Most of us who use the internet to express our views do have a mission. A good writer does to cherish to see his/her postings are printed only. The ultimate expectation is to see how people respond to it. Serious people do not go to the gossip sites because gossip does not contain any material or substance to make the reader thoughtful. In the intellectual arena two things collide, thesis and anti thesis. This collusion impregnates the thought process that delivers synthesis. I fully agree with the contention of the Mukto Mona moderators about their crucial role in making a balance in their choice of all the postings. There was a time when this website showed audacity in upholding its openness to all the views and by doing so they established their reputation as a relentless fighter for the just causes by not becoming just only a middle man. There is no doubt that the moderator must ensure and uphold the principles of modesty and sanity. A good debater does not indulge in personal attacks because that proves his/her lack of intellectual prowess. Any posting on art and literature, history, philosophy, politics or faith must posses an ingredient of integrity of the writer along with emotion. The core question what we are actually fighting for. We all want to establish a reign of reason not dogmas. The need for enlightenment was never more important as we see it now. Can we achieve this by clinging to the dogmas or we need to embrace reason. When I say dogmatists are obstacles to enlightenment do I malign them or I speak the truth. Can I respect dogmas to keep peace although I know enlightenment does not recognise fables? Is there a fine line in this question? Does hypocrisy bears any testimony of sincerity?
Akbar Hussain
Get Windows 7 for only $39.99-CDN College or University students only. This offer ends Jan 3-upgrade now!
__._,_.___
