Yiuel
-
Posts
2.149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yiuel
-
-
I know there's no link between either France's and Australia's riots. It's just interesting how they both happened in the same time, and for reasons that are, to me, really close (racism).It seems that the riots have nothing in common with the ones in France.That's not true. As far as I have experienced (I go to France alot), the french are always, always hospitable. Though, it could be that teenagers in major cities (there always are IMHO) are troublesome, "crapuul" as we would say in Flemish (crapuleux?). I had my experiences on the countryside, in southern France. BTW, when did the French betray their alliances? Weren't they also the ones stopping the Germans in WWI on the western front?
As for hospitability, there is a difference between hospitability and naturalization : Quebec is reknown for its hospitability in North America at least, but between being hospitable to strangers and actually naturalizing, accept in the in-group, strangers, there's a long way between. And some people in Quebec, even though they are hospitable, truly, cannot think of naturalizing someone of the "out-group".
Sarcozy used some "great" word to describ those young rioting people, but I don't remember it. But indeed, the word crapuleux could be used, but it's not used here for teenager misdeeds.
-
Belisarius :
It all depends on wether your inside the group or outside it. Some societies are more inclusive. Some States can be VERY open.
I know, from the "Governator", that citizens of the United States who were not born in the United States could not be elected as President. In Canada, we have been shown the exact opposite on last September, as far as having the potential Governer General (Canada's Equivalent to the President) being a Haitian-born France-bicitizenshiped.
On a more social level, some regions will be more open, and others less. I could argue that Canadians tend to be more open to differences (yet, on some occasions, those differences were the profound reason behind issues) and tend to accept easily someone that doesn't share everything socially, even nationally. But, from experience, I know that "Xenophobism" is present in Canada, and it has caused me, recently, a few flamewars...
-- To explain quickly the flamewar, we were reaching the St-Jean, Quebec's national day. The leader of the general show in Québec was to be Luke Mervil, Haitian-descent Quebecker (well, I thought he was more a Quebecker than I ever felt I had been). Where I worked, some began to complain how Non-Quebeckers were celebrating Quebec's national day... I was profoundly shocked, and in two ways :
- They had the Japonic vision of nationality, which is of a Nation whose true identity is behind ancestry : you are Quebecker if your parents were from very far back. And, as such, couldn't even imagine the concept of some becoming Quebecker...
- And, myself, was a problem in their vision : they couldn't understand (and never understood) that, having been born in Ontario and lived there for the first years of my life, I did not have the feeling of being Quebecker, and not only that, but I didn't feel neither Ontarian or Canadian, for the fact that I actually lived in Quebec for enoguh years to assimilate part of its ways. (I did evolve some independantism, but, strictly speaking, such independantism that I show is rather... trivial, and can be applied to any social project... I've adopted a very regionalistic view, while rejecting ethnicism, or even "national preservationism".)
I dont know about after France -> Australia, more like after France -> England.
Did you hear about the oil facility that went up like a nuke due to probable Muslim terrorism?
I did quickly hear of it on radio, but I had no details on how it happened. This is really strange, indeed.
-
The context is different, but the result is "ethnic violence".
We could discuss about how society in general treat strangers in France. I have a friend who's half-French and half-American (blessed she is, isn't she), and, when she was living in France (she's now in Canada), she was constantly bullied as being American, and, later, being "English". But this only the least, I think, as some cannot even think to achieve more (I work with a French of Morrocan origin, and even though he's clearly French to me, he feels as a stranger in France, even though he was born there).
But, with Australia, there have been, it seems, neo-nazist demonstrations. Don't know how strong they were, what happened in those, but it was sufficiently strong so that some suburbans went out and responded violently. I wonder what is happening there. Perhaps our official Australian on the board could give us more information.
(The word neo-nazi scares me, though...)
-
You don't actually need a "earthly territory" to create a micro-State.
You only need a Constitution (Set of Fundamental Laws defining the State)
The Constitution itself shall define whatever is relevant about the micro-State :
- its Juridiction : to whom or what or where does it apply? (My Melvillian Constitution goes as far as defining a When : it applies as long as there is someone adhering to it)
- its Government : how does the State maintained together, how people live together?
- other basic laws that you wish to protect against daily evolution
If the first two are rather easy, the thrid point can be tricky.
To give a real-world example, South Korea was tricked by its constitution, when it tried to move its Capital city from Seoul : as it was written in the Constitution that the Capital was Seoul, a Constitutional amendment (usually harder to obtain than a law) was necessary, so the project was turned off as unconstitutional, however good it would be...
Ours will not involve such... gravissime issues... but take care to not overrule the Constitution, or you then actually overrule the people, and hence, bye-bye State, even if micro.
