In the previous post, I began analyzing the Quran’s verse 14:31, in which we read: “Tell My servants who have believed to establish prayer and spend from what We have provided them, secretly and publicly, before a Day comes in which there will be no exchange, nor any friendships.” In order to proceed, let me recall what I’ve wrote… “According to Edward William Lane’s Arabic Lexicon, the primary signification of Arabic root بيع (bi’), that translates as exchange – and that’s nowadays used as meaning to sell, sale or being sold - is the exchanging, or exchange, of property; or the making an exchange with property. It may also be used in relation to someone that has gained the mastery over another. As for friendship, it is conveyed by root خل (khl), that also denotes habit, custom, social behaviour – as well as the filling with holes and vinegar.The two main features of vinegar is that it’s bitter, and is an astringent agent. A substance is said to be astringent roughly speaking when it tends to draw organic tissues together, an attribute whose name derives from Latin astringo, to draw close, to bind, to tighten. Interesting though it may seem, this same verb, when used metaphorically, meant to put under obligation, which is interesting indeed, since the sense of friendship in the Arabic root appears side by side with the notion of close connection, agreement in ideas, feelings, etc. But there’s coherence here – I mean, it is certainly not a coincidence to find vinegar and social behaviour side by side, because something similar happens with ثقف (thqf), a root that is the cradle of the Arabic word equivalent to English culture (ثقافة)… the same root that, when used in relation to vinegar, means very acid… Besides this, we find one other meaning that is becoming familiar: to have the mastery over.”
I wish to expatiate a bit more on astringency, the tendency some substances have of drawing tissues together, and that has in styptic one other name. This word derives from Latin stypsis, meaning the contracting power; itself a derivation from Greek stuys, contraction, astringency. Originally, the Latin verb contraho had this same sense, that is, to draw several things together, assemble, and generally used as a synonym for colligo, from where Portuguese got coligação, similar to English coallition. These two words are commonly used in relation to the alliance, or union, between political parties, but in a wider sense they both point to temporary alliances that have come into being for the fulfillment of a specific purpose. It is interesting to know that this notion is present in contraho as well. In fact, the verb was used figuratively in the language of business to denote to make a contract. As you’ve already noted, contract derives from this same verb we’ve been analyzing. By contract is meant not only an agreement but one that is enforceable by law, which ultimately means that if one of the parts fails to fulfill it, there’s compensations that ought to be made.
The word translated as spend is conveyed by the Arabic root نفق (nfq), that tells us about that which is easy to be sold – hence, something in much demand; and this is why it is used to describe a market as being brisk . One other meaning is tunnels, that is, artificial underground passages, or channels – a meaning that seems to have derived from the fact that the root denotes the holes excavated by rats.
In the previous post, I’ve suggested looking at custom as a channel collecting water and conveying them to a single place for a specific purpose. The market is one of the best known symbols of a place of assembly. There’s many words to name it, but I wish to focus on conciliabulum, Latin name for a place of assembly, a public place – especially a place for public traffic, hence marketplace. The word is akin to conciliatio, a connection, union; a sense that through figurative use came to denote the making friendly. As for the verbal form, concilio, it meant to bring several objects into a whole, to unite – as well as to purchase, acquire; and friendly. Not all these meanings, especially not the one dealing with traffic, managed to be preserved in English conciliate, that seems to have preferred to transform itself in a synonym of to pacify. In fact, the English word is generally used as meaning to appease, to try to reconquer friendship by pleasant behaviour – so, in general, it converges to the notion of overcoming the sense of distrust or animosity. But perhaps there’s some transaction here… As I’ve said in another place, nothing is capable of effacing the traces of its own origin, and so the word does maintain the image of the marketplace… In a very subtle way, our modern way of looking at conciliation preserves the idea of a transaction that’s being made.
Let us know see what رزق (rzq) will tell us. That’s the root being translated as provided, and its main meaning is means of subsistence in general. One other meaning is a thing from which one derives advantage, which seems to be logical, as means of subsistence embrace everything having to do with food, nourishment, whereby creatures are able to subsist. And as feeding is a sort of daily obligation, the root also denotes a daily allowance of food – that is, the fixed amount considered to be sufficient for the creature’s subsistence; in other words, a daily ration. Although we do not in general pay much attention to it so natural it seems to us, the fact is that feeding is a basic act that’s common to all living organisms. And despite the fact that we tend to see living organisms as creatures, or animals, the fact is that even the sun has its daily ration of food. The same way we need victuals to keep ourselves alive, the sun is dependent on the existence of hydrogen to keep its fusion into helium. Why am I talking about the sun? It is simply to stress the idea that everything in the universe is forced to have to have some sort of energy in order to be able to hope to be present when tomorrow arrives. But the word ration inspires me something else… as it derives from Latin ratio, from where we ourselves inherited reason, I think that when God exorths believers to spend of that which He has provided them with, He is also exhorting us to think – which takes us back to vinegar… When analyzing خل, in 14:31 – “Tell My servants who have believed to establish prayer and spend from what We have provided them, secretly and publicly, before a Day comes in which there will be no exchange, nor any friendships.” -  translated as friendship, we’ve seen that it alluded to the filling with holes, a meaning that is akin to something having interstices, breaks. According to the root, this fact seems to be in relation to that which is loose, unfirm, or defective, and that is why it denotes looseness, laxness. This seems to be in contradiction with vinegar being an astringent… but the point is that vinegar’s astringency is very limited, as it only works when applied externally. When in need to confine the bowels, for instance, vinegar is of no help at all, and so one will have to ingest an astringent medicine – and this is exactly what we find in عقل, a root that means both an astringent and the capacity of thinking and understanding – that is, reason.
[to be continued…]

