More on Empowerment - Moderation and Languages

[Artur Ferreira da Silva]

At 08:32 29-05-2002 +0200, WB-TrainConsult wrote:

>Interconnecting with the pressupositions-discussion: I also thought,
>the moderator is just "silent", only lately I perceived, that it is
>just a technical moderation.

I think I agree with you, Bernd, if I am right in my assumption/presupposition
that when you used the expression "technical moderation" you were thinking
about the "practical aspects of implementing OST".

As I always translate to Portuguese (without even paying attention to that)
I would prefer "methodological moderation" ;-)

And that remembers me of something that I would like to ear your opinion
about, as you also speak Portuguese. I have been thinking a lot about my
experience, when I began to learn French, and later English, and I have
observed that they don't make the distinction, that is crucial in Portuguese,
between "ser" (as in "I am an human being") and "estar" (as in "I am ill").
The French verb "etre" or the English "to be" must be translated to
Portuguese, depending on the circumstances, either by "ser" or by
"estar". I don't know how it is in German, but I assume it is like in
English. [also please note in this paragraph the use, typically Portuguese,
of comas (",").

Now the point is: when I was a little 10 years old kid, and was learning French
I came to the following conclusion: "French people can never understand the
world, as in their language they never make a verbal distinction between
what is essential (ser) and what is an accident (estar)". Later I assumed
that,
when I was 10 years-old I was (estava) thinking wrongly. But was I?

The fact that in English the distinction ser/estar doesn't reflect directly in
the language has anything to do with the fact that many Englishmen still
assume that, as they once dominated the world (estar), they are still (ser)
an Empire? Can't the same distinction be useful for Americans if they want
to understand their future? Etc.

Interestingly enough this is not completely "off thread". I think that all
the discussion about empowerment is based in the assumption that
"power "is" (ser) with someone" and not that "power is (estar) with
someone"...

(and a small supplementary "provocation" - if someone wants to work in
"intercultural studies" or doing "international moderation" - as it is the
case
with the USA Presidency - how many foreign languages must one been
able to understand and speak with a level of proficiency that allows oneself
to make these kinds of distinctions? Can I "empower" myself to "moderate"
the others if I don't speak their languages, and because of that I can
never completely understand how they think and feel? Will they "empower"
me to moderate? Can I use an "imperial language" and assume that the
others must understand me? Must the President of the USA, and ruler of the
world, be chosen between those that are able to speak at least 10 or 20
languages? (As the current Pope, for instance). Can the "ruler" of the world
continue to be chosen by the nationals of one single country? Etc.

And, yes, this is "off thread" but not "off topic", I believe. What can we do
to "Open Space for a Better World"?)

What is your opinion out there?

Artur

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html