This time I will start off with a discussion on the English language, specifically on the use and switching of a noun into an adjective and vice versa, and their effect or outcome, namely, what's the difference, if any, between 'intolerant arrogance' and 'arrogant intolerance'.
Let's start off with some (but not all available) dictionary definitions on both nouns (n) and adjectives (adj), where:
Re 'arrogance' and its adjective, I would deem the person showing such characteristics or behaving like so to be at worst just a fanning-tailed peacock but not necessarily a bigot. A good example would be the late Muhammad Ali, he who floated like a butterfly but stung like a bee.
But it's okay for people like Paul Keating and LGE to be deemed as 'intolerably arrogant'. As they say, when you have it, flaunt it, wakakaka. It's a world better than be seen as 'arrogantly intolerant'.
In my opinion there is no one more intolerant (arrogantly or subtly or whatever other adjectives you wish to prefix on the word 'intolerance', the noun of 'intolerant') than one deeply religious and who believes wholeheartedly in his/her Almighty One God which in that religious ultra's mind, everyone must subscribe to, or else.
Such religious arrogant intolerance had led to several killings and indeed, even wars.
But surprisingly delightful, Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, President of the Muslim Lawyers Association (PPMM), expressed his concern for atheists (wakakaka) during a discussion organised by Perkasa (wakakaka) on the topic of including the Rukunegara in the proposed Preamble to the Malaysian Constitution, specifically on the Rukunegara's espoused belief in god.
He commented that while such a tenet will not be a problem for Muslims (or indeed Christians, Hindus, Bahais) it will be problematic for atheists as the latter couldn't and shouldn't be forced to subscribe to Rukun No 1, namely, 'Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan'.
The symbol of the Tao is circle enclosing two (now shown above as equal) interlocking paisleys, where paisleys mean droplet-shape patterns.
Let's start off with some (but not all available) dictionary definitions on both nouns (n) and adjectives (adj), where:
- Arrogance (n) - offensive display of superiority or self-importance
- Arrogant (adj) - overbearingly assuming; insolently proud; sense of superiority
- Intolerance(n) - unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.
- Intolerant (adj) - not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc.,different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted
Re 'arrogance' and its adjective, I would deem the person showing such characteristics or behaving like so to be at worst just a fanning-tailed peacock but not necessarily a bigot. A good example would be the late Muhammad Ali, he who floated like a butterfly but stung like a bee.
But even at just first glance I would say 'intolerance' and its adjective would and could mean or lead one who has intolerance or is tolerant into being a bigot or becoming a bigot, though he/she may not necessarily be arrogant about his intolerance. There could even be a possibility such an intolerant person could be pretty subtle and quiet about his disrespect (and indeed 'intolerance') for others and/or their beliefs.
Thus, I would consider 'intolerant arrogance' as that of a vain person who won't brook any question on his overt hubris or even one who is so damned thick-skin about his pompous pride, wakakaka, while OTOH I deem 'arrogant intolerance' as of a bigot who is open or overtly aggressive about his or her disrespect for others.
Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa and his organisation plus some in UMNO or ex-UMNO (wakakaka) could be said to have exhibited 'arrogant intolerance' while Perkida buat diam-diam saja. Who should we be keeping an eye on?
Down in Australia, once upon a time wakakaka, PM Paul Keating (and even before he was PM and just Treasurer to PM Bob Hawke) was seen by many Aussies as 'intolerably arrogant', with his acerbic comments, retorts and sarcasms reflecting 'intolerant arrogance' as he verbally mowed down his opponents - eg. when he was PM, he insulted opposition leader John Howard (later to be PM) in parliament with this remark: "He's wound up like a thousand-day clock! One (more half) turn and there'll be springs and sprockets all over the building. Mr Speaker, give him a valium."
Back at home, BN people probably see Lim Guan Eng as 'intolerably arrogant', with even his PKR ally Mansor Othman, previously DCM 1 Penang, allegedly describing him as (supposedly behind closed doors) 'angkuh', wakakaka.
Thus, I would consider 'intolerant arrogance' as that of a vain person who won't brook any question on his overt hubris or even one who is so damned thick-skin about his pompous pride, wakakaka, while OTOH I deem 'arrogant intolerance' as of a bigot who is open or overtly aggressive about his or her disrespect for others.
Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa and his organisation plus some in UMNO or ex-UMNO (wakakaka) could be said to have exhibited 'arrogant intolerance' while Perkida buat diam-diam saja. Who should we be keeping an eye on?
Down in Australia, once upon a time wakakaka, PM Paul Keating (and even before he was PM and just Treasurer to PM Bob Hawke) was seen by many Aussies as 'intolerably arrogant', with his acerbic comments, retorts and sarcasms reflecting 'intolerant arrogance' as he verbally mowed down his opponents - eg. when he was PM, he insulted opposition leader John Howard (later to be PM) in parliament with this remark: "He's wound up like a thousand-day clock! One (more half) turn and there'll be springs and sprockets all over the building. Mr Speaker, give him a valium."