-
Keeping it for a movie-hicking with my mother : both of us like Fantasy movies : my mother, its fantasy, I, its consistency
-
Well probably we'll never all share the same belief, and frankly I hope we won't because diversity is essential to accomplish something new.
In some way, I do share this hope as well. When you look at people that do not believe in the same axioms that you do, you find new intriguing ways of life. I have been doing this all session, here, at university (or college, for Unitedstaters). I had a very small course about intercultural communication, and we have been looking all session about how others and us can fundamentally think. Each of us have very strong axioms (beliefs) that could forbid good relations if one couldn't get out of of its own axioms.
Yet, on my very wide open self, it had that strange effect that my own former axioms have been destroyed, or at least partially. Or, if they were not, at least, have I realised that my axioms are one group among thousands possible and equally justifiable. This led me to do the exact summum of what this quote says : take Earth's diversity of thought, and accomplish something new. But...
We will never be able to all live peacefully next to one another, and that for the sole reason that it's not in human's nature. We are bound to try to be greater than our neighbours, and therefore there will always be conflicts.This have been treated a lot in my course. Yet, it was explained another way : "We think of ourselves as speaking, acting, standing, thinking and believing better then others." and "That those who think the closest as ourselves are better than those who think further differently."
There's the notion of in-group and out-group here. The in-group is "us". It is normality, what is best... The out-group is foreign, alien. They are too different.
But, to link this ethnocentrism (the act of thinking in-group vs. out-group, and applying our in-group manners to an out-group because we think them normal) with wars and conflict, a step to deep has been made. I don't think that any war, until now, has its fundamental origin in enthnocentricity or in the incapacity of getting out of the in-out-grouping. Indeed, enthnocentrism has been used among masses to give more support (we call this "demonization" : they are bad, they are evil, they are the demon, because of XYZ that goes against what we do, and what we do is good), and of this, we have, I think, millions of examples (especially linked with some strawman arguments, reductionism of the other side).
The reason that had been given why Ethnocentrism was so efficient is that it goes deeper than reason : it goes against the axioms of our logic : it is the whole thinking building that is destroyed if one rejects ethnocentrism. And ethnocentrism can be developped on both sides, so there can be double rejection. And, sometimes, when one finally expell all ethnocentrism, he can be seen as a traitor to his own in-group. (How can you not think as we do! Are you mad?)
But, is it human nature to always conflict? Now, we go in one of those beliefs, will human beings automatically go into conflicts? Well, from my own experience, no. If even one human being can reject conflict, it is a proof that human nature is not bound to conflict, and that conflict in that sense is a matter of culture, learning.
Humans have needs though, and perhaps am I one that knows it too well for oneself : we need to eat, to heat oneself, security etc. in order to exist. This, I think, more than any ethnocentrism, is responsible for most wars.
Just look at the Middle East. 60 years we were going at each others throats and now... crap, look somewhere else.This is to me an example of a war that is maintained with ethnocentrisms. The war itself had begun on premises related to needs (a place to exist), but then, beliefs have taken the lead in order to sustain it. Hard to get rid of the idea of the Holy City and of Holy Land, is it...
--
Sidenote for the WW : were they needed, or were they futile? This can only be said a posteriori, because without them, we wouldn't be as we are. But, I don't think that they were needed or futile : they were, and because of them, we are as we are : my fear is that we will not learn of them...
I think that Klaas think them ridiculous in same way I would find them ridiculous : for WW2, it is not the battle between the two ideologies that was ridiculous. It is the existence of the war itself that was ridiculous. For Klaas and me, perhaps, we don't understand the clash. Can we just not live together in what we agree, and live seperately if we have some disagreements? To us, I think, we need not to entirely agree : we only need a small agreement, even the slightest can be a great achievement, and after, we only have to live seperately. To us, the whole premise of the war (and perhaps of all wars) was rediculous.
-
NaurwenT : This is actually what I always believed. But, it seems clear to the text that most people even though they could read, could not read either Angerthas or Tengwar. And why then would on Gandalf's fireworks, would there not be the "G" Tengwar, as the letter G? (And the text, even in French, gives the perfect rendering of all caracters, so it would be hard to conclude that they used all Tengwar.)
A specific note about writing in LotR is interesting, as it says that the alphabets they used had come to be full alphabets, with vowels and all. Yet, Tengwar, as far as we go, did not use vowels as an alphabet do, except for the Beleriand mode, noted as a special case, not the norm. Angerthas did use vowels, but it doesn't seem to be a script to be used in everyday life...
