for this correction i'm looking at the following formulas:

human experience  +  order  =  rules
(chinese philosophy--lu jiuyuan, in anne d. birdwhistell)

1.  the inverted triangle theory (taking back the institutions that
restores social order)
2.  one's relationship to texts (true/false, opinions or assumptions/facts,
whose truth, etc.)
one's relationship to institutions (accountability
one's relationship to others (self-articulating as a speaking concern for
the world).
3.  what words will be important for us tomorrow (e.g. President
Cleveland's address to the Congress regarding the Hawaiian issue, our
Constitution, and similar, such that we're all using the same language and
sharing the same goals.
--prof. j. carroll's ideas

1.  at the cutting edge of the political (chomsky)
2.  the political (schmitt)
3.  the absolute state (ames' cultural achievement)

ok, this is the picture that i'm looking at.

human experience + order = rules
chomsky + schmitt = roger t. ames (his notion of culture achievement)

the correction is with respect to chomsky and pua, therefore, at the
cutting edge of the political.

chomsky
no one person can do it alone
networking with institutions
sports talking politics
using common sense (he's a firm believer in this, he informed l king)
the good samaritan
e.g. the charter school movement here in hawaii
a social act -->  a political event
it's about heart-mind (lu)

        pua
        hawaiian warriors cannot be measured until they've recovered their
        cultural morals and values
        *no greater love can a warrior give then h/er life for h/er
        friends
        *picking up their cross
        *a political act  -->  a social event
        *rootmind (lu)
        the jew
        solomon
        e.g. the kaho'olawe movement (sp)
        the deaths of george helms and mitchell


the correction is that there are different levels (lu) of actions.


please understand that i'm still struggling to undersand what these
political voices are saying, it's about not just reading the words but to
get the "flesh and blood" of what the authors are attempting to get across
to us (what their words are about).

i hope this has cleared up some confusions.  always remember that there
is always something else too to be added.

saka'i





On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Sueko Sakai wrote:

> 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?
>