[Reader-list] Is the singular Rhetoric of Terror flawed?

[taraprakash]

Dear Taha. Of course, it doesn't matter if I mind or I don't/won't. If you decide to quote people out of context, it won't serve anybody's purpose. You might indulge in the act of academic terrorism (in the stretched sense). Even though I am nnot terrorized, still I wish I had not engaged with you, I don't like arguing for the heck of it. I don't like people quoting others out of context. 
Before I surrender, let me clarify that the signifier signified relationship is not the same between an id card and its holder and the word terrorist and what it signifies. As I said earlier, let me repeat, the relationship between signifier (the id card) and what it signifies (in whose name it has been issued) is not Sussurean and not arbitrary. There is a name and a photograph on the card that minimizes, if not completely eliminates, the arbitrary relationship between the two. 

You can quote me anywhere you like on this. You appear to be a scholar. I will feel honored to be quoted by you.

Thanks

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Taha Mehmood 
  To: taraprakash 
  Cc: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com ; reader-list at sarai.net 
  Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Is the singular Rhetoric of Terror flawed?


  Dear Taraprakash,

  1. If we start stretching the definitions of any word like "terrorism" there will be no limits.

  So should we stretch the definitions of those words only which are limited or we should we have only limited definition of words or should we stretch those words only which have limited definition?

  Kindly elaborate on this rather complex framework that you have posed. 

  2. The question, what can be called terrorism and what not, brings back to one of the properties of language known as arbitrary relationship between the signifier and signified. 

  You have raised a very important point by stating that the relationship between the signifier and signified is arbitrary.

  If I remember correctly you used the same definition few weeks ago when you were trying to define identity.

   I do not have anything to add to that, except that I may want to quote you to other people in case of discussion on the national identity card. I hope you do not mind. 


  Regards 

  Taha