Mr. Sallah,

I'm glad you're finally tackling the issues we've raised. On Korro and this
piecee to Hamjatta, I'll let the gentleman reply first, then I have a
follow-up question. In the mean time, I'll appreciate it if you can take on
the issue of the 1997 constitution. I'll await that or Hamjatta's reply, and
I'll tell you what this whole exchange is about as far as I'm concern.

Good day!

Saul.


>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Reply To Hamjatta
>Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:55:55 -0000
>
>Hamjatta,
>
>I must begin by exposing your subjectively limited conception of social
>science. You accused me of the following:
>
>+ACI-In your piece, you distanced yourself from belief systems and faith in
>social systems as a social scientist. You are not the first to do or
>attempt
>this. This is academic suicide in the long run as Auguste Comte realised
>after those long embittered academic frustrations and stuck in the
>intellectual wilderness. Auguste Comte, the father of Sociology on whom
>modern social sciences owe a lot of gratitude, attempted and espoused this
>position very famously when he derided, scoffed at and chided metaphysics,
>belief systems and faiths. Famously he declared that there is no depth in
>darkness+ADs- that beyond reason, empiricism and the naked eye there could
>be no
>vision for anything. This is an intellectual cul-de-sac. For there is depth
>in darkness. Reason and empirism have their limits+ADs- to often than not
>they
>have relied on PrePlatonic and Socratic  experience, intuition and
>+ACI-grope in
>the darkness+ACI- methodology as philosophical inquiry into truth and
>knowledge.
>Contrary to your contention, Political Science, Economics and Cultural
>Studies are inextricably hooked. They are symmetries that overlap into what
>you Social Scientists asssume to be each's demarcated traditional
>terrritory. A good Political Scientist is one fluid on both Economics and
>Cultural Studies. And vice versa.+ACI-
>
>Hamjatta, where have I stated that political science, economics and culture
>should be conceived in isolation? How can you categorise me on the basis of
>your mistaken notion of how social scientists see the world and argue
>vehemently that like Auguste Comte, I am heading for academic suicide in
>the
>long run? Does this not constitute a deceptive twisting of my point of
>view?
>
>I am sure you will not accept that you are plagued with an impotence of the
>faculties of differentiation and discernment. However, the fact that you
>have sank into this theoretical muddle indicates to me  that you either do
>not fully comprehend what I have been trying to say by asserting that I do
>not hold Pan Africanism as a belief or that you saw the opportunity to
>philosophize on common place notions that have no bearing to the point at
>issue.
>
>It is, therefore, important to unravel the muddle you have placed before
>the
>readers which has alloyed your conception with so much confusion that one
>cannot distinguish what is what. During my early childhood days, we used to
>believe that too much learning leads to mental disturbance. As I tried to
>comprehend what you are really trying to say, I could understand how
>confused a person can get by trying to understand ideas that are barren of
>clarity.
>
>First and foremost, allow me to assert that I do not belong to a school of
>thought which attributes paternalistic platitudes such as 'fathers of
>nations', 'fathers of sociology', and so on and so forth. It is important
>to
>do a lot of reading. However, it is equally important to fully digest what
>you are reading. One must take ownership of knowledge instead of simply
>borrowing high sounding phrases for regurgitation. This is symptomatic of
>those who engage in academic work just for its sake.
>
>Allow me to state very simple concepts in a simple manner so that it can be
>understood by even a simpleton.
>
>Science is the pursuit of the true nature of things and society. Science
>deals with the knowable. Belief, however, may sink into the unknowable. It
>can deal with phenomena that is beyond comprehension. Since science is the
>pursuit of the essence of things, one must study the nature of things
>before
>one can have scientific knowledge.
>
>Suffice it to say, nature and society are in a constant process of change
>and development. Hence everything is and is also in a state of becoming.
>This makes reality and relativity to be the two sides of the coins of
>natural and social existence. This process of being and becoming gives rise
>to quantitative changes in form and to qualitative changes in essence.
>Science is the study of these movements and changes. It helps us to
>understand the process of movement+ADs- its nature and characteristics, as
>well
>as its consequences. To put it succinctly, you cannot sit down just one day
>and just say that I believe I can invent an engine and invent one. One must
>have knowledge of how to make machines.
>
>Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that human beings have to eat, drink
>and
>have shelter. They must also propagate their own kind. This compelled them
>to create society. In their relation, they developed common ways of doing
>things that we can call norms which lead to a common way of life that we
>call culture. These norms can be transmitted from one generation to another
>in a process of acculturation.

>
---------------

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------