i've come to the conclusion that what chomsky is about is nothing more
then the importance of the individual.  but when i sequence him before
carl schmitt, a gut-feeling informed me that something was missing.  but
what?

what in fact was missing was the selfless moral being.  and i'm not
talking about amorality.  in other words, you're either doing it or not
doing it, or you don't lie, cheat, steal, gossip, be jealous, kill/hate,
you never do these things, the things of racism, elitism, and religious
persecution for example.

but of course i'm on a tangent.

my point is with respects to kumu pua kanahele (kumu, a hawaiian culture
scholar), namely, she is saying hawaiian warriors can't be measured until
they've recovered their hawaiian morals and values.  what in fact i'm
seeing is what jesus is asking us to do--take up your cross.

since i'm still a bit fuzzy on this consider the factors that i'm looking
at:

1.  to recover one's morals and values is to bring an end to the facist
practices of racism, elitism, and religious persecution.
2.  it also means one has found the language and goals for what schmitt
calls the absolute state.  this language, in part, can be found in
president cleveland's address to the congress regarding the matter of the
hawaiian issue.
3.  if i'm not mistaken, it's about schmitt's political theology.

is any of this making sense to anyone out there?

saka'i


On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Sueko Sakai wrote:

> so now i'm looking at three political ideas from one of my english
> professors, namely,
>
> * i'm understand his inverted triangle theory to say that if social order
> is to be restored, then we the people, the marginalized majority, the
> lower middle income class and upper poor, must initiate the key
> political action for social action by way of talking politics the way we
> talk sports (and this is how i'm beginning to see chomsky's ideas).  in
> doing this we empower the social persons in the institutions that produces
> social order to restore individuals lives, families, communities, and
> therefore restore social order.  an important factor prof. carroll's
> theory is that these institutions are taken back one-by-one.
>
> * relationships.  this idea is about one's relationship to texts (who's
> telling the truth for example), institutions (i believe accountability is
> the key issue here), and others (and here i'm thinking of one's everyday
> relationship with others and also one's relationship with the world).
>
> * what words will be important for us tomorrow.  i'm thinking along the
> lines of carl schmitt's concept of the political, namely, that we're all
> using the same language and sharing the same goals for social order.
>
> a good example of these ideas is the current charter school movement here
> in hawaii.  not very long ago the parents on, i believe, oahu initiated a
> charter school movement saying, we'll decide what our children will
> learn.  my guess is that they intend to get involved with their children's
> schools.  this then is what i was thinking about chomsky's thoughts.  does
> any of this make sense?