[60 years since The Fall]

Klaas

Hope that the belgian politician isn't French-speaking, he mist a "le" :

La Belgique sera latine ou elle ne sera pas.

(And the sentence isquite striking, especially if the ending really is "elle ne sera pas". Because that last part implies that if Belgium isn't latin, it will be neither, it will be no more...)

Titus Ultor

As far as I know, my cousin (English-Canadian living in Winnipeg, outside Quebec) began to learn French at 14-15 years old. It wasn't mandatory, but only a choice he made since his mother is French-Canadian (Quebecker, hence how he can be my cousin!). And his level of French never went over "Oui Non Grille-Pain" (french version of Yes No Toaster). That is, he hardly can express even the smallest thing in French. If it was mandatory, it had no result, and it began quite late (in Quebec, children begin at 8 to learn either English or French as their second language.)

This happens a lot in the federal Government, as most English speaking members hardly can speak French (yet, all French in the government speak English). Political leaders aren't required to speak French (neither English), but you seem quite out-of-track if you don't speak one of them. All prime ministers since at least PET spoke both languages, and nost were somehow related to Quebec.

And the logical second tongue for British Colombians will be Mandarin, not French

Canada has had only a relatively small involvement in all major world conflicts, really only getting involved in numbers of no more than a few divisions in the largest war of human history.

Canada indeed never took a great part in the major conflicts, but it seems it was deeply relevant when there were thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers in Europe, battling in WWII. It has brought some visions (The Revolution Tranquile happened in the 60s, and it wasn't a solely intern factor : Quebeckers came back from France, more than a mere hexagon on a map, others went back to France (artists and intellectuals, especially since Duplessis wasn'T friendly with them) and they ame back with the ideas that would be expressed in the 1st May 1969 in France (expressed 9 years before, here in Quebec).

Note that we couldn't send millions of soldiers anywhere. Most wars happened overseas, the only country around us is the United States, with whom Canada had a few problems but they were about all ruled about the end of the first world war.

Canada has not had any very violent revolution or civil war, either.

Canada as a State indeed never had, but before Canada became a state, it was a region. Canada experienced two "rebellions" (civil wars) in the same year, one in Upper Canada (almost forgotten) and one in Lower Canada (the famous "Rébellion 1837-38").

This led to the formation of the first Canadian State. This will actually lead to the Canadian way of war : War of Words. Upper and Lower Canada political parties, rather than forever battling, allied with each part having their own wills. Canada was given birth because all were able to live as they always lived, except on the few detaisl that they agreed to share (because either they already shared it or were willing to share it). Hence why we always spoke then about a Confederation rather than about an Union. (Notice that we are clearly a Federation though, because powers are given from "above", from the main common state, unlike in EU, where power is given from "below", from the members.)

Therefore, Canadians are allowed to have differences, since the remoteness and structure of Canadian society has granted them a relatively safe position.

They are allowed, as long as they agree with the "Common law". This had a great influence on me, and it can be seen in my political ideas (it might be why I could quickly link, in dream, such political ideas with Canada). Yet, the Common law must not be something that cannot change, nor must it be something that rules most of the things. This is why some Quebeckers are independantists, even if our country is such a "free state". Because they don't feel to be able to live as they want within that Common law. I have seen that they could easily agree on another Common law, less centralized, but no one would listen, because there is nothing to most between unity and division.

[Westernesse]

Westernesse

I found this on another forum. Reading it, I found it really interesting. It speaks about a possible prerequel to PJ's films. In fact, reading it, I find even more pleasing than The Hobbit or some other part of the Silmarillion. The title itself is rather clear (Westernesse) but the whole concept is some task.

Helge Kåre Fauskanger is the author of the Ardalambion site, distinctively purist in manner of languages.

[LOTR Fad Over?]

I think the wave has finally passed.

But Oceans aren't easy friends, and to use Ardo lore, Osse's madness is hard to control. The big wave caused by the movies, as TU said, finally passed.

But I don't think it left salty residu, but a reformed beach with more places to visit. The movies let us new debate subjects, added some points as well. And there will be more people to have fun with

We may wish other waves of that kind, some time in the future, but an Ocean cannot forever hold a Tsunami, or it would be emptied.

[60 years since The Fall]

It may be because i am Canadian and Quebecker, but I feel that unicity is not a solution. There is a wonderful word in French : Concorde and it means more than that supersonic airplane that was.

What do I mean here? Society is never an amalgam of identical people. Am I the same as Akya (we both live in Quebec, after all)? Not at all. We are different people, she and I. Society is the grouping of people having different qualities. Yet, what do we have in common?

Concorde.

We agree at some level, where we get to live together. We agree to live in the same city, under the same local laws. Our city, with other cities, agreed to live together under the same regional laws. Our region, Quebec, agrees (somehow...) to get along with all other regions to form Canada, which also have common laws : why not get it for all Earth?

This means to agree on the same basic laws regarding our common relations. This doesn't mean to be the same, this doesn't mean to live together, this means to agree to point we happen to live together. This also means a lot of work to do to agree...