About the author

View the Original article

In the previous articles, I’ve tried to show why custom seems to be such an important aspect of culture. An overview of all that’s been written shows that we may see custom as the practical side of culture, this meaning that it is directly connected with actions, ways of proceeding – or, in a word, with conduct; a general conduct followed by the majority of the members of any given human culture. In general, conduct is synonym with behavior, that is, the peculiar shape assumed by an individual, or group’s actions. The sense we tend to attribute to conduct  originates in Latin verb conduco, a verb which is interesting to observe as it will allow us to perceive the peculiar nature of conduct from one very different perspective.
As a synonym of behaviour, conduct is a word that may be used in relation to both individual and group actions. Anyway, from its very origin, the Latin verb from where it derives, conduco, meant to lead, collect, assemble together, with a special focus on the intensity of this assembling, so much so that it also meant to unite. This verb owes its existence to being a contraction with one other verb: duco, to conduct, bring forward. When used with the words road or way, it alluded to their leading, or guiding, to some place. Let us now try to assimilate these notions into our modern way of looking at conduct.
The idea that most interests me is the one having to do with conduct as a being guided along a road that seems to lead to a place where something collects. To say it in other words,  we’re invited to look at custom as being a channel, a conduit collecting water and driving it to one specific place. When looked at this way, custom seems to be much less of a personal option than of a common acquiescence to follow a way that has been previously prepared, and that serves as a means for conveying something. Please keep this verb in mind: to convey. Would you say that behavior has anything to do with transporting? If the answer is no, then think twice. The verb to transport derives from porto, meaning to bear, convey or carry along – which is also the source of comportamento, the Portuguese equivalent of English comport, meaning to bear oneself in a specific way.
Custom may then be seen as a way commonly used – a sort of thoroughfare – to convey some kind of merchandise. We still do not know what’s being conveyed, but we now know that individual behavior, as well as group behavior, is lead through that common road, which means that, in general, custom is just another way of naming a conduct to which individuals are drawn together. This kind of behavior is not the same that arises from an individual’s own decision; quite the opposite: this is the behavior following previously established roads – a channel collecting water that is not flowing freely; a conduit that will lead that water to a place where it will fulfill a purpose. If we accept this new face of custom, then we’ll have to see it as a procedure – in other words, as a series of of established forms or methods that are conducted in a specific way to achieve one specific result.

