September 30, 2009A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News
Last week I wrote about an emerging culture of intolerance, characterized by an increasing tendency of debaters to clutter discussion with insults and replace thoughtful discussion with a demonization of one's opponent.
"Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated," said Coretta Scott King. Chinese philosopher Confucius counseled, we must "cultivate our personal life, ... set our hearts right." Professor Jonathan Haidt's research looked for "ways to transcend 'culture wars,' ... to foster more civil forms of politics." His Civic Politics.org Web site begins with the question: "Can't we all disagree more constructively?"
Diversity and disagreement are healthy in a democracy. When 1,000 critical and creative thoughts bloom, a society has the opportunity to probe, to seek to understand, and to generate new ideas among a long list of options to advance humanity. However, unrestrained free expression invites licentiousness, found in the state of nature, that threatens human rights, freedom and survival.
Opinion is not to be confused with thought. As Tim Hurson -- founding partner of a firm that provides global corporations with training, facilitation and consultation in productive thinking and innovation -- posits, "truly focused thinking" includes mental activities such as "observing, remembering, wondering, imagining, inquiring, interpreting, evaluating, judging, identifying, supposing, composing, comparing, analyzing, calculating, and even metacognition (thinking about thinking)."
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
But man can learn, and Hurson assures us, "Every brain, regardless of its intelligence quotient or creative quotient, can be taught to think better: to understand more clearly, think more creatively, and plan more effectively."
So, critical and creative thoughts can be cultivated to yield a thousand blooms -- not just to make the garden beautiful, but to allow a selection from among the best.
Thus, international law is careful in finding a balance among freedom of expression, debate on matters of public interest, and respect of the rights and reputations of others, as found in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Without this balance, liberty itself is in jeopardy, oppression raises its ugly head.
A Web site tells its readers that it "loves to hear from you, and we're giving you a bullhorn. We just ask that you keep things civil. Please leave out personal attacks, do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion."
But "personal attacks, ... profanity, ethnic or racial slurs" and expletives are found in comments left in cyberspace in the name of free expression by a growing family of "anonymouses." A Khmer saying goes, "Somdei sar jiat" -- literally, "words reveal one's race," or words reveal the kind of person the speaker or the writer is; his or her values and human dignity.
A Turkish proverb says, "A knife wound heals; a wound caused by words does not."
The story of a "Bag of Nails" is worth retelling here.
A father gave a bad-tempered little boy a bag of nails, and told him to hammer a nail into the fence each time he lost his temper. On the first day, the boy hammered 37 nails, but with each day that passed, the boy hammered fewer nails into the fence. The boy learned it was easier to hold his temper than to drive each nail into the fence.
Finally came the day he didn't have to hammer any nail into the fence: he didn't lose his temper. The boy was happy and he proudly reported to his father. Then the father told the boy now he needed to pull out a nail each day he could control his temper. Days later, all the nails were pulled out.
The father took the boy by the hand and they walked to the fence. "You have done well, my son," said the father, "but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out; it won't matter how many times you say, 'I'm sorry', the wound is still there."
Haidt sees man's "natural self-righteousness" as a "candidate for 'biggest obstacle' to world peace and social harmony" -- "My group is right ... Those who disagree are obviously biased by their religion, their ideology, or their self-interest." Haidt asserts it's "most universal ... advice from across cultures and eras ... that we are all hypocrites and in our condemnation of others' hypocrisy we only compound our own."
He used anthropologist Clifford Geertz's "man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun," to explain, "the world we live in is not really one made of rocks, trees, and physical objects; it is a world of insults, opportunities, status symbols, betrayals, saints, and sinners. All of these are human creations."
Haidt referenced Chinese Zen master Sen-ts'an's call for nonjudgmentalism -- judgmentalism is "the mind's worst disease," that "leads to anger, torment, and conflict." Buddha teaches that the human mind's "incessant judging" can be stopped, the mind can be trained to do the right things. Man can learn, and meditation is one way to do so.
"By seeing the log in your own eye," Haidt says, "you can become less biased, less moralistic, and therefore less inclined toward argument and conflict."
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
"Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated," said Coretta Scott King. Chinese philosopher Confucius counseled, we must "cultivate our personal life, ... set our hearts right." Professor Jonathan Haidt's research looked for "ways to transcend 'culture wars,' ... to foster more civil forms of politics." His Civic Politics.org Web site begins with the question: "Can't we all disagree more constructively?"