As for being off topic, I think that we are deeply on topic : Did we learn? We are seeing what we have learned

[60 years since The Fall]

Except then you are required to be bilingual to be able to get most jobs here in Belgium.

So, having a job is not a need in Flanders?

(In Quebec, there is a need to speak French when you're working with public, anything else is no need, yet English is strongly recommended (I have saved a lot of people's face when someone spoke a deep English dialect...)

I doubt that having a job is only a frivolity As far as I know Belgian society works on money (its a need), and most people get their money from salary jobs. If there is a need to speak French, most people will go on and learn French.

(This explains why all Gallic languages fell into disuse in Gaule : there was no actual use for the Gallic languages anymore, and more was given to vernacular latin (Vulgat) and indeed we no more speak Gallic languages in France.)

Suprisingly, French became a must in Canada when they institued bilingualism officially. Most English speaking people in Quebec know French to some level as well. There is also another point. In Quebec, we have all Unitedstater TV and English-Canadian TV. That is, we can be daily exposed to English (and this even more in Montreal, where a large part of the population is anglophone!). Being exposed to another language is also a great way to learn languages. And, indeed, the need. If you listen to English TV, you need English .

[60 years since The Fall]

I have always felt as if I was in the middle between the US and "The-Rest-Of-The-World".

---

As for the natural born talent, it is not. We should look at how much members we have here compared to the supposed percentage of people learning the English language as second tongue. Most of the new members are distinctively of English-language origin. Here, between France, Germany and United Kingdom, most people are from UK. (With, as far as I know, one from France (Curufinwe) and one from Germany (DADGE))

This can also be seen on a forum about conlangery in which I take part. A overwhleming majority is from English speaking countries. And not much Dutch. (There is a great Finnish group though...),

In Quebec, we have here two very active members, me and akya. Yet, we aren't representative : She was born in Montreal, in a multicultural situation, where I was born in Ontario, where English is the main language. So, it's nothing as a natural born talent : it is a language abuse.

Necessity is the key : one will not learn a language if he feels no necessity to. This is the case of a lot of people in monolingual countries, or for people where they speak the main language : you'll never see a French learning Haitian in Haiti. There is no need.

In Canada, most English people barely can speak French : my cousin is the best example. In Quebec, a lot do not learn English ever. Another of my cousin is an example : until the age of 20, she could only say "yes, no, toaster" (joke in Quebec when the only words you know are yes and no, and the numerous anglicisms in our language). There is no particular need here in Quebec to learn English...

(Here, I don't mean that they never had courses : any Quebecker has 9 to 10 years of English... yet, they remember yes no toaster and that's about it.)

Need is the key. I found my need to learn Japanese, some found their need to learn other language. Depending on one's need, his knowledge can lead to a perfect bilingualism. I am not perfectly bilingual in English because I feel no need to speak better than how I do now. Yet, I intend to make Japanese my true second tongue (to an equal level to Esperanto) because I feel the need higher for me. (Will is need as well.)

Ask yourself, do the French Walloons really need to learn Dutch? Is there any need for them, except pass their exams..?

[60 years since The Fall]

There were two French colonies in North America. There was Acadia and Canada. They shared the same institutions until the passing of Acadia to the UK, somewhere a few decades before Quebec's own passing to UK.

Acadia was then administered by its own within the Nova Scotia colony. Soon later, happened the Grand Derangement, a deportation of most of the Acadians out of Nova Scotia. A lot hid themselves in New Brunswick and Maine, yet, large parts went all over the world (this includes Australia, South Africa, France, UK and elsewhere). Some people then went to Louisiana. What'S original about Louisiana is that there was a small colony, Nouvelle-Orléans, where people actually spoke French. But it was nothing like a city, a mere village in size. The Acadians came and established themselves there. What happened is a strange mix of French Blacks, the French colonists, the Acadians, and some indigenous people, with some Spanish and Americans as well. This gave birth to the Cajun society, the Acadians that lived in that small French melting pot. (Cajun is a debased form of the word Acadian)

In fact, you're Acadian if you were in the Grand Dérangement, otherwise you turn out to be Canadian (later, French-Canadian). Finally, the Quebeckers are those French-Canadians that went through and share the history of the Rébellion 37-38, then the life with Duplessis, and finally the Révolution Tranquile (otherwise, you're not a what I would call historical Quebecker). Notice that all of them happened in Quebec only. (There still are some French-Canadians that don't feel Quebecker, probably around a million.)

So Cajun, even if close to Quebeckers, are not, in an historical sense (especially since the word itself, and its history, goes after the events that lead to the Grand Dérangement)

[60 years since The Fall]

When it comes to the Quebec-ian patois of French; it is the same thing to French French as American English is to British English. 