-
Lately, I've been "travelling in my thoughts and beliefs", a lot of what I though as mere abnormalities revealed to be more than useful, a lot of what I though was good or wrong revealed to be neither and both at the same time. In another post, I spoke about the Wall, a place where, however open you are, you are barren, forbidden by your beliefs to cross. A moral "garde-fou". I thought I had never seen it, or that, if I saw it, it was still beyond any reach before decades for me. But, I have seen it. I have seen those things that I thought as not-good, destructive, sins. I've been so much shocked by such "meeting" with it that I felt enclosed, and, finally, destroyed it. What I believed as always true, even in my deepest thoughts, have revealed to be mere beliefs, axioms that "had to be accepted and agreed, based on nothing more than traditions"...
Having this destroyed is perhaps the least of my problems here, I have been well prepared, first to be opened wide on varieties of manners, values, and finally beliefs. I don't feel that much destroyed, only a little uncertain, but it never bother me much, as I always have felt so (falsifiability is my line : when I am shown that something else contradicts what I assume, I let go my assumptions, and rebuild my thought). And I rather feel good : open, to what can be beyond...
But then, came to me those words, of a Prime Minister whom I did not elect but which governs my State :
"Il n'y a qu'une seule Terre..."
And then, I knew what problem I had always felt. Perhaps do we only have One Single Earth. Perhaps will we have to, at one point or another, live together, however big our Blue Ball is.
But when I see all those beliefs, those axioms which people think as fundamentals, that litterally crashes one on another, I have problems believing that some day, we will achieve such "Commonwealth". We do not think the same way. Here's a simple example :
Who am I?
1. I am a citizen of Quebec and Canada, child of my parents Y. and C., brother to A., housed in Montreal, friend with J., S. and F., who are etc.
2. I am Quebecker and Canadian, Francophone, Esperantophone, Anglophone, Niponophone, libertarianist and anationalist, big-large'n-fat, blue-eyed, brown-haired, A-positive-blooded etc.
3. I live in Quebec and Canada, I study in the University of Montreal, I speak XYZ languages, I teach Esperanto, I write novels and short stories, invent conlangs and conworlds etc.
Am I a load of qualities (2), or am I a load of links and relations (1)? Perhaps am I what I do (3)? Or perhaps something else? Or... perhaps, all of these? I am indeed all of these, but what defines me as different? (it is common in Japanese to refer to oneself as 1,where are you, while in Esperanto, you usually speak as in 2, while in French, you usually speak of 3, what you do)
And I did not go deep : we are only speaking of individuality : what defines it. I have spoken of what defines Life. And what of other questions : Am I over (master of), within (inhabitant of) or under (servant of) Nature? Or perhaps am I outside of it (common thought in Canada)... What is my family? Who is part of my family? My siblings and parents? Or perhaps, those who live in my house? Maybe are there more people to my family (uncles, aunts, and cousins etc.). How do we decide : harmony (we shall all agree, with our knowledge), master (those who know shall choose for all), majority (the biggest groups shall choose : small groups will think for themselves)? What is to favor in life? Our having, our becoming or our being? Do we need to think about future or past? How many years ahead and ago? Is it better to decide quickly or patiently? What is rapidity?
Perhaps is there only One Single Earth. But were far away of agreeing about.
-
I would assume :
We have not known this, We were not aware of this.
It's German.
Are there such prisons? Perhaps. But I follow Klaas on this one : everyone is being hypocrite in this issue, and even our own governments. Boo to Canada as well about this. A bit of frankness is needed in this sad world.
-
Well, it has been a long time since I post some topic here. Well, now it is my time, and...
I have been reading and rereading the Lord of the Rings lately. I rather felt depressed, and so, I stayed in my bed long hours reading LotR, and took time to analyse a few details in the text, the only one, except the Hobbit, that the Professor actually published. And then, I was reading the first chapters of the book, and some... oddities appeared when reading it.
I don't know if all of us assumed that the only writing systems in Endor were the Feanorian Tengwar, and the Daeronian Cirth? If this is, I think that we have been all misled. (If the French Version is at least correct in this respect.)
This first clue that I had, but I usually dismissed it as being worthless, is when Gandalf arrives in Hobbiton with his fireworks. It it said that a G was written, and that the Elven rune for G as well. In the French version at least, the G is accompanied by some strange mark, neither Cirthish or Tengwarish (and I perfectly know the Feanorian caracters, as I use them when I'm bored). Am I misreading or is the French translation so badly rendered?