Diversity and disagreement are healthy in a democracy. When 1,000 critical and creative thoughts bloom, a society has the opportunity to probe, to seek to understand, and to generate new ideas among a long list of options to advance humanity. However, unrestrained free expression invites licentiousness, found in the state of nature, that threatens human rights, freedom and survival.
Opinion is not to be confused with thought. As Tim Hurson -- founding partner of a firm that provides global corporations with training, facilitation and consultation in productive thinking and innovation -- posits, "truly focused thinking" includes mental activities such as "observing, remembering, wondering, imagining, inquiring, interpreting, evaluating, judging, identifying, supposing, composing, comparing, analyzing, calculating, and even metacognition (thinking about thinking)."
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
But man can learn, and Hurson assures us, "Every brain, regardless of its intelligence quotient or creative quotient, can be taught to think better: to understand more clearly, think more creatively, and plan more effectively."
So, critical and creative thoughts can be cultivated to yield a thousand blooms -- not just to make the garden beautiful, but to allow a selection from among the best.
Thus, international law is careful in finding a balance among freedom of expression, debate on matters of public interest, and respect of the rights and reputations of others, as found in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Without this balance, liberty itself is in jeopardy, oppression raises its ugly head.
A Web site tells its readers that it "loves to hear from you, and we're giving you a bullhorn. We just ask that you keep things civil. Please leave out personal attacks, do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion."
But "personal attacks, ... profanity, ethnic or racial slurs" and expletives are found in comments left in cyberspace in the name of free expression by a growing family of "anonymouses." A Khmer saying goes, "Somdei sar jiat" -- literally, "words reveal one's race," or words reveal the kind of person the speaker or the writer is; his or her values and human dignity.
A Turkish proverb says, "A knife wound heals; a wound caused by words does not."
The story of a "Bag of Nails" is worth retelling here.
A father gave a bad-tempered little boy a bag of nails, and told him to hammer a nail into the fence each time he lost his temper. On the first day, the boy hammered 37 nails, but with each day that passed, the boy hammered fewer nails into the fence. The boy learned it was easier to hold his temper than to drive each nail into the fence.
Finally came the day he didn't have to hammer any nail into the fence: he didn't lose his temper. The boy was happy and he proudly reported to his father. Then the father told the boy now he needed to pull out a nail each day he could control his temper. Days later, all the nails were pulled out.
The father took the boy by the hand and they walked to the fence. "You have done well, my son," said the father, "but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out; it won't matter how many times you say, 'I'm sorry', the wound is still there."
Haidt sees man's "natural self-righteousness" as a "candidate for 'biggest obstacle' to world peace and social harmony" -- "My group is right ... Those who disagree are obviously biased by their religion, their ideology, or their self-interest." Haidt asserts it's "most universal ... advice from across cultures and eras ... that we are all hypocrites and in our condemnation of others' hypocrisy we only compound our own."
He used anthropologist Clifford Geertz's "man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun," to explain, "the world we live in is not really one made of rocks, trees, and physical objects; it is a world of insults, opportunities, status symbols, betrayals, saints, and sinners. All of these are human creations."
Haidt referenced Chinese Zen master Sen-ts'an's call for nonjudgmentalism -- judgmentalism is "the mind's worst disease," that "leads to anger, torment, and conflict." Buddha teaches that the human mind's "incessant judging" can be stopped, the mind can be trained to do the right things. Man can learn, and meditation is one way to do so.
"By seeing the log in your own eye," Haidt says, "you can become less biased, less moralistic, and therefore less inclined toward argument and conflict."
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
11 comments:
With due respect Mr. Gaffar Peang-Meth, I think we have more important or urgent issues such as Vietnamization in Cambodia and border dispute with Thailand to deal with at this time, don't you think? I often find your writing too academic, and out of touch with Cambodia reality.
The article calls for restrains in one's judgement of others, to try to understand another's point of view, and yet the heading says "applies specifically to KI Media and KI Media readers". Isn't that already judging all KI Media readers? There are those who are quite thoughtful in their responses to articles put up on KI Media site, and then there are those who are quite agressive. So why would an article calling for understanding commences by casting a net over a group of people who definitely hold different opinions on things? Isn't that hypocracy?
I would like to think that I am one of the "softer" voices on this site- when I have the opportunity to contribute, but I can also understand those who are more aggressive than me. I understand their frustration in seeing Khmer land disappearing centimetre by centimetre and the Khmers leaders who can do something about that refuse to do anything. I can understand others distaste in seeing the poor being evicted from their homes. And I definitely understand the anger in seeing people with abilities and far-sightedness to bring Cambodia out the mess she is in, being shunned, put in jail, chased out the country, etc so that the incumbents continue to plunder and destroy, and further breed incompetence, nepotism and corruption.