Not that that matters any: I just think it's silly for an entire nation to learn French (or any language) because one province refuses to, for rather frivolous reasons.  It's as if the entire nation of the United States were to be required to be taught Spanish because roughly twenty percent of the population is Hispanic.(primarily centered in Southern and Central California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico: meaning that they comprise a majority in one rather large geographical region).

Yet, Frenchs from France listening to Quebeckers are sometimes astonished by an overwhelming difference between both languages.

As for French being obligatory thought, it comes from the idea that there are two official tongues in Canada, English and French, and not only one. I'll be the first one to get rid of such absurdities, bilingualism cannot survive without any clear division (Switzerland), and it seems some people try to make Canada as a single nation. So, yes, in such context, it is non-sense, silliness. Yet, some people also want to transform Canada into Trudeau's dream...

[New Pope]

ok, i have to say something blockbusting, since this is my first post  : Ratzinger was in Luftwaffe, he was also in Hitlerjugend. I can understand why he was in Hitlerjugend, every child in the third reich was forced to go there after...um 1943 i think. But the Luftwaffe thingy, why the hell Luftwaffe??

Jhon Paul II was a much better pope i think, and will be. I´m not a christian so i can´t really judge.

It is easy to explain, if he ever was the German Air Force : conscription.

In Canada, it happened, and, unless you have a medical or familial reason to not enter the army, you have to enter as a civil duty. If it happened in Germany, then you have the reason why Ratzinger was in it.

I'm not Christian (you probably read it a little earlier in this thread), and, I don't understand (well, I understand, it just isn't what I could believe), so, I cannot say wether or not he'll be a good leader of the Catholics, his being not mine. But, what i can see is that he is a little less charismatic, doesn't quite like the media (while Jean Paul II used them a lot), but he sure is quite faithful to what is now the catholic faith. But with this, he lost a lot of people since they couldn't believe anymore in the catrholic faith...

I was one of them, and weeeeeeeeeeeee!

Oh, and welcome!

[60 years since The Fall]

Hard to tell what is a distinct language and what is not.

This is especially true about latin languages, as we have in hand the common tongue from which they mostly came, Latin. we can see the evolution, and it doesn't seem as unified as most people say. Occitan, now thought as a mere patois of French has no direct relation to French : they evolved from two distinct dialects of Roman, one in the north, related to the Franks (hence, French) and one to the south, extending to Catalunya.

And we haven't finish : we see that all patois have no relation to French at all : French only was the language of l'Ile de France, spread among the Nobility by Francois Ier. All northern regions spoke closely related languages, maybe dialects of a common superstrat, but nothing as a dialectal French. And we didn't speak about the patois of the south and east. All languages were Frenchized by the nobility first, later by the popular education of the French Republic (and the surrounding region). Wallon is a distinct dialect of a superstrat to which French is also related.

And we can follow such history for a lot of languages in Europe. Notice how Quebec city's French was described by French aristocrates of Paris : the simple man in Quebec spoke a French that is a lot of times better than most people in France. This is nothing surprising, when we hear about the Filles du Roy, girls educated by the King (hence, in Royal French)... Hence, in Quebec, we speak the old Parisian French evolved, where the French now spoken in Paris has deep influences from all over Europe.

The topic of language is also influenced by history : when people are taught a language as something common to all, they tend to think that they speak a very largely thaught language. Japanese falls in such line. Japanese is famous for having two main dialects that are so different that intercomprehension is almost impossible. It has always been taught that Japanese was a single language, but can see that in fact, the two dialects have very distinct reflexes and grammatical differences. The Japanese we learn now is that of Tokyo (eastern dialect) but the Japanese taught before Meiji was that of Kyoto (western dialect). single language, double language, there is no settling : yet, I know that a lot of people of Oosaka have problems to learn Common Japanese

And there could be much more to say.

[60 years since The Fall]

Well I'm not sure the situation in Northern Ireland is getting resolved. First of all I've read somewhere that the number of murders has risen a lot the past few years but that these are "quiet" murders, different from the IRA bomb attacks. The problem now is that there are many small militaristic groups fighting their battle in Northern Ireland, which is much harder to control than a large organisation like the IRA.

Another sad thing is that the fanatics at both sides won the elections; the fanatic branch of the unionist have a large majority now.

And Northern Ireland isn't the only region with regional or communautary problems in Europe. In Flanders the problems are probably leading to the most drastic changes, but the good thing is that no violence is used here.

But the Basks and Corsica are a whole different matter, it seems much is going wrong over there.

In Spain there the Bask nationalists for example were forbidden to do manifestations and during one of those the police used violence to stop it. On the other hand, the extreme right wing Spanish nationalists (who are against Bask independance) get police protection during their manifestations. Batasuna has been forbidden too, and there are trials going on against most Bask nationalist organisations, including the pacifist ones.

Then there's Corsica or better yet, France as a whole. In Corsica there have been many bomb attacks last year, about 400 I believe. The French media however, or especially the government, doesn't want to give much attention to it.

