “downthrough the generations, we have always loved and rested our offspring’s not
righted 
’ them. We only allow them to do those things that we will do ourselves.Isn’t our love superior to your right?” While the sight of a child carrying heavyload may constitute right violation to the so-named ‘imperialist Westerner(Universalist); rationality is indicative that this and similar treatment of childrenare morally and ethically based on Kantian or Aristotelian virtues if notphilosophies. I dare declare that I consent and acknowledge the virtues intreating children with respect rather than based on some social construct. In anutshell, I am a relativist. Relativism is in my mind not my mind in relativism.Confused? So am I. It is this liberal and democratic rather than autocraticperception of others and their views that has driven me to always examine what

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->