Odp:

----- Original Message -----
From: Gerry Reinhart-Waller
To: Piotr Gasiorowski ; cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 7:02 PM
Subject: [cybalist]



Piotr:
I don't quite understand some elements of your conclusion. The concept
of 'state' may surely be older than the ENGLISH WORD for it. The Polish
word is panstwo, unrelated to state but carrying precisely the same
meaning. The fact that Latin status meant 'posture' or 'condition'
rather than 'state' in the political sense, doesn't mean that the
concept of 'state' was unknown to the Romans. They simply had a
different term for a body politic. The term was res publica, and
referred to a common legal and political authority, settled government,
the good of the commonwealth, the nation's coffers, home and foreign
policy, and whatever constitutes statehood in out times (also civitas
could be used in a similar sense).

Gerry: Thanks Piotr. I should have known that the OED was limited and
today I do know that; however, when I selected the research topic more
than a decade ago, I wasn't thinking globally. Actually, way back then
the Soviet Union hadn't even dissolved! And with my limited view of the
world back then, I necessarily assumed that the OED was the "bottom
line". And it surely isn't. Sorry about that.

The Old Persian empire was undoubtedly a well-organised and powerful
state, even if by our standards it was somewhat totalitarian. It would
be perverse to claim that the Greek city-states (poleis) were NOT
states. Their free citizens (politai) enjoyed a jealously guarded right
to take part in the legislative and judicial functions of the polis;
they cherished their sovereignty. We owe to them our concepts of
politics and democracy as well as our words for them (in both English
and Polish). Would you be so difficult to please as to demand more?

Gerry: My only comment is that perhaps a poleis had a softer definition
for "authority". I think today (20th century) the concept of state is
very brutal and authoritarian and I don't think it was like that in
Ancient Greek times. And I know that the state in Old Persian was quite
a benevolent force. Women without husbands were provided for and
orphans were looked after. This definitely isn't true of today's STATE.

If you deny that the Egyptian kingdom was a state because it was a
theocracy founded upon the cult of the ruler, you must make it clear
why, in your opinion, such a cult should be ruled out as a state-forming
principle.

Gerry: My only comment is that Egypt was a kingdom ruled by a god-king.
But I'm afraid I was bound by present day legal definitions that
separate church from state. Since you are familiar with the ?Coptic
language, which words would denote state? I know that a state need not
be democratic. But I do know that a cult can control even more
insidiously than can an authoritarian "state". And I also think that in
the present world situation, all of us must be aware of the wrongful
ideology that can be presented by the likes of the Taliban (including
Osama bin Laden). And in a peculiar sense, the only solution I can
think of to counter the effects of the Taliban is the Internet! Do you
think the Internet has a chance against the Taliban?

The Soviet Union under Stalin was in some respects one huge Jonestown,
but wasn't it a state for all that?

Gerry: Yes. The Soviet Union was a "true" twentieth century state!

Louis XIV was 'the Sun King' and 'the Gift of God' (Dieudoné), and most
of his subjects MEANT it; he was worshipped almost like some kind of
pharaoh. But when Louis said, L'état, c'est moi, he identified himself
with the concept of STATE.

Gerry: Louis 14 proclaimed himself Sun King. But Louis XIV was within
OED citations.

Gerry