We did not learn, then. It's quite clear. Well, I don't mean that individually we did not learn, but, it seems, as a society, we never understood. And I think that all sides are foolish in this situation. (Yet, this is what states all my political ideas )

In the French parliament an MP from Brittany had asked for an amendment of the French constitution. Right now it sais: The language spoken in France is French. The regionalists however want to change it to: The language spoken in France is French with respect to the other regional languages. Of course a majority reject this amendment and some politicians gave remarks like: "what are regional languages? We could just as well make Arabic a national language" or "The other languages in France are patois". The last one means that the other languages are just dialects, which of course isn't true. Bask, German, Breton or Flemish have no relation at all with French.

Ah, the official language issue. We have the same problem here in Quebec, and probably in every other country where people speak a couple languages. This is why I have distinguished the personal tongue and the common tongue. This last tongue is the official language used within a State, and the personal tongue is the language used by the individual in his daily life within his community. Yet, no society is getting close to what I have seen.

So as far as regional problems go there's still a lot to do in Europe, especially in Spain, France, UK and Belgium. The violence in Spain, France and UK is a shame to the European democracies, and as well the state nationalism exercised by many Spanish, French en British politicians. I don't see what's the problem to give Corsica and the Basks their independance, nor why they shouldn't give more independance to Brittany, French Flanders, Elzas, Flanders, Wallonia, etc.

Imo there's a need to organize referendums in those regions, and not fake ones like the EU-referendum in France where the government is using propaganda to get more yes-votes.

We don't see it as we are ourselves independantist We are biased somehow, and aknowledge it is a great part in acceptance. And I lost the goal of an independant state, to make it my means, means to have a social project <- with people that agrees, we will build a society that we want, leaving those who don't want it in their own states. This adds to the contraversies, though, as I don't define a geographical group.

[60 years since The Fall]

円（えん）

It is "En", actually. Yen is an old romanization process (still foundin Korean) as En could easily be assimilated to an indo-european preposition.

En! En! EN!!!

An "En" values no more than 1,5 US cents. Yet, their dollar equivalent is not the En but a hundred En, which values a lot more than a US$. The Yuan (Chinese) though is not yet as strong as any First World economy.

We no longer speak of a single power now. IT seems clear that the US is in decline in front of, at least, China, but we now see a few powers arising. Brazil tried its way today. India, Japan, South Africa. They are all trying. Regions are the great powers now...

[Greatest U.S. President of the 20th Century]

In Japan, there also were strong reactions, as if the Japanese had lost the war. Japanese suffered from that Ruso-Japanese war. They lost a lot of ressources and people in that war. Yet, the treaties almost gave nothing, relatively, to the Japanese : provoking anger among the nationalists. The causes of the Second World War are related to that anger (the First World War will not help, at all).

[Been thinking about ancient history...]

From what I have learned, the Etruscans (we also say Étrusques, in French) used a variation of the Greek alphabet. Some greek cities (especially on the west side of the greek oikoumene) used a variant of the greek alphabet, not especially strange to Greeks but indeed abnormal, because using the letters in a different ways and having added a few letters of their own, as the common greek alphabet did.

[60 years since The Fall]

Rwanda, what a shame. And the military commander of the UN mission was Canadian (even, Quebecker as far as I can tell) Roméo Dallaire.

We have dozens of shame. Chile is another one, and some great troubles all around America.

And for war in Europe, there seem to be still some small problems in Northern Ireland, but they are getting resolved. If that is not a shame, I wonder what it is.

Guess learning is also making mistakes along the way...

[60 years since The Fall]

I don't know if they'll ever come, well, in this century.

(In Canadian history, there was the Grand Dérangement, provoking a worldwide diaspora, the Acadians, and it was only acknoledged and excused last year by the Government of Canada and the Queen of Canada... When it happened like... 250 years ago a quarter of a millenium. So, I don't expect anything now, though, even if I'm a Japonisant, I hope there will be excuses.)

I feel we learned about nothing at all, and probably that we don't want to learn. Not that it is to harsh to learn, but it is hard to sustain such learning. Peace is a hard path, unlike what one might think.

[Been thinking about ancient history...]

Etruscans are an old people of Italy, north of Rome. They had an importance in the first years of Rome, as they were the last Kings of Rome. They spoke a language that, if we can read (they wrote with Greek letters), we don't understand yet. They were the people who probably influenced all those superstitions the Romans had about auguries, and they also gave the greek script to the Romans.

[60 years since The Fall]

With "The Fall", I am referring to the fall of Hitler in Europe, and the end of warfare in Europe (it was not finished in Asia) about WWII.

My question is : "Did we learn, what did we learn?"

Might there be things that we did not learn, or perhaps, not properly? Did we forgot things since then?

[New Pope]

Notice how the King of Franks was settled as king : by the Church. Charlemagne even had the Pope as his "crowner".

The whole "debate" was then who was closer to God (top of ruling) was the Pope a mere representent of God on Earth (claims of Kings) serving no other purpose than showing the will of God or the Ruler over all the Universe (claim of Pope) only lending some power to Kings?