I do not wish to focus on what the result may be; but I do wish to emphasize that when one follows a procedure, that is, one is surrendering the possession of something that one owed. This is not a personal opinion. This is a fact that can be witnessed in the Latin word from where procedure derives. No doubt that procedo points to a going forwards, to an advancing – but, according to cedo, the verb from where procedo was generated, the direction of that motion – that is, the advancing -  was gained at the expenses of the yielding, giving preference, submitting to something, someone, that is superior. In English, as well as in Portuguese, the verb to cede is sometimes used as a synonym of to give up, surrender. So it seems that custom is founded on a rather puzzling scheme: the individual’s transference of a possession to the group – which is nothing more than an alienation. If I define alienation as a turning away, estrangment, you’ll probably think that I’m rendering things a bit obscure, as you not only do not see any relation between custom and estrangement – but, what’s more, they seem to be the opposite of each other… This apparent obscurity will vanish as soon as I tell you that I’m using the word alienation in its original meaning, as conveyed by Latin alienatio: the transferring of something owned to the possession of another so as to make it his legal property. We find something similar in cedo, as this was the verb used in relation to a debtor that handed over his property instead of payment. Perhaps the transference enunciated by alienatio had something to do with this, as the word was also embeded with the sense of a desertion, aversion, as well as, in relation to the mind, loss of reason. Anyway, this discomfort that shows in the word was somehow mitigated in its verbal form, alieno, that kept the idea of making something the property of another, while adding the notion of the transference of property through sale, and so nowadays, its Portuguese derivative, alienar, means to transfer to other’s possession through sale, exchange, donation, etc…  Anyway, as nothing, and no one, is capable of effacing the traces of its own origin, alienar keeps on meaning to hallucinate, grow mad as well.
We read in the Qu’ran: “Tell My servants who have believed to establish prayer and spend from what We have provided them, secretly and publicly, before a Day comes in which there will be no exchange, nor any friendships. (14:31). According to Edward William Lane’s Arabic Lexicon, the primary signification of Arabic root بيع (bi’), that translates as exchange – and that’s nowadays used as meaning to sell, sale or being sold - is the exchanging, or exchange, of property; or the making an exchange with property. It may also be used in relation to someone that has gained the mastery over another.
As for friendship, it is conveyed by root خل (khl), that also denotes habit, custom, social behaviour – as well as the filling with holes and vinegar. The two main features of vinegar is that it’s bitter, and is an astringent agent. A substance is said to be astringent roughly speaking when it tends to draw organic tissues together, an attribute whose name derives from Latin astringo, to draw close, to bind, to tighten. Though it may seem strange, this same verb, when used metaphorically, meant to put under obligation, which is interesting indeed, since the sense of friendship in the Arabic root appears side by side with the notion of close connection, agreement in ideas, feelings, etc. But probably there’s coherence here – I mean, it is perhaps not a coincidence to find vinegar and social behaviour side by side, because something similar happens with ثقف (thqf), a root that is the cradle of the Arabic word equivalent to English culture (ثقافة)… the same root that, when used in relation to vinegar, means very acid… Besides this, we find one other meaning that is becoming familiar: to have the mastery over.
[to be continued]

About the author

View the Original article

Every one of us is born in a peculiar environment, which makes us a part of the content filling the enormous vessel called culture. Like any other container, this vessel has its own shape, allowing it to differ from all other vessels. Anyway, they have something in common: each one has its own place in the planet, and if one tool existed to measure this, we could attribute it a latitude and a longitude – that is, specific numbers that would allow it to be identified, and found, in one single spot of ground in Planet Earth. But although lacking coordinates, these vessels are, in fact, like countries, with their own borders marking  the limits within which a specific identity has managed to settle itself throughout the centuries. And as no container was made to be left empty, so these vessels have their own content – a content that, as is usually the case, adopts the container’s shape. The content is regularly emptied, at the same time that it is filled regularly: everyday people die and everyday babies are born to keep the vessel alive. Like any vessel, culture embraces every single creature that is born in every single spot in the planet, no creature being allowed to be left out of this tightly closed system. Human creatures are the ones that need to be taken care of longer before they actually start to live on their own. During that period, they are in general part of the vessel’s content, and after that period, some manage to leave the vessel; and the fact that they’re at the outside allows them to more clearly identify some of the characteristic features of the vessel’s shape – and this is when questions arise; or, to say it in a better way, that is when questions are made possible to arise.

The detachment from one’s own culture is essential to being able to question it. This detachment is dependent on the existence of something that I think is of great importance: humbleness. Are ourselves, as individuals, immune to error? Are ourselves, as individuals, capable of analyzing and qualifying our own conduct, thoughts, and  so on? If no individual is immune to error, then no human aggregate whatsoever is immune to error, then no culture is perfect, then every culture is susceptible of being questioned.
As far as my cultural background is concerned, one of the things I question is the logic behind some automated behaviors that I find in Portugal. The Portuguese cultural background, to which all Portuguese are exposed – the vessel, that is -  is closely interconnected with Christian religion since the early beginnings of Portuguese history, which means that it’s entangled with the country’s own identity. And this explains why the Christian religion is still part of Portuguese culture in the 21st century – and when I say that “Christian religion is part of Portuguese culture” I want to emphasize that it permeates several aspects of peoples’ lives, aspects that because of being deemed as part of, lead to some common, unquestioned automated behaviors. Nowadays, priests are worried because church attendance is declining, but this does not seem to be an indicator that Christian religion set of ritualized formalities is being abandoned. In fact, although not considering themselves believers, young people still like to get married in churches, and when they have children, most of them are still baptized. So, basically, despite being inspired by Christian religion these behaviors don’t have anything to do with religious belief.  Maybe what I’ve just described is not happening only in Portugal; perhaps it’s present in every culture, in one way or another.

