The limits of democracy and individualism – Hey Azly, What the …
I read with amusement in Malaysiakini – Azly Rahman’s third installment of his speech in North America which carries the title – The limits of democracy and individualism. I have to say that I don’t agree with some of his statements.
In particular this one:
I reject all forms of democracy; the illusionary system of government which has lost its meaning since it was first conceptualised. Personacracy allows me to be in this world of illusion, of Maya, but not be and become part of it. I am thus in this world but not of this world.
I also don’t agree with his definition of personacracy. I understand that his definition of personacracy is rather cryptic, but I believe that this phrase captures the essence of what Azly means by personacracy:
I am truth within a Truth of greater magnitude. I am one and indivisible within a greater design of Oneness and Indivisibility. I utilize my senses five with guidance from my Inner Self in turn guided by a counter-balancing self within. And within these faculties and the political organs within, my entire personhood is a government in itself to be ethnically mastered and maneuvered through the oceans of mercy I call the world outside.
Cryptic at best, this definition contradicts his earlier statement:
Personacracy allows me to be in this world of illusion, of Maya, but not be and become part of it. I am thus in this world but not of this world…
Of course, if we only consider what he means by personacary minus his contradicting statement i.e. to be but not really to be…. what we have is a very dangerous situation where all forms of individualism are wiped out.
Hence in a certain way, Azly’s explanation of personacracy reminds me of Star-Trek. It is like the explanation of the Borg collective. So we are all inter-connected. So what? Does the interconnectedness mean that we lose our individuality?
In this regard Azky has to make some effort to explain what he really mean. Obviously he has to explain his contradicting statements too!!!
As I said before, I don’t agree with some of Azly’s statement. But for his whole speech… well…. I don’t know…..I have to wait until Malaysiakini has published all of it….
But to think of it, Azly reminds me of my philosophy professor who likes to often deceive me. When I was discussing with him, I often think that I got what he really means… but then upon further discussions, it seems that I am no closer to understanding him and what he really says; as it seems that he changes his meanings so often. And when he notices that I am getting more confused instead of understanding more, he said that such confusion is good for the soul.
I suppose those are the characteristics (or the kinds of behavior) of philosophers and would be philosophers…. their words can be intrepreted by many different angles…. such as a red rose may not be red after all…..
Well…what can I say….