and then our exile

first of all, meet phil. he introduced the chavez documentary, and now is in venezuela for the world social forum. maybe someday i too will go to the wsf.

am sitting in the knowledge commons, otherwise known as the cameron library basement. across from me, the official flirt of drama149 is leaning against a table, laughing quietly near a girl with light brown hair. closer by, someone has fallen asleep sitting upright, is breathing gently.

passing through the philosophy department, i ended up running into four instructors i knew. three of them knew me. a scary thought?

to fear-monger: http://www.harperstiestousa.org

-

as most of you probably know, the university de alberta is establishing a chair in islamic studies. what that means is they will pay someone to teach, design programs, and so on.
afternoon on the 404, g: i’m sure they’re looking for someone with a ‘progressive’ point of view, who has the necessary background and so on.
b: it also makes me a little nervous, because i need them to fully agree with my personal opinion on major issues.
g: of course. but no, i’m sure whoever it is will take the time to check with you before doing anything.

it is part of a wider issue: who is qualified to represent a tradition? where are the parameters for ‘islam’ set? (or, for any worldview...) who sets them? what implications does this have for the position of actual thinkers – can we say such-and-such a person is writing ‘from within’, while person B is not?
i go to roof-top’s relig322 (contemporary islamic movements) three mornings a week, because we want exposure to a western academic perspective - something we’re getting a minimalist picture of, though the teacher himself is a tamil from sri lanka. f and i are approaching it with a superiority complex (“we could teach this course”), but it is only a little more frustrating that pr.victor misreads what i say in class. i do not believe that the world does not change, but i do think there are identifiably islamic and established parameters, which do not generally change. within these bounds traditions flourish, grow, and so on, and there is tremendous difference within, but they remain distinct to that worldview because they remain within these parameters. this is why we can say that there is a particular ‘christian medieval’ worldview and include aquinas and augustine and arian, or a particular ‘greek worldview’, or whatever.
because if there aren’t any such parameters (which do mean some people are not going to be legitimate representatives of a tradition), then it makes no sense to talk of any of the above, and…generally is illogical. which is what i tried to say, and i think people in the class understood. small consolations.

please du’a: the worst has passed, but dawn means nothing to those asleep. and also for time, that it be given meaning once more.