Yiuel
-
Posts
2.149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Yiuel
-
-
I think we are missing the fact that the schools also taught the aboriginals how to live in the modern world, before then they basicaly lived like they had lived for 300 years.
Well, to have studied one such case, the Innu people (Montagnais, in Fremch), their life had evolved in those said 300 hundred years. Indeed, before those pensionnat, they were still nomadic, but they had firearms to chase, better tools to fish, they used wheat flour (originally, they bought maize flour from the Iroquois), they used permanent fireplaces made of metal, and, indeed, used metal cookware. I lived a whole week-end in such way, and... I felt as living. In French, our host, an Innu, said "to me, this is living (vivre, to live). those lifes you live in the south are over-living (sur-vivre, to survive)". To him, the life the government wanted to give wasn't life, it was over-life, uslessness... He was lucky to be young, and had not lived those schools, and... perhaps, I like to know that all this has not been lost...
-
I'd like to bring the discussion on another issue...
I question a lot the word "genocide", or at least, I would only use it for eugenic mass murders. I'd rather use the word "democide", in the meaning intended.
What could bring people to murder other people (demoi)? How would one rationalize such murder. Are there more than one way to murder whole peoples?
A think that the fundamental problem here is that we like to be alone. Not alone in the meaning of lonely, solitary, be alone in the sense of unique. In the Occidental civilisation, we have, for centuries, searched for universals... Yet, confronted to people who actually do not have the same beliefs or ways has always been difficult.
We can extend this to a more general problem, that within one society, we might seek unanimity, concorde, agreement. Yet, when different people coexist, there is not such agreement. And then, perhaps, to some, it is so difficult that it might be easier to kill peoples...
(In Canada, the government has done this to all aboriginal people still extent 50 years ago... They did not kill people, actually, but they destroyed all social links between the young and the eldery, leading to a democide.)
-
Alien basically means Stranger, so it has no relation to the origin of humanity
Even my greco-latin word only alludes to this stranger relation : "Xenanthrope"A xenanthropic relation would be a relation between two sentinent beings that aren't of the same species, and so are biologically unproductive. This might be the ultimate test
-
I would warn them of the dangers (this is part of the knowledge we have), but I would not stop them ultimately, if they still wanted to try. Tips about better falling is always better than just saying them no, let them go, they have the accident, and they hurt themselves even more. (If you did not know, there are ways to fall and to not hurt oneself...)
-
The Age of Reason is said to be 7.
There are ways I have learned when dealing with children education as a parent. (My psychology teacher always talked about this)
One thing is to make a child feel safe. I do not use the word loved, as it is to some people a meaningless word. As for "feel safe", it is to take him away of the most uncertainties, make him/her feel that he will not disappear or that his being (including his environnement) is still there. A good tip I received is that when you put your really young child to bed, you put him to bed, make sure he/she is confortable in it, and then, you leave. Do not wait him to sleep, he'll do it on its own. And then, whenever there's a need, come promptly, but never stay more than its needed.
Another thing is to learn them confidence, that is, faith into someone even if not there. My teacher used to tell us that she had no problems with leaving her children at home, alone. I wasn't a problem as well, as my parents, even when I was as young as 9, left me alone in the house. They had faith in me. A way to show someone this is to not bother the individual when he or she acts correctly, and even be happy of such behaviors.
Some other thing, that people here might think as crazy, is how much freedom and experience is to me important. I will not be the one to tell to my children : do not make acrobaties with your bike. I'd rather invite them to do so, actually. What I would do though, is to learn them the principle of experience, and also the principle that it might hurt, and then show them all the knowledge that humanity gave us, in order to not hurt ourselves... (Back to my quote)...
-
This is actually what I try to follow. It is difficult to not be afraid in front of the Unknown. Never surrender, even when in goes beyond your limit, is also something difficult. I try, that's all
If I ever fail (read : die), well, I'll have lived -
What should be understood is that it seems that Elves never diminish naturally. They must be either killed or brought out of the world. Let's think that Elves would reproduce at a slow rate, if they always replaced each unnatural death, they automatically never diminish.
I would also say that we only read about the higher class people. Those who are close to Kings. They probably had less children (yet, we have Feanor's seven children, a large family, yet doomed to disappear). But what about the lower class elves? Most are given a few brothers (remember Haldir in Lorien), and perhaps sisters. I think Elves were rather used to have large families, only did they not grew in number.
The Elves' advantage was then to never diminish in number, and when the first age ended, most Men were really diminish. It would then take 3 thousand years for Men to recover (the Third age is already that of Men), a plausible scenario. When Elves are big, its not easy to dwarf them...
-
Indeed, when you add such useless picture, we really feel like it's only there to parade. If some of those pictures and mechanisms were well explained, it would have been better.
But, that it didn't reach popularity, I don't think its really relevant. A lot of horrors are never heard of in the news, and don't get much attention, while it is really relevant for our lives.
-
If, in the end, my child, you fall into doubt, do not let go. Take your eyes, take your ears, take all your senses, and explore the universe. If you don't know about something, do not be afraid, take all your previous knowledge about the world, apply it, and then go on that something. It is like this that you'll understand your place in the Universe.
-
It litterally stinks like a hoax.
Yet, for the idea, it is rather scary. I wouldn't like at all being