Hopefully the Kings won

[kilroy was here]

We don't have the two-party system of the US, it's virtually impossible for one party to get a 2/3rd majority or even 1/2, which is needed here to change the constitution.

In Canada, we have a very strange party system. We have one country-wide party, the Liberals, a Quebec regional party, the Bloc, and a wannabe country-wide party, the Conservatives. Yet, most people in Quebec are radically against the Conservatives and their ideas.On the other side, no one outside Quebec can vote Bloc, for obvious reasons. What is left is the Liberals, and we achieved the absurdity where the Liberals said : vote for the Conservatives, and you'll destroy Canada. Fear. We achieved elections by fear. This is dangerous...

Well headscarves aren't forbidden. They're forbidden in school, just like any other religious symbol. In Belgium it's not forbidden by law, but most public schools forbid it. I think this is indeed going way too far, by forbidding symbols you won't change people's mind, but it's not racist since it applies to anyone.

My wish is that it indeed applies to all. In Quebec, we are on the border line, where some religious symbols are knifes (Sikh) which are not allowed in school. So, we have problems, yet, I found the answer for it.

You also have to know that there really are many problems with Muslims and that there is a need for strict measures. We all know the terrorists, murder on Van Gogh, but there's a lot more. In Schaarbeek, a town in Brussels, a journalist discovered how terrorist groups are recruiting young Muslims on a large scale.

This is really strange, yet, quite easy to do, probably. There sure are some things here, and I have felt interracial hate in some of my parttime jobs.

Less dangerous, but in public schools several Muslim children don't go to biology classes anymore because it goes against their belief, though they still expect to pass to the next year. Or apartheid between boys and girls, Muslims who don't let their children go to swimming class because their might be children of the different sex in the swimming pool.

Now, we are getting deep in the problem of "cohabitation" (see in the first posts to look where I do not believe in such cohabitation). To cohabite, you need to have common ways : if you do not have, you cannot cohabite, because (except by mere luck) ways will tend to contradict each other and sometimes go against.

Let's go on another hypothesis, where we have an very odd society for occidental, but it is where economy and everything is then.

You speak about sexual segregation, yet we also have such thing as well : in public washrooms. Then, let's imagine a society that doesn't have such segregation at all, rather having a private isolation place for the corporeal needs and then a common place for actual commonday washing. Or lets go on saying that they actually don't bother to bath nude together as well and wash themselves together in an open shower room. Could you ever adapt to such society? I was able partially (my college had unofficial unsegragated washrooms), but then again, I am within the more open people.

You speak about school and everything. Well, let's go on proposing an education system that goes deeper than what I have seen at school : deep scientific relativism. That is, you push relativism to its maximum :

- (geography) We live in an ordinary part of the Universe, in an ordinary galaxy within that part of the Universe, orbiting a common (a little hotter than common though) star, on a small planet (small round object turning around an object itself turning around the galactical center), third from its star. We live on one of its continents, in a country, city etc, nothing better nothing worse.

- (history) Go on describing all history we know about the past, from the coming of the Universe til today.

- (politics) Go on describing various political system, stating how they work, without any biais for "our way is better".

- (biology) And so there was evolution, and we now have a large family of species, where we, homo sapiens sapiens, are a mere representative of one of its branch. Here are some other examples of evolution, how they became what they beaome.

Etc.

A lot of people couldn't stand such education : who could stand someone saying that Nazism wasn't bad? This is the implication of such educational system. (Notice that it doesn't state that it was good either, unpleasing another part of occidental society)

Things like that are going way over the line imo, you don't have to be a conservative, right-wing or extremist to plead to have it changed, it goes against the liberal principles we fought for in Europe.

Yet, in some manners, I'd be considered as an extremist myself. The fact that I will not say to children that Nazism is bad is a strong taboo in Europe. And this is because I go actually deeper in liberalism, crossing even our taboos. And I go against the principles Êurope have fought (Nazism is bad?) in another way.

It also shows how hard it is for Muslims to integrate in our society, so something needs to be done about that. If they move here, which is a right they definetly deserve imo, they have to know we have different morals and a different society, so they should integrate.

It is more than mere integration. It is complying to OUR taboos and OUR ways and laws. This is really deep, and not everyone can do so. Yet, laws in either Europe or Canada have rejected the fact that there were taboos and ways proper to our places, as if everything could be done withing the human rights (themselves clearly occidental in their ways).

This is something I fight for, in my way, ever waking up people to their strong taboos and ways, because to us they seem so natural that we only cannot compare them and really intergrate. I am eager to do my part to create a common society with a lot of people, and I am even willing to get over my own taboos and ways : multicultural integration is not something that will come alone : you must do your part as well.

They shouldn't imo, since they make the other political parties aware of the problems that exist, though in a bad way. Even if you silence them another one will appear again, you can't silence an opinion that lives among many people. The only way to silence them is removing the reasons why they exist, and currently that's the integration problem.