So yes there is a lot of anger and frustration going around, and some of it get expressed quite agressively. But how about academics and experts trying to understand the cause of that anger? Trying to see how the feeling of powerlessness that lead to the aggression?
there's a reason why dr. meth peang wrote this article here, i think. too many people are confused with opinion and thought and they seem not to know how to deal with one another civilizedly. whatever their purpose is, they show their incivility here from the way they write and dealing with others, mostly we all can see it has a lot to do with politics here. thank you, dr. meth peang for writing and teaching everyone. yes, we all can learn from everybody, regardless of who they are or what background they came from.
Personally, I would prefer to see the article written in a “journalist” style so that the average Joe can quickly grasp what the author is trying to say without having to pull his hair.
If the author wants to successfully convey his message, he needs to understand the background of his audience and fine tune his language accordingly. The transmitter and the receiver have to be on the same wavelength.
Don’t try to explain Quantum Physics to a starving man in the jungle…
I used to be annoyed by some of the aggressive comments posted here. They do not bother me any more. In fact, the comments here are very useful. It is useful based on the assumption that Cambodian people in Cambodia or abroad are brave and courageous enough to expressing their feeling, that they love the country, and that at last they are free to say whatever they want to say about our leaders and our national matters.
Although most participants, if not all, take side, they are on Cambodian's side be that CPP or SRP.
Those who participated in the forum ended up learning something at the end. There are those who refused to express themselves in such way are continuing to do so with grace and style. And those who want do so in a much more aggressive manner should be allowed to do so.
While I am grateful for your sincere concern Dr. Peang-Meth, I want to assure you that we as the people are going to be alright. Yes, we may be confused between opinion and thought. That is perfectly okay. At least we are free to be confused.
Blog on folks!!!
Jayakhmer
also the same can be said of politics and activistism. some individuals tend to use political ambition with activism or advocacy, etc... they're not the same thing. that when ignorant people get confuse like in siem country, their extremist pad thugs used cambodia's preah vihear temple and surround land as a lame excuse with their own unilateral map as well to steal khmer territory from cambodia. the world should stand and watch cambodia's historical enemies, the siem race from doing this to camboia again like they stole from cambodia during cambodia's dark ages! wake up, people! that was partly how angkor was looted by siem thieves, really! the world should not let siem do whatever they want again as this is not the dark ages, you know! in fact, in anything, siem thugs should return all of our old khmer provinces back to cambodia because they stole from us then and look now, they wanted to do it again like when they got away doing it during the dark ages! two wrongs don't make it right, you know!
Hey Bro. making good points about Thai encroaching our land in the west wondering if we could take it back if Hun playing double standard betw. Youn and Thai.
If Bro. will not wondering about Youn secretly infiltrated about 2 Millions hidden soldiers INSIDE Cambodia. If you're talking about the lost land to Youn, Hun said " you will bring your coffin with you"
Hey Bro. Paris Agreement 1991 will help Cambodia deal either with YOUN & Thai peacefully.
Don't think about war, Hun Manith and Many will not go with you, they are enjoying a luxery life, while the children of the poorer will fight war.
Thank you Dr. Gaffar for your educational and thoughful article. I am just an average Joe with a very little education, but like you I care very much about Khmer issues because of the love for my people. Despite of our differences, I think we as human being tend to misjudge other when it comes to tone of expression that is different from us. Like someone said earlier, most people in this site is coming from different walk of life; therefore, our style of criticism is somewhat different. Having said that, I have notice that 99% of these people who have something to say usually because out of caring which should matter most regardless of their tone or language. Therefore, we should not expect a perfect world because we are not living in one. As always, thank you Sir. for your wisdom.
With Great love
Dear Readers,
What is behind of Mr. Peang Meth?
He just does a research and write an article by taking this opportunity to publicize his photo.
I praise and appreciate his valuable shared experiences and research, but i am boring to see his picture every his text.
HE WANTS READERS TO KNOW HIMSELF MORE THAN HIS ARTICLE!
HE WANTS TO BE ANOTHER SAMDECH IN THE FUTURE!
Of course we all an average joe not PhD as Peang Meth. And we also know the different between Opinion and thought that is why it's not written and pronounced the same.
After all everything here made for publicity otherwise no one would bother to comment. KI reader and blogger alike love an excitment.
Post a Comment