The "semi-permeable membrane" or the "filter" (@ 55:00) is what many Muslims in history have always employed and referred to as "creative synthesis", from when Greek philosophy was synthesized to what happened in India with Al Beruni and also with Zoroastrianism in Iran and so on...
This is for Ahmed Javed sahib: In discussions and debates like these, one of the biggest confusions, caused and indulged in either wittingly or otherwise, is this muddled approach where "the West" is constantly used as a synonym for, or interchangeably with, "Modernity". While this makes some sense since the West is where Modernity began, I suggest that you make a distinction and keep your critical discourse focussed on "Modernity/Modernism" or on its logical outcome either called "late modernity" or postmodernism. Having said that, I prefer the term Modernism to Modernity since it is an ideology, after all, and I don't mean modernism as in the art movement of late 19 and early 20 century, but as an overarching civilizational ideology. Also because there still exists a traditional West, although not easily seen or understood by many. (Dervaish Ali, Quetta walla)
In that mentioned triangle of an imbalanced/abusive household, scenario A where XY child overly identifies itself with XY parent may apparently seem no problem in the moment. However, in effect, that over identification with aggressive parent will most likely lead this child to replicate those learned and idealized aggressive/disrespectful behaviors which will most likely recreate another dysfunctional and abusive household down the road with more chances of identity confusion in the next generation- effects are transgenerational.
اتنی اہم گفتگو میں اگر نہیں بتایا گیا تو یہ کہ ہمارا تصور انسان ہے کیا ؟ وہ تصور ہے کیا جس کو خطرہ لاحق ہے ؟ یہ واضح کئے بغیر اس موضوع پر ایک گھنٹے سے زائد صرف کرنا عجیب سی بات ہے
I love you sir and I am watching all your videos ,,but gender topic can never be justified by a relgious man ,,,,,it needs either Judith Butler or focoult ,,
Only in a reductionist worldview with its de-symbolized and hence desacralized conceptual categories with which the very act of thinking and theorizing is carried out and all of which is so clearly reflected in a flattened, horizontal, one-dimensional language---as most modern languages are nowadays---can these issues gain so monumental importance at the cost of everything else. Compare the notions of "complementarity", "symbiosis", or the yin-yang (Taoism) way of approaching sexual/gender relations with that of seeing everything in strictly quantitative terms of equality, superiority/inferiority and rights. Shouldn't every right be discussed with an equal emphasis on duty and responsibility, for example? After all, in these traditional/non-modern ways of seeing, doing and being, what is superiority in one is inferiority in the other and vice-versa.
I am surprised how this discussion is complete without the mentioning of Freud and Lacan? Next to Butler's Gender trouble - a foundational text in queer theory, I recommend the panelist Dr. Moeed (i guess) to read Patricia Gherovici's Transgender Psychoanalysis: A lacanian perspective to Sexual difference. I am looking for scholar Sara Ahmad's work in this regard to which Judith also turned. I wonder that Issues of gender are not that simple as they are so simply discussed.
جاندار اور شاندار گفتگو۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ماشااللہ
اپ کی ویڈیوز بہت آنکھیں کھول دینے والی ہیں ۔ جزاک اللہ ہو خیرا۔
Gender Trouble by Judith Trouble is the foundational text in this regard which i read years back.
Apt and delightful to the thought! ❤
The "semi-permeable membrane" or the "filter" (@ 55:00) is what many Muslims in history have always employed and referred to as "creative synthesis", from when Greek philosophy was synthesized to what happened in India with Al Beruni and also with Zoroastrianism in Iran and so on...
This is for Ahmed Javed sahib: In discussions and debates like these, one of the biggest confusions, caused and indulged in either wittingly or otherwise, is this muddled approach where "the West" is constantly used as a synonym for, or interchangeably with, "Modernity". While this makes some sense since the West is where Modernity began, I suggest that you make a distinction and keep your critical discourse focussed on "Modernity/Modernism" or on its logical outcome either called "late modernity" or postmodernism. Having said that, I prefer the term Modernism to Modernity since it is an ideology, after all, and I don't mean modernism as in the art movement of late 19 and early 20 century, but as an overarching civilizational ideology. Also because there still exists a traditional West, although not easily seen or understood by many. (Dervaish Ali, Quetta walla)
JazakAllah ❤❤❤
❤❤
In that mentioned triangle of an imbalanced/abusive household, scenario A where XY child overly identifies itself with XY parent may apparently seem no problem in the moment. However, in effect, that over identification with aggressive parent will most likely lead this child to replicate those learned and idealized aggressive/disrespectful behaviors which will most likely recreate another dysfunctional and abusive household down the road with more chances of identity confusion in the next generation- effects are transgenerational.
اتنی اہم گفتگو میں اگر نہیں بتایا گیا تو یہ کہ ہمارا تصور انسان ہے کیا ؟ وہ تصور ہے کیا جس کو خطرہ لاحق ہے ؟ یہ واضح کئے بغیر اس موضوع پر ایک گھنٹے سے زائد صرف کرنا عجیب سی بات ہے
No comments ??????meaning unable to reply or could not follow the lecture
where can we find the entire video of this discussion?
From where can we get to view this whole discussion.
I would like to participate in the upcoming discussion on Judith Butler
can you pls guide me how to participate?
thank you
Please contact Omar Abdul Aziz Sahab on +923224721959.
Admin
I love you sir and I am watching all your videos ,,but gender topic can never be justified by a relgious man ,,,,,it needs either Judith Butler or focoult ,,
Only in a reductionist worldview with its de-symbolized and hence desacralized conceptual categories with which the very act of thinking and theorizing is carried out and all of which is so clearly reflected in a flattened, horizontal, one-dimensional language---as most modern languages are nowadays---can these issues gain so monumental importance at the cost of everything else. Compare the notions of "complementarity", "symbiosis", or the yin-yang (Taoism) way of approaching sexual/gender relations with that of seeing everything in strictly quantitative terms of equality, superiority/inferiority and rights. Shouldn't every right be discussed with an equal emphasis on duty and responsibility, for example? After all, in these traditional/non-modern ways of seeing, doing and being, what is superiority in one is inferiority in the other and vice-versa.
I am surprised how this discussion is complete without the mentioning of Freud and Lacan?
Next to Butler's Gender trouble - a foundational text in queer theory, I recommend the panelist Dr. Moeed (i guess) to read Patricia Gherovici's Transgender Psychoanalysis: A lacanian perspective to Sexual difference. I am looking for scholar Sara Ahmad's work in this regard to which Judith also turned.
I wonder that Issues of gender are not that simple as they are so simply discussed.
JazakAllah ❤❤