In the first paragraph, I’ve used the large vessel as a metaphor to help me share with you my perspective on culture, but I’ll now put the metaphor apart to try an define the noun culture as the term used to denote distinct manners of doing things that allows for distinction between social groups, large or small. So, if culture is a means of creating – thus distinguishing – social groups, does this mean that culture separates? And if individuals are part of strictly limited geographical groups, does this mean that culture unites?
[to be continued]

About the author

View the Original article

It is not possible to dissociate culture from custom. The noun custom may be roughly defined as a common practice followed by members of a regional group. But this definition is insufficient as it does not include one of its most important traits: the fact that being an usual practice is what allowed custom to be an established convention. As I think that many benefits will come from our being able of analyzing five specific words that are present in the previous sentences, I’ll now invite you to join me in the dissection of the following concepts: dissociated, custom, usual, practice, and convention.

The verb to dissociate means to break or cause to break the association between two or more things. It derives from Latin dissocio, meaning to separate from fellowship, to disunite. The verb was formed with socio, to join together, to do in common, to share a thing with another; kindred with socius, partner, comrade, companion. This is from where English got associate as well as society.
The noun custom is defined as a common, usual practice followed by members of a regional group. The English word has its origin in Latin consuetudo, that besides meaning a being accustomed to a use, usage, customary manner, also denoted companionship, familiarity.
The adjective usual is applied to that which is expected or familiar as its occurrence is frequent and regular, which also pointing to what is in accordance with ordinary practice or procedure. The English word derives from Latin usus, meaning the employment of anything; experience, discipline and skill acquired by practice; and custom. Besides this, what’s really interesting in usus is that, through the idea of the advantage derived from that which is done repeatedly thus allowing for the emergence of experience and skill, the word saw its meaning being transferred to that of utility, benefit, profit, advantage.
The noun practice not only points to the act of doing something but also to an usual, customary action or way of proceeding, clearly implying repetition.
The last word of the list is convention. I’ve used this word to denote the commonly accepted procedure or practice within a group. In other words, I see a convention as something that a group has decided to accept – hence having been established not because of an inherent logic, but because of general agreement within the group. If taking a look at the original Latin word conventio, we find it meaning a meeting; and agreement or compact. This word is akin with verb convenio, to come, meet together, metaphorically used to denote the agreeing with in wishes, decisions, etc, thus becoming synonym with to harmonize. Besides this, the verb is also the origin of modern convenience, that is, usefulness, advantageous to one’s purposes, needs, etc – all meanings that point out to that which is appropriate, that is, suitable for a particular person, group, place or condition, or for achieving a particular end.
Now that dissection is concluded – in other words, now that the separation of some of the component parts of the sentences have been achieved, I’ll try to assemble it all over again.

Through custom, culture strengthens the sense of companionship between the elements of the group. Custom is the practice that through repetition by its elements comes to be usual. This sharing of an usual practice develops familiarity between individuals helping in the cohesion of the group. Besides this, the fact that the practice becomes usual as also to do with the fact that the doing it regularly ensures benefits to both individuals and the group. The possibility that individuals have of deriving advantages from an usual, common practice amidst a group, lies at the very heart of the legitimacy assigned to culture and custom as a whole.

Seen from the outside, culture is the result of a bond that has drawn individuals together. But it’s better to take a closer look at the inside, in order to understand the true nature of that bond. Our material words derives its existence from the subsistence of several kinds of forces that are able to draw distinct parts together. Nothing exists as a whole; everything is the result of a composition of parts brought together by means of forces that are immune to control. Water is probably the most incredible composition on earth: a molecule made of atoms of oxygen and hydrogen, two gases united by means of chemical bonds that give origin to a liquid whose elasticity defies all imagination. Water is seldom defined as the source of life – and I’m mentioning it because, like everything else in our known universe, water derives its existence from the existence of a means of bonding distinct, separated parts. And just as everything in the universe, in order to be able to establish themselves, human institutions are as well dependent on the existence of forces capable of uniting individuals. I use the term force as defined by physics, that is, the external influence that when acted on any object compels it to change state, velocity, direction or form. Without an external influence, individuals could be described as being inert. Once again, I’m following the language of physics that describes inertia as a property of matter defining the tendency of a body to maintain its sate of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. So, basically, custom is the external force acting upon individuals, driving them to establish a bond based on a specific practice through which all, in one way or another, expect to achieve a particular end.

[to be continued]

About the author

View the Original article