Back at home, BN people probably see Lim Guan Eng as 'intolerably arrogant', with even his PKR ally Mansor Othman, previously DCM 1 Penang, allegedly describing him as (supposedly behind closed doors) 'angkuh', wakakaka.
But it's okay for people like Paul Keating and LGE to be deemed as 'intolerably arrogant'. As they say, when you have it, flaunt it, wakakaka. It's a world better than be seen as 'arrogantly intolerant'.
In my opinion there is no one more intolerant (arrogantly or subtly or whatever other adjectives you wish to prefix on the word 'intolerance', the noun of 'intolerant') than one deeply religious and who believes wholeheartedly in his/her Almighty One God which in that religious ultra's mind, everyone must subscribe to, or else.
Such religious arrogant intolerance had led to several killings and indeed, even wars.
But surprisingly delightful, Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, President of the Muslim Lawyers Association (PPMM), expressed his concern for atheists (wakakaka) during a discussion organised by Perkasa (wakakaka) on the topic of including the Rukunegara in the proposed Preamble to the Malaysian Constitution, specifically on the Rukunegara's espoused belief in god.
He missed mentioning Jainists (probably none in Malaysia) and made an honest error in his take on Buddhists who do not believe in a creator god or belief in god(s) as a source of their salvation, but his concerns, considerations and care for atheists have been admirable - indeed showing his very inclusive 'tolerance'.
Sad to see and say the attitude of one of my blog visitors with regards to atheists lies on the opposite end of the tolerance-scale.
My fave SOPO lady, Marina Mahathir, was equally delighted with Zainul Rijal's expression, saying:
"This is coming from the Muslim lawyer? Well I'm glad he's standing up for atheists Congratulations! I'm glad he believes in freedom of belief."
How does such a wonderful sweetheart like Marina be the daughter of a man like Maddy?
The answer lies in the (symbol of the) Tao which is sometimes referred to (though not correctly) as the symbol of Taichi. See image below for the answer:
The symbol of the Tao is circle enclosing two (now shown above as equal) interlocking paisleys, where paisleys mean droplet-shape patterns.
The circle represents the universal Tao, the 'way' or 'path' associated with a life lived in harmony with the cycles of change.
As said the image above shows two equal and opposite paisleys but at times they could/would not be equal, showing the cycle of changes in life is dynamic such as, just as a simple example, the change in seasons as in spring to summer to autumn and to winter, and cycling back to spring again.
To ensure a perfect harmonious cycle, when the yang (white) expands (like daylight in summer) the yin (black) must change dynamically (shorter daylight hours), and vice versa, to maintain the circle as perfectly round.
Likewise with a hubby and wifey, wakakaka. When wifey is aggressive, what must hubby do in order to maintain the marriage as a perfect harmonious circle? Wakakaka.
But say that Maddy is the black paisley, wakakaka, look closely and see that within that black or yin paisley, is a wee lil' white circle. Guess who is that
Wakakaka.
OK, another example, look at that white paisley which depicts wonderful kaytee, wakakaka. But within that white paisley is a wee lil' black circle.
OK, another example, look at that white paisley which depicts wonderful kaytee, wakakaka. But within that white paisley is a wee lil' black circle.
It means kaytee is not completely perfect and exemplary, wakakaka. Every wonderful bloke like kaytee has his weak or imperfect point.
And from a black yin-bloke like Maddy, there is a good wee white spot by the name of Marina.
Wakakaka, that has been your Taoism 101 by yours truly.
Thus, from a very arrogantly intolerant Maddy, comes a very multiracial inclusively tolerant sweetheart.
Wakakaka, that has been your Taoism 101 by yours truly.
Thus, from a very arrogantly intolerant Maddy, comes a very multiracial inclusively tolerant sweetheart.
A correction!
ReplyDeleteEach Tao MUST be an individual closed system - ie if u r talking about yrself, then the interpretation SHOULD be KT can do evil or good deeds, intentionally or otherwise.
The two yin/yang paisleys represent the big evil/good parts in dynamic interaction - not always in equilibrium as depicted in the picture!
Within each paisley, there is that contradictory small opposing circle, indicating, again, that every evil/good deed carries itself a good/evil sub-element THAT's always unconscious to the doer.
So, when u r talking about that mamak, then his daughter ISN'T part of his Tao.
But, if u r talking about the family legacy of Maddy, then his daughter will be part of that Tao.
Confusing???
Read more lah as Zen can't be taught BUT can be inducted!
Wakakakaka...
as you mentioned Tao is about a system which can also mean a family
Deleteas usual u apply whatever that suit u, so mahathir case is family, others is individual.
DeleteHow does such a wonderful sweetheart like Marina be the daughter of a man like Maddy?
ReplyDeleteOne possible explanation, which you have unthinkingly rejected, is that Mahathir is not truly the Ogre that you paint him to be.
Authoritarian and scheming , yes, but there are few successful politicians who are not.
good to see you still supporting your icon, wakakaka
DeleteSo, you are still expending your energy day in day out to support your idol Najis.
Deletesamada seseorang itu percaya tuhan itu ada atau tidak, it is undeniable fact that both good and bad elements exist in every soul.
ReplyDelete