Here, as usual, I can only agree : bashing your enemy for being it is the first way that leads to extremism. A brilliant one will show what can be done with his own ideas by them, and will be elected, wither they exist or not. And if a majority still choose the extreme-right, well, live on, you chosed to live in a place where majority is the leader. Either that or you reject everything Occident learned us

(Socrate who said that he rather choose death because the laws of Athens did he chose and never betrayed. Because they suddently become dangerous to you will you oppose them : you ask for criminals to know their guilt, you ask for sinners to know their sin, but when it comes to you, there shall be no sin nor guilt? Choose them, abide to them. Choose them not, abide whatever wish.)

[kilroy was here]

I ever said we must all reform, we must just let the natural developments take place.

This is what I have made possible in my own project. Natural developments includes going further, going backwards and staying still. My project is actually ment to encourage changes in all ways, without scaring those who don't want to change.

You don't keep an eye on the other societies. Your community will soon dissappear, not because the people in it don't like it, but because some people around the world don't like it.

My project doesn't rely on what is outside, but, that doesn't mean people won't look nor base themselves on what happens outside. I inspired myself from what is done everywhere to create my project. And my society indeed need to react and act according to what is outside, we are not alone. But my project tries to find citizens who will internally not only criticize the system, but who will be eager to create a new system : hence, the inside is the great player to those changes, even it will not directly change the inside.

Communism is a great thing, but the problem is that there will always be capitalists. Capitalists try to ruin the communistic thinking (if they are wright in doing so, I will leave on the side), and therefore EVERY communistic government evolves into a dictatorship. Because it's a fact that EVERYONE must collaborate in order to achieve a working communistic regime.

Here, I do agree on a lot of details. Yet, there is something you forgot : that in every society, either how they relate, they all need to agree at some point, or you'll have problems. This is true about capitalistic societies as well : we all agree with private property and self-investment. Yet, it is always easier to base some society over desire than over duty. (The rise of most societies I have seen come from desires about oneself.)

My own project is not left alone : I am looking for people who are willing to have a society based on certain rules (I have named a few : total agreement for internal change, yet encouraging and supporting of external changes). I know there are some people who'd actually like to live in the project I propose, and I only have two things to say to people who don't want to : for those already out, don't come, for those inside, you can go away do your own life (new project, or joining of an old project). It seems vey harsh, but at least, all can have what they wish to live.

The people that are outside your Utopic society will surely try to wreck it, for one or another reason.

Indeed, yet, the purpose of society is to know where to but the limit. Society is not just openness : you cannot encompass everything into a single society. Also, the purpose of a society is to "live together". The purpose is not comparaison (comparaison isonly a possibility given from other societies, not a goal per se of one society), the purpose is to live, and, for some (as me) do our best and have our will. You can accept critics, as long as you can make some as well, from your own society. It must be bilateral.

Two or three (favourable three) consuls (or another title) that hold most power.

This is exactly the problem of the triumvirat. It may seem good to divide power between peoples, but when they do not agree (make one), society will tend to divide into two, three groups following one part. This is where I think my society achieved the "all into one" principle here : all must agree when we want an internal change, those who want a change must leave and change only for themselves (another unity), and those who agree with the laws of one place may actually join the unity (not changing the unity).

[Your significant other]

I do not have a girl to speak about here, but I did find some type of girl with whom I'll have less problem living with. The archetype is Leumihatsan (akya knows some things about her). Notice that I peculiarly dislike people who only runs after me.

[kilroy was here]

On Melvillian Society

Yiuel, your society seems to perfect, and can't work. Decisions will take very long to be made, and maybe not made at all. You can't handle a society that is that slow. It's conservative.

I'll ask the million-dollar question here, as it shows exactly how it focuses. Did you ever saw someone's DNA change drastically within itself? In fact, such happening is called cancer in some situations, viral sickness in other

This made, it is a part why i don't favor trying changing laws within one community. Yet, I do favor change : the society I describ is quite a drastic change.

As for slowliness, i do acknowledge the fact that things will change slowly within both the State and the Community, except on very strange occasions. And it is quite wished as well, though not on first hand. it makes it possible to someone to stay in the life he always wanted (will).

You may not believe that conservativeness is a standable viewpoint, yet, there is some viwepoint that clearly is standable : traditionalism. If something has worked for decades, it can still work for decades. It doesn't cunduct to any change, and traditionalism is dangerous when the environment is drastically changing, yet, when everything is quite stable, nothing prevents traditionalism. I do not agree though with such view, but I understand their thinking.

Yet, I do have a will for change, and it is embedded in the laws of, at least, the community of Sevy. The mean is not by adding mere laws, but to create an entirely new society with its own institutions, and to the "mother community" to support the "daughter community" until the daughter one can be autonomous.

If the daughter community is a fiasco, the members may be allowed to get back to the community, die with the dying daughter community or get lost. If the daughter community works, than it will be a member community of the State on its own.