It never shocked me at first, but then, we arrive to the ring. When Gandalf throws it in the fire, and then looks at it, Frodo is unable to read the letters. Frodo is said later (at the end of the book) that he has a very great hand for writing. When someone masters a writing, he usually can read the related scripts, and what is written on the ring seems to be readible to someone who is used to Tengwar. Do Frodo refuses to read words he do not know, or do he simply cannot read Tengwar, that is, he never learned to? (Let's take the latin script example : I may not actually feel the deep pronounciation of a text in a lot of language, I can actually see basic shape etc. I would have said : it is an unknown language, having strange uses of the letters... Here, Frodo looks like someone who would be completely out of the sphere of Tengwar : he cannot even distinguish the letters.)
In the council of Elrond, you have Gandalf that says that in the City, there were lots of documents written in old scripts that most people couldn't read anymore. Is it the language or the script that no one can read anymore? Sindarin is still spoken among the Dúnedain, and Quenya is indeed known to some (Aragorn at least, but some in Gondor as well). So, it is not a problem of LANGUAGE, but a problem of WRITING. If I take my time, I can read Old French, but even the most litterate Greek could not read Linear B, even if it is proven to be Greek. And no expert of Medieval Copt could ever read Ancient Egyptian, unless he learned the other script. Something is abnormal here.
Let's go a little further, into the Moria. When they find the book of Mazarbul. Gandalf is reading it, and then, you have Gimli who can recognize the hand of Ori, who is fond of using Elven characters. It seems to be specific to him. Do the others, who wrote before him, used non-Elven characters? Gandalf had to read the inscription on Balin's tomb : were most of them unable to read Cirth? Frodo can only assume Balin is dead after Gandalf's reading it.
All these clues have led me to think that Westron, in situ, was not written with neither Cirth nor Tengwar, and that those writing systems were for traditionnal use only. Yet, when we read the supplements, we find that all writing systems are descended from Tengwar and Cirth... When I compare the G's form in my book with the Tengwar G, we see the link, but they are really distinct... Descended is then a clue : nobody "normal" used Tengwar or Cirth in Endor... Only pedants and loremasters used them, others using evolutions of both.
So, where am I wrong, if I am? This is perhaps a mystery...
-
Deport all Arabs?
Foolish are people who think this would even solve the slightest problem. I would even say... No. I will not.
-
I was given this flag when I was 18 years old. Actually, it is my personal flag, representing dozens of things that would be long to explain in the too short time I have this morning. It is also the flag of one of my concountry (artistical creation of a country).
The two other people that are with me on this photo are conlangers, people whose hobby is to create languages. (And, as a side note, we are also all conworlders.) I am the rightmost one, you can only see my head and part of my read kanguru (sweather).
-
This issue, gay marriage, has probably divided Canada even more strongly than anything else. This will have caused a lot of grudge against Martin, I think. Even though on my side, I'll rather be angry if it was repealed...
Same thing for that scandal. I think I won't be surprised if even more of Quebec's representatives will be Bloquists, and perhaps one or two would be Tories. They have lost a lot here, and most Quebecers, it seems, will vote for the Bloc, in opposition to both leading parties.
-
I probably expect nothing more than what we had for the last few months... To me, either Tories or Libs aren't what I am looking for, and perhaps the closest (not necessarly THE) group is the Green Party.
No, I do not vote for the Bloc : to me, if I have the right to vote on the Federal level, I'll make sure I choose someone who'll take care of all Canadians, no matter what is my stance on independantism/separatism/autonomism.
-
Bonuses or Boni (call them as you wish), are a problem to calculate.
But the problem you are speaking about is "confortabilism". When someone has no worry at all (is confortable), then he will relax. Not all people turn like that, but a lot do. "Why should I do more if we get the same" and "Why should I do more if, even if I do less, I get the same"?
Such thing happens where I work. Yet, I think I have found some solutions, as that in collective contracts, the salary would be changed into "a minimum wage" for "a specific group", and then "under the discretion of both the salaryperson and the employer, they may discuss a higher salary". There are multiple ways, I think. We just have to look at them.
-
The first three speak about the same idea : the initial cause, the first cause. Then, it posits an axiom : there is a first cause. The logic that an effect must have a cause can be seen everywhere, but should there be a first cause? And this first cause goes against the logic that a cause must have an effect... We can go ad absurdem to find a cause to some godly being etc etc and it would not end. Or the first cause might be Mithrandir's Big Bang (to which I give credit, unless someone finds better).
The fourth one is about reaching perfectness. Yet, it doesn't answer what is perfectness. What is perfectness? It seems to be some kind of maximum, maximum of what? I'd speak about failurelessness, instead of perfectness. And then, a failure would be a disappearance of link : if so, God has failures, as I, it seems, departed from It, so it is not failureless.
The fifth one is about intelligence, or what some see as a directly functionning life. No, life is not as direct as it seems. When a plant grows, it does go up, but this is millions of years of mistakes that are now forgotten, because what fails disappears... and what remains will carry on.
