The root word in Greek for knowledge is ‘gnosis.’ The absence of knowledge or ignorance has the same root, as ‘ignosis.’ It means the absence of an intuitive or innate system of knowledge which can distinguish truths about life and the falsity therein.

This column’s postulation is that most American systems, i.e. institutions of corporate American thinking and acting, what is also called ‘organisations’ may be often times be ignorant or demonstrate ignosis. Why do I say this?

Two recent events make this evident. One is the Edward Snowden affair. The second is the US Supreme Court ruling on same-sex ‘marriage’.

In both instances, the American mindset, whether of the courts or the establishment as in the NSA, acted in similar ways which reflect their logical thinking or actually, the lack thereof.

Let me clarify. In Case Story 1, Snowden is publicly accused of being a traitor and there is now a global warrant for his unconditional arrest and handover in connection with espionage against the US of A. Thankfully, other nation-states appear not as ignorant.  

Hong Kong argued that the charges and evidence did not match, and therefore it did not want to collude in denying this innocent until proven guilty individual. Russia said he is not yet on Russian soil in terms of international law and therefore, he is “an ordinary international traveller”.

\"\"

In the field of logic and science, there is what is called a ‘unit of analysis.’ In Plato’s language these are called categories of thinking.

Therefore, while there are tropical and temperate fruit, all are considered ‘fruit’.

A carrot is not a fruit but a vegetable – i.e. of a different category. Consequently, there are many and different types and classifications of vegetables and fruit.

Therefore, when one does any kind of comparative analysis, we must use the same unit of analysis and specific category. For instance, while we can compare a carrot and a banana to make a point, we cannot conclude any logical argument by assuming that they are of the same category and units of analysis.

What do I mean? I cannot, for example, conclude that carrots are better as feed crops for animals because they have more enzymes than bananas. Both are products of agriculture (similar units of analysis), but one is a vegetable and the other is a fruit.

Therefore, unless the study is about the enzyme quality of each for any relevant comparison, they can quite easily be incorrectly compared.

Wrong assumptions will lead to equally wrong conclusions. I hope my point is made, even if the example may not be a really good one.

Case-story 1: Edward Snowden

Is he a villain or a hero? It depends on one’s units of analysis. Snowden is an individual, but in this model of analysis, he is taken as a comparison with a totally different unit of analysis; the nation-state of America.

\"\"

Of course, if we use such an analogy, he will forever be guilty; almost by definition. But, it is a flawed argument and premised upon dissimilar units of analysis because:

– He is not an isolated individual, but part of a contractor’s team of employees. We do not know if his contract is with the company or with the NSA.

– His was a conscientious objection, as was boxer Mohamed Ali’s refusal to fight in Vietnam.  He too was called all kinds of names, but today he is still a national hero!

– Under human rights rules and laws, human dignity considerations allow the human conscience to speak and thereby take follow-up action. That is a human’s right to life!

– Did Snowden actually spill the beans? It is only conjecture for now, and still only a one-sided story. We need to see the real evidence to decide

– The only thing that the NSA can really do by law, in my analysis, is to take action against the contractor for the wrong behaviour of one of their employees. He obviously spoke publicly on some things; he should not have done this if he was under an oath of secrecy.

– Regardless, let us remember that his may be a human rights and conscience argument! He still deserves a hearing in an international court and not just in the US of A!

Case-story 2: Same-sex ‘marriage’

Can same-sex couples have some kind of civil union? Of course, in jurisdictions where this is legally permitted, one can do so.

In Malaysia, Lina Joy was not allowed to marry a Catholic – she could not convert out of Islam, but he could convert to Islam. That is the Malaysian rule and therefore the couple now lives in Australia, deprived of Malaysian citizenship.

She was married in a Catholic church by a brave priest who followed his conscience and edict of the church and under powers granted him by both the church and the government. Now, can this married couple live in Malaysia without fearing for their lives? No, because we somehow believe that their faith is a public and not a personal matter.

\"\"

My question about same-sex couples is: does the concept of marriage belong to these ones? The concept of marriage is a biblical concept for Christians who believe that it is an edict from God and meant for all humans as the only right and correct way to live and procreate.

There should be no other definition or meaning of this concept. That is also a fact for all those from the Abrahamic faith-systems!

Therefore, as in the Snowden case, the civil union case is a categorical error of concepts and meanings being played out in the US simply out of convenience and for the tax purposes of these civil union promoters.

But, for the rest of the world, especially those of us from Abrahamic faiths, there is no confusion about what marriage is and what a resultant child-bearing family is.

In much of the east, as in Malaysia, I doubt that any system will recognise these couples as legally married and living together as husband and wife and therefore allowed to raise children, especially for the purpose of financial benefit.

I would argue that the American systems need to get out of their state of ignorant bliss that ‘America is the world’, and learn to understand the rest of the world wherein all multilateral games are played by international rules and not just by those of American pragmatism.

America, please wake up from your slumber! The rest of the world is not America and maybe we do not want to promote all kinds of blind adherence to Americanism either!