If the daughter community happens to be better, more people will be eager to join it, making the total change quite quicker actually (for those who want to change, as they don't have to battle conservatives, they just have to struggle for their will to change things.). Eventually, a "mother" society could fade away (or barely exist), from all or most changed community...

And I'd wish that, to some point, it would be the same on the State level. As we live in one single Universe, we need to agree on something if we both want to live.

ALL societies in the world were built upon a religion

Some thinker, in Quebec, once said, in an interview on radio, that every society is based on a common set of MYTHS. They aren't necessarly religious, but it always considered as a dogma within it. Such myth doesn't need to be true nor real, it is just an imaginary counterpart to a common goal.

It happened that I came with such thing with my imagined society. They to have a serie of myths that they all share, one being based in the large autonomy of the communities, an other the freedom of choosing for oneself, or the great strength of cooperation etc.

Occidental societies are deeply based on christianity, some of the common myths evolved from christianity. Some other evolved from the greco-latins or pan-indo-european fashions.

Which are the myths behind your own society? Each self-defining society can find some common myths. And for the independantists here (as me and Klaas) we sure can find some myths for those societies claiming independence.

Notice how "Unity" is so important when we come to a definition of a society. Mithrandil say that we should ALL go on reformism. Curufinwe tells us that there is always ONE religion behind a society. On my side, I do not deny such fact and say that each State and Community (societies) must have COMMON laws in order to be TOGHETER. What should understood here? A society seems not being able to live as different parties if they cannot agree on basic laws and basic seperations.

On the Polybius Circle

Such circle is stopped in a traditionnalist society, yet it can carry on quite quickly in a quickly evolving society. I notice that the result (democracy) is exactly the same as its beginning though (democracy).

I also recognized in it the "dictatorship evolution" that I almost achieved to my great dispair when I understood. That is, someone believe that there is a possible perfectness and tries to apply it to the world, by any mean. (Notice the evolution of my social project, where I always seek everyone's approuval. This comes from the fact I realized that other people felt life otherwise )

The leader is an easy way to unite a people, under one person. Yet, the Mohenjo-Daro society doesn't fall into monarchy, nor any centralism per se, from what we can see.

[What books are you reading these days?]

I'll be carefully re-reading my Japanese schoolbooks all summer long, and I'll go on for a strange reading as well : Tsubaki, from a Canadian-Japanese author. And I'll still day by day gaze through the Wikipedia.

[What would be your opinion on Terri Schiavo's case]

Terry Schiavo, from Wikipedia

Well that was an interesting reading. It described the whole case about Terri Schiavo from her first collapse until her death and beyond.

We find interesting details about the doctors. Among all the doctors who actually examined her, we can read that two said she was not in PVS, agruing she was in a newly created diagnostic of minimal counsciounsess state. The interting thing in it is that the one who first spoke about it and made major work on it was chosen to examine her forthe court : he said she was not in MCS.

19 jugdes went on her case, all have decided for her husband and none for the parents. Yet, I'm quite amazed by the first three years (1990-1993) of that case. The family andthe husband were quite friendly, and it seems at that time the family encouraged him to "go on whit his life". Being so, who was fautive in this case? It seems the family agreed on this. In fact, we can see that links broked up because of money, because the familydid not receive "their share"...

We are still waiting one last thing, the autopsy.

(Reading throughout the text, I have findthat there was a deep reason to not listen to the case. On each time they went to the trial, the family took all the proof and claimed it was all incorrect, having a lot of mistakes. The earlier courts never concluded to those mistakes, so they were blocked.)

And I do not hold that view that biological life is life.

All the proof I have given to you has been deemed "doctored". Why would any other proof be different?

The quoted Wikipedia also investigates on it, and they do concede that the videos were doctored. Yet, the videos had flaws (incompassing cuts over a 4 hours and thirty minutes of filming, to give about 4 and a half minutes.), and the said doctors never went to see the patient themselves and never saw the full video. Hence, the flaw is the proof itself, not showing everything.

She was not in a vegative state.

Yet, all courts agreed that she was, and most doctors as well.

She could speak a couple words and look around. She could breathe for herself.

For the couple of words, we only have the family's testimony, a strongly biased one (as the family wanted her alive). She indeed opened her eyes, but doctors mostly agree that all this is part of the PVS, not from some counsciousness. PVS does not make someone stop breathing.

The problem was not the deeper parts of the brain, where all uncounscious activities are located. This is the reason why her heart and her lungs could still work. Yet, she could do no counscious activity (especially not swallow, hence her need of the tube). Notice that we can do very quick and wide moves uncounsciously, that is, without thinking it. A (yet painful) experience would involve a hot panel on one's hand, you do not think to get off your hand, you get it off directly.

A lot of those actions do not take place in the brain, but in the spinal trunk, outside counsciousness.

Her case did not shwo that those vital yet non-counscious part of the brain were affected. In fact, as far as I could read, all those parts were still functional, at least partially. The problem was the cortex, where you actually process your counsciousness : it had almost completely disappeared on the brain scans, as early as five years after her heart attack (that is, ten years ago). It was all replaced by cerebro-spinal liquid, that is, emptyness. No process yet exists to replicate the cortex.