In fact, the only thing that has some value is the first cause, should we find one, it would be great. The Big Bang is one that to me is satisfying : it gave the impulse for what is now happening. It satisfies to what he says, without it being a god.
-
I believe that it is possible for some people to know what could happen, but there is awlays a way to change the future. So for me, I believe that God knows all the possibilities in our world, but it is up to use to choose what becomes reality.
To me, even the act of changing something because one could extrapolate on what could happen is part of "fate". My deeds, my reactions to the world are also part of its fate. My typing this, in answer to your reaction, is part of the fate. Or perhaps would I have not written this, but then... I did not, it was not the fate that was due...
-
This is why I have called the logic behind it as "retribution". Retribution is not necessarly the exact mirror. Fines are some kind of retribution to a reprehensive act.This idea of An Eye for An Eye has been taken into its literal context by fundamentalism among the Abrahamic religions (Islamic extremism, Orthodox Judaism, and Protestant fundamentalism). I have always remembered a simple little verse my parish priest told me once (I think he got it from Gandhi) "if everyone took the scriptures literally, the whole world would be blind and toothless". I have been taught (both by various Catholic teachers and one intelligent rabbi) that the Eye for an Eye doctrine is one of the many things in the Bible that must not be used in it's literal context (the whole Book of Revelations is testament to that), but which the fundamentalists (with their literal approach to religious scriptures) have taken to heart.Yet, the Talion Law has been used in some societies, rather litterally. Hammurabi's code is probably the best example that can be quoted. Taxts vague enough (or open enough) can lead to various interpretations, and I think that both side (yours and theirs, the "fundamentalists") have a correct interpretation. To which I would agree though, is neither, because to me, justice is not retribution, justice is compensation, and perhaps, even better : overcome the deed and try something better (that is, recognize the deed, and then, just let go and try to do better in the future. A lot go crazy when I say this... I call it in esperanto "Pludauxrigeco" : "To make it continue".)
In some aspects, I would say that both answers are correct. In the post I gave, I do share some of the values I have showed. But there are others, and ways that most people here, I have been told, could not even think it could exist. Here's perhaps an example of my beliefs, a strange one, and I know exactly how it developped in my mind :So when an individual has nothing to contribute to society, only take from society, we should destroy him/her? This can be applied to many groups, the mentally handicapped and elderly included- should we kill them also? You seem to be giving an example of a Utilitarian society- people are only good when they are useful, to simplify it. In reference to this quote, are you giving us a sample of your own beliefs regarding human life, or is it merely an example of some of the beliefs?You're pregnant, and, you don't think you can take care of the baby, but you think that you have the time to let it grow until its birth. What's left? You let the baby after he's born. To me, the bloodline is not important socially. My genitors (I do use that word) are merely the ones who provided the spermatozoid and the ovula. What is so important about this? No, society as a whole (I could go evwen further, the Universe) contributed to my birth. The farmers that grew the food, the builders that build the world where my genitors and those who helped them, all of them are as important. And then, when you are born, the most important people are not the genitors, but those who take care of me. (In my case, they happen to be the genitors as well, but it's not important). My brothers and sisters could also have different genitors, and I would not care.
In my way of thinking, the baby will have happiness. The pregnant woman doesn't feel to be able to take care of it, and perhaps, doesn't want to. So what, I am sure that within society, some people might take care of the baby, and, even better, they are willing to take care of him, and they will love and protect them as much as they can. And perhaps do they also have the skill to do it. (I do not believe in maternal instinct).
Within this little text, you have a lot of beliefs that are included. And perhaps my I answer where to me individual life begins : when the baby can be out of the wombs and physiologically survive (that is, its lungs must be functional). Before, it is a part of the mother's body, and as I don't have any problems with changing the body or some part, or to get rid of some body part. Also, I consider that if someone could live more than 2 months with a growing living part within it, I think that this someone could endure the few more months left. No, I don't think greatly of killing a baby because he is burden : give it up to people who will love and protect him (itoshiku mamorareteru oya), and that's it. This last thing might be the deepest act of love one could make actually : trying to give him a better life elsewhere.
I think a lot of people will have problems with these beliefs. They really aren't mainstream, and even "underground" groups do not necessarly share what I think. It's just that I don't think the same way. There are reasons behind some beliefs, and this is especially true about mines : I always want to understand why I think something. I can also, I think, find the point where I actually believe... This done, and can go out and say it, yet, also understand others might believe otherwise.
