abenlian

On the basis of Ara's formulation of culture and politics I can't escape thinking of two fundamental questions. What are the philosophical differences between the two ethnic groups in the forum? For example, there is a drastic difference between the philosophy of communist China and semi-free USA. And the second question pertains to the distinction between political pool that is evident in the existance of centralized government and ethnic identity that permeates the masses. If you suppose that political nationlism is a cover up for a protectionist's power lust, national pride is its distorted version in the eyes of the average citizen.

Reading your discussion on cultural and political nationalism one gets confused as to what exactly these terms mean. To me they delegate empty and floating abstractions with no real basis in reality. If you could specify a bit what your disagreements are, perhaps you'll find that there are none, and the points that you disagree with may not even be relevent to what you relate to as cultural and political nationalism. Can you concretize and give uniform examples defining the formation of cultural and political nationalism?

I was hoping that the standard of conduct will be precluding the actions of the pervert by virtue of a detriment to his intentions. If he chooses to act as a contrarian to the accepted, on the basis of what is right, then I would leave it to the police, rather than the church, or the community.

I feel your pain, but I am afraid that in a semi-free society such as the one in US, owning a broadcasting business is like owning a gun that can backfire. Even if you own one and used it to promulgate the Armenian cause, out of more than 250mm Americans, only a handful would contribute to your ratings.

When you discount the subjectivists, the mysticists, the relativists, you may end up building a standard which the rest of the world may honor and benefit. But, I am affraid there is always room for the pervert. That's why I think an objective standard of conduct that is interchangible with human consciousness is necessary for our well being.

How about nations of individuals.

A victim hates an attacker because the latter threatens the survival of a value the former has achieved or preserved. An attacker hates because he thinks he can have his cake and eat it too. It's frustrating when he finds out that it can't be done. Ara, if we were to claim that we understand nothing, the occupation of a writer would be obsolete.

I don't know of a direct translation of the word Ambition in Armenian, and am willing to say that because of the lack of this concept, Armenians are not among the top ten nations contributing to the world's inventions.

Denchaght relates to the pursuit of material values. A great desire to visit a country or buy a car, etc. Ambition has to do with acheivement of values, but of psycho-epistomological and philosophical nature. A great desire to become the President of Armenia, a lawyer, etc.

One of my daily goals at work is to analyze the psychology of the people I work with or compete against. Since psychology is a study of the mind the answer to your question could be easily accessible to you if you introspect. Ask yourself why do I feel happy, or angry? Analyze the circumstances that made you feel happy or angry, is there a good reason for you to react the way you did. Psychology constantly deals with how and why humans act. Suppose you understood the value system of a person, it would be only elementary to suspect how and why should he/she react. In a closed environment such as an office or whatever workplace, there are many pre-set conditions that more or less dictate the psychological make up of a group. I hope this helps you.

The issue of I vs. We is not a methaphysical but rather epistemological. The I signifies the individual's convictions within his/her surroundings. Of course, that individual will have learned the alphabit thanks to St. Mesrob Mashtotz, and will not be required to create a new one.

Ara, may be you don't have the power to re-create life on earth, but life is to be lived not understood. As far as your understanding of problems is concerned, think of it in terms of writing. Thinking without writing is understanding problems without acting upon them to fix them.

MJ, well said. Being a human overrides all other attributes that one could acquire throughout life. My hope is that there will be more individuals stop and think about who they personally are, regardless of their upbringing. Traditions are product of individuals' actions and influence. Each one of us can start one -- today. Our ability to say I am rathar than we are makes us unique. But if there is nothing unique about the I it feels like a we. And that is what I have encountered among most Armenians.

MJ, I am glad that you differntiate between a hero and a martyr. Our nationally accepted "heros" are usually martyrs. And that is unfortunate. The king in the name of the nation accepted Christianity, so there goes the nation. Of course, my observatioin is not a dogma and there are too many nuances to be concedered. And you are right that St. Gregory is a spokesman of Jesus Christ, nevertheless people experienced in reality the zeal of St. Gregory and only the works of the Holy Spirit in this man. But aside from the religious circumstance the issue is Armenian individualism. I sense that each one of us is proud of a heroic heritage, but hide our individuality under the umbrella of national aweraness. How many times have you heard I am Christian because I was raised as one. Or, I was raised Armenian. No scientist, or polititian claims such a distinction. Those are self made men, usually. As a group of individuals that form the nation of Armenians we should pay more attention to individual achievement and character in relation to the general engulfing the group. I think the opposite is prevelent among us. We identify with the nation first molding the individual attributes to fit the traditional view.

Heros are born in the teeth of opposition. In Armenian history we have a plethora of examples where heros emerged. Often the heros are labeled as martyrs to a cause, but never examined on the basis of inner motivation. Thus, a conflict between the self created hero and the socially accepted view of heroism contracts. Let's take the father of Armenian Christianity for example. St. Gregory the Illuminator was not concerned with social status, but devotion to a faith that he believed to be orthodox. Hence, his desire to reach any and every Armenian under the Sun to convert to Christianity. To keep my arguement to a minimum I am inclined to think that St. Gregory's individual conviction and value system comes before the nation's acceptance or refusal. The nation, the society accepted and adopted the values of an individual whose passion overwhelmed the entire multitude. I often hear people speak on behalf of a nation. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to disect the values and principles underlying the discussion and narrow it down to the individual responsible for the birth of that topic. Thank you for reading my thoughts.