Christopher Reeve

This is a fallacious comparaison, as the problematic is elsewhere for him. What did not function is not the cerebral cortex, but the spinal trunk, which is the link between the head and what's left of his body. (Stephen Hawkngs is in the same situation.)

Indeed, he could not do a lot of things, but if all his disfunctional organs would have been replaced, he would have be able to become again his "Superman" (hence al lot of his advocacies : notice that he was fully alert of his situation and expressed it). Maybe Terri Schiavo's brain could have been replaced : would she still be her? (Is the shall or the spirit the person?)

Her we see where is the limit of compassion and mere will to conserve the shell. What's intriguing is as I don't have problems letting go the body of Terri Schiavo, yet I do have for those two (yet, not an absolute problem, only relative). It is probably because I do not see "life" in the "shell", but in the "spirit". Life is then the expression of the spirit, the interaction of the spirit. (Notice that a spirit needs a body to express itself, yet a body doesn't need a spirit to do so.) Then, if the spirit can no more express itself thorought the body (which was, from the courts and most doctors view

the case), then, there is no more life.

Reeve and Hawkings can (could) still express their spirit all the way, though most of their shell was completely unfunctional (or is it actually part of their shell? Could artificial things can be part of the Shell? Ghost in the Shell is probably the best reflexion on this). Terri Schiavo's shell was completely functional (well, at least partially), yet, she couldn't move much : an unicellular was more capable of living than her.

The real Christian view that people hold is that life is life, and no matter if it's retarded, unborn, aging, sick, on death row, in prison, or in any other state, it still has value because it's another human life.

Then, we could ask how could one real Christian support war or death sentence (and more than a few do so)? If life is life, then all this is life as well, so killing in war or in prison is still killing. Or perhaps because they are strangers, in a way?

Again, Tolkien, a deep Christian himself, provides use with probably the best quote : "Who are we to decide who shall live and who shall die?" Though the actual result in LotR is pure "fantasy", "fabulation", it has great details. I liked that quote until...

With time, I came to disagree with Tolkien: because, each day, we decide who shall live and who shall die. At least, we decide who shall endure living (in some despotic manners sometimes). Each time we give food or shelter to someone, we decide he is worth of living. Each time we do not give, we decide he is not worth. If one would be for life absolutely, he couldn't refuse food or shelter to anyone (which obviously some people do...)

Each time we perform medical treatment, we say "he is worth living". Each time we let it go, we say "he is not worth living". Each time we take an action, we also state the someone is worth living or not.

Then again, What is life?

You have given, Eken, a tautological answer, that helps nothing : life is life? As saying that A is A or 234569291 is 234569291.

What is life, I have described it various ways. In this thread, we can see that I divide the concept of "life" into various things that I feel completely different. I have a hard time describing those things, because the words to describ it yet have come to existence. There is biologogical life, clearly the well functionning of the bodies in their phisiological pattern. But, I came to define the "spirit's life" as when the spirit can express himself through a body of whatever kind. This is the life I support (yet, not absolutely)

You answer to where is life? without saying what it is. What you have described as having life is where I generally find the biological life I have described. When I have defined the what, then I can pinpoint to where it is. Life is something, and that something can be found here and there. Tell an alien : Earth is Earth, you'll understand tautology.

Then again, I am not Christian, nor any kind of self-proclamed follower of the Christ. I follow another view of the Universe, the World and the people, a view that is not shared by most people (even in my life). The so called occidento-christian view, even debased, doesn't appeal to me, as I find it fautive, and I'm looking for other ways.

This being so, we'll always have a clash here, because we hold different moralities, different views of what "shall be".

Addenum

My vision of life and the seeming vision of life that we seem to proclaim as Christian (though some here clearly have some ideas close to what I have expressed) might clash in another.

Where you view the "preciousness" of life in the "shell" (that is, the living of the body), I share no concerns about the shell and find it, ultimately, in the "spirit". I'd be the first to accept within humanity aliens, since I count their mind, their spirit, their psyché, before anything about their body. Yet, this shall be not that much problematic, as they would have "living bodies", only with DNA dissimilar to ours.

Where it is more problematic is with the "Robot". In science fiction we have a lot of debates. The Bicentennial man was a great movie, and I deeply liked the end of it, though it was stubborn. I would quickly include a robot within humanity, even if his body is not a "living thing" : I consider his mind (his spirit) over his body.

So, what's all about this? Where was Terri Schiavo's spirit? It might have been still in her head (something I doubt, since the disappearing of her cortex). Yet, we could no longer experience it. She was still biologically functional (with a little help), but she no where showed any spirit (PVS explicits awakeness without awareness). Yet, if we had made a mechanical body to Christopher Reeves, he'd have been able to experience its spirit with the world more deeply. (Hawkings is another case though)

The body is no more than a shell, spirit is what counts, though the type of shell do influence the spirit.