Not necessarly. You can believe that the individual life begins at conception, even if you are atheist. In fact, there is a logical reason about it : it's a distinct functional DNA, so... it's an individual life. You don't need to be spiritual at all. It's just that most atheists in Occident to not think that a distinct functional DNA is an individual life per se. But you probably can find some people who think this.So if I were an atheist I would obviously have a whole different opinion over the issue of abortion.To All :
Do you have issues with which you have deep problems. I mean, are there ways that you have discovered either around you or have heard to exist somewhere that you have problems with? Why? What, in those ways, do they cause you some disgust or distrust? Is there something that you think fundamental that is broken in such way?
-
Fiefdoms, this is what Dol Amroth, and most countries within Gondor are.
They are not independant as such, I would rather say that they ressemble the various provinces of Rome, or perhaps, even closer, the Japanese domains under the various Shogunates, in their power. Their titles was either self-acquired (for being the most important man in the place) or given (the various "princes", in Gondor). But then, if we have a distinct Dol Amroth, we would need dozens of sub-civilizations : Gondor is not only Dol Amroth and Anorien... We have Belfalas, Anfalas, Lossarnach etc.
-
Because, to me, there is still a logic that will come out of our choices. They do not come from dice-rolling, as would say Einstein.
The issue of Fate is to me very important, because, if there is no fate, there is no possibility of prediction, and if there is fate, there is no way to go around it. There is prediction, to some degree, so there is some fate, no way to go around a snowstorm when it goes right on you. And, in the end, even if free will was given to us, free doesn't mean chaotic, and there will be a pattern in the choices we take, hence predictability, hence some fate...
-
As for my use of the word Violence, it's my French background which extended the word's meaning. Violence, in French, is the use of something to physically, emotionnaly, psychologically harm someone. Threatning is to me psychological violence.
Indeed, the words used were probably a (bad) motto in order to make people think. To me though, it just felt really wrong.
But, here, my main concern isn't abortion, it is only a pretext to speak about those lines.
I am studying Intercultural Communication at university (college, for our Unitedstater friends). In the course, we first try to feel how it is to live and interact with people of other cultures. It is not as easy as it may seem. (I think that we have been shown here how problematic it can be here, on various subjects)
Then, we try to understand what may cause those problems. Shockingly, language itself is a mere superficial problem. One can learn perfectly a language and speak it eloquently, after some years of study. (There are such cases in Montreal, and if I wished to, I probably could be part of those people.). We first see non-verbal communication (manners and patterns). Then, we go on values and finally beliefs.
Manners and patterns are more about fairnesses and uglinesses, values are more about rights and wrongs, and finally, beliefs are about trues and falses. We have learned that manners and patterns can easily be overcomed with some explainations. But values and beliefs are something more problematic.
Beliefs are here the problem : they are the basis of our personality. They are what we think is true : that is, it's an "existential" reflexion. If we are told that what we think is not true, mental collapse is there, unless we react either to protect our beliefs, or to change our beliefs. The later is harder : as your values (what is important to you) are based upon your beliefs (what is existing to you). Let's take the marvellous example of abortion :
Belief 1-A : An individual life begins when a new ADN has formed and an individual cell is living by it.
Belief 1-B : Individual life is sacred.
Value 1-a : As individual life is sacred, life shall not be stopped.
Value 1-b : As life must not be stopped, and an individual life begins when a new ADN has formed etc., then an embryo shall not be killed.
Change belief 1-A to the followings :
a) An individual life begins when a new independant (may work on its own, without anything out of the body) body has emerged functionnally, as long as food is provided.
An individual life begins when a body can walk and talk (interact).Those two beliefs are possible. But, think of the implications : "a)" will have no problem killing an embryo, even a feotus. (note there are intermediate beliefs, and other beliefs that may influence : to me, the last one is true, as if technology is available, incubation, even if partial, is something to be used). The hardest for those who believe life is sacred is "
". In such belief, "infanticide" is more than a mere possibility : it may be, permission is given. To us, it feels blatently wrong : "how can they think this?", but when looking at this, you can understand the logic :- A baby that cannot interact is just a mere carriage to the group (or individual), and so its more of a burden than a precious gift. If the group is threatned, he is then treated as a burden, that can be left over. Yet, when he can walk and talk, he's now a member of the group, as he can take part in its life.
In my course, we learn to understand the logic behind those beliefs, in order to facilitate intercultural communication. This is why I asked about your "line" : in our course, we also learn that most people will be so shocked that communication might be broken from the beginning. Can you go beyond your own beliefs and understand what is the reflection of others : most people in my class have difficulties to explain other beliefs and their implications as I did. And the example I gave is probably among the most problematic, because life is a very egoic value (egoic = that also influences our own life), and so have something to do with our own life.
Caesar
As you may have seen, at least, in my optic, individual freedom is not the involved belief : we actually probably have the same. The involved belief is about "individual life", where it begins. You are around the first, i am close to "a)", and some are around "
". (Indeed, to me life is not sacred, life is a gift (from the Universe, from existence) so it adds some details. This has other implications.)Klaas
The line ends however when it comes to not only writing and shouting but also practicing.Then, may I ask what are the lines of those pratices. Perhaps could you not tolerate infanticide. ([irony]As any civilised people could not.[/irony])
(The word itself, infanticide, is biased, as there is a question of murder : in the postulated belief, you do not have murder, as you do not kill an individual...)
Hyborian
Let's go deeper.
I know that in Abrahamic religions, the Talion Law is present. It implies retribution : Justice is retribution of the forbidden act. Hence, an eye for an aye, a tooth for a touth, an ear for an ear, a foot for a foot. Clearly : a life for a life.
Then, I went on individual life, and I think we have understood the stance. When you kill an embryo, you have killed a life. So retribution implies that life must be taken away. The murder is then not a murder : it is the application of justice.
(There are other ways to think justice : in Old Iceland (and generally, old germanic people), it used to be compensation. That is, if you made a misdeed, justice is to make sure it causes no more prejudice, or the least prejudice possible. This is my way of thinking, though I also add Exil, Ostracism when one doesn't feel any prejudice has been.)
Pro-death-penality is then easily explained. As for "pro-war", this relies on other beliefs, in fact, a common belief that "what I do not believe is necessarly false, and what I do not value is necessarly wrong". This we call ethnocentrism, and it is easily to fall in. (But one can also fall into over-relativism : to always think that "some things are good in some culture because it is done" : the incest taboo and the Thebes cycle should be a guiding example here.)
Now, the only thing to see is some threat to individual life, and then, you have a desire of protection (life being sacred, here). You have the reason for the war here.
-
I may answer, to your analogy, that if Man created the Fishtank, if ever he had the bad idea to go live there, he would cause great disasters, and if he made some act that changed the Fishtank's ecology (like a miracle), it would also cause great disasters. Also, when looking to the fishtank, you do not notice each details, you take it globally.
That you made something isn't a proof you can see everything within.
Still, I understand your point. But, to me, if ever there was a single omnipresent God, it would rather be something above singularity or multiplicity. It (Di?) would not be something "alone" or something "multiple", It would just be something where It can concentrate in the same process everything. That It masters both time and space would then be its solution :
To It, past present and future are irrelevant. As are kilometers of space. It could, in its own World, elaborate on our distant future and our distant past. There is no problem : our Universe is not Its world. As I can, for some world I created in my own brain, imagine (elaborate on) both its "past", "present" and "future" (in fact, to me, all this is "present", and to them, I am "eternal", that is, present in all times)
But this questions the whole "fate" issue. In my vision, either is there "fate", an unchangeable fate, or is It "ever changing his mind", discovering (in Its own process, unknown to us) what may be better, so there is no "fate", rather a will to elaborate even more. Or, is it that It built a machine, with a set of laws and relations, and that It's waiting, as we are, but in a different time scale, but this last solution also postulates a fate, yet unknown even to It.
-
I live in Montreal, a strange North-American city. A big island, in the middle of a one-kilometer wide river, with a mountain in the middle of it. But I am not here to speak about the city and its beauties. Rather about a demonstration that happened yesterday.
This week-end, there was a small congress about abortion in Montreal. Not about the freedom of choice (most Quebecers are pro-choice, and I am one myself), but about the pro-life arguments. They were meeting to discuss the arguments, and then propose an answer to this issue.
But here, basing a whole argument on religion is not something to do. People have been, in Quebec, so much pressed by the Church (Roman Catholic), that the population ultimately rejected the whole Church, or at least, will not think the way the Church think. (They'll take their beliefs, which may still be Christian, but will think them their way).
And such thing, religion-based argument, was feared by some groups in Montreal, and they organised a demonstration, where the congress was to be held. The congress moved, because the church where it was organised first couldn't organise it securly enough to be held. (This caused some angriness from the congressees, but this is another topic). But, it still happened, and the demonstration did not move.
I had no problems for either events. People may discuss freely, even if I do not (or cannot) support these arguments, based on beliefs or values that I do not share. People may demonstrate freely as well, the only thing I ask them is to demonstrate only : no vandalism or violence. (I'll always remember that demonstration in Montreal, a few weeks before the Iraq War, my best example of well-done demonstration). But, this last thing happened, Violence, in the demonstration.
The violence itself is quite discrete : nothing really forceful, but, on the first line, was a banderole, where it was written :
Avortons leur congrès
(Let us abort their congress)
I was shocked. What do you think of such catch phrase? I would have wished they never use such. You don't like their ideas, or more, their arguments? Fine. But, to me, they have the right to speak as well, and you don't wish to abort... their congress.
Would you try to stop someone who thinks some other way? May anyone think what he wishes? Or, perhaps, do you have an uncrossable line, where you cannot tolerate someone's else beliefs. I am of the second kind, though my lines are indeed, it seems, far off the map (yet, I do know there are lines to not cross with me). Where is your line? What kind of beliefs could you accept around you?
-
I have seen the arguments used by some military recruiters. My father, at some point, tried to use those arguments with me as well. It did not work, hopefully, since I feel safe, and that I have a so great disgust of war that even the word itself disgusts me.
"Easy travel!", did my father tell me. Maybe, but to where...
"A job, well paid!", again did my father tell me. Perhaps is it well paid, but what will I do, what will I risk.
This last quick argument works well in poor regions. This is perhaps why my father joined the military, as he was a low-middle-class child. In Canada, perhaps it is not a problem, we don't go to much wars these times. But I wouldn't want to get killed for some devious reasons.
We still have the argument of protecting the country. Perhaps, this is one thing (well, something close, I would only care to protect people and their lifes, not countries and their institutions) that would work with me, but the last thing I would do is go out of my country. I don't mind walking along borders, trying to keep what can be kept. But I just wouldn't cross it, except when one wishes to enter into my protection...
---
I wonder if all what I have said is so coward that I should be punished by some terrorist attack. I am not against "army" as such, and I think I could easily join it, if my sole duty was what I wished, protect people. I am not against protection : there are stupidlings around, and I am not innocent enough to say that the world needs no protection against them ; cancer should be destroyed whenever it happens.
But, having seen which arguments they use, I have no problem banning recruiters from coming to school. It may be an easy way to travel, but you'll not be on vacation, you'll be dutiful and, perhaps, will you need to kill. Job with great salary : I feel I'll get paid to kill people. How disgusting ; I'll rather be professional assassin and kill those who are worse, and get paid for killing truants.
When they'll have better reasons, I'll accept them, yet I hope they'll be able to sustain that some can be critics, and may wish other ways...
My rant.
After France, Australia
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
It is easier for peole to interact with those about which you think you know the best.
Let's imagine a situation, in Japan. You're in the middle of Shinjuku (the new city center, where the Metropolitan city hall is located), and you are rather lost. Shinjuku is known to have a lot of Europeans in the neighborhood. Would you rather ask to an European-like one or to a Japanese? With whom would you feel more confortable, at first?
Usually, people will have less problem interacting with their own group than with other people.
I don't ask myself any more why in most Chinese Markets, everything is quite wide open, and sometimes, still living : freshness for most Chinese people is related to "have just been killed", rather than to be over-packed and sold indoors (which is the rule for most Quebeckers).
And, in front of the unsure, you're always uneasy. How do I introduce myself? Are there taboos, are there manners to do? Must you be direct or circonvolutional? Or, to add a very odd question I have seen a lot of people think : Even without believing in God, can he behave correctly?
All those unsure things prevent to relate. I am gifted in having about no stereotypes, but I still feel uneasy when I am not surrounded by Quebeckers, as it is the group which I feel the easiest to relate with.
And, imagine now. Your immigrant doesn't come, usually, to learn a new culture. He comes here to live a better life. He feel as unconfortable as you can be in front of him, and moreover, he's alone while you're surrounded with your people. He'll quickly join his own group, unless he's willing to integrate your own culture and reject what he has been, which is really uncommon.
(I know some people who would actually be ready to do so, but you must have a deep confidence in yourself to reject what you are... As for myself, I only tend to... add up : I don't reject anything like that, I take of everyone happily.)
And then, disdain appears when the immigrant discovers the host culture. It can, in a lot of ways, contradict your own ways, and what you always believe was correct or not. Indeed, his ways, to which he is most used to will be naturally BETTER for him, because he is used to them. It is not necessarly because he rejects it, it's because it is not natural for him, and may go even against his own ways.
My French coworker have had problems here in Quebec, when she arrived in September. She felt completely lost in a Subway (the submarine sandwich restaurant) and for her, to choose everything in your sandwich was odd.
And yet, here, in Quebec, when there's no choice, we rather get angry. But this is rather simple. There are a lot of deeper cases I could cite.
When your in front of your parents or of autority, do you look into their eyes or do you turn your face down? Here, in Quebec, the usual way is to look directly in the eyes (if you do not look, you're lying), while to some other people, this is insulting for autority (if you look, you're arrogant). Imagine how much incomprehension can come out of this, and frustration and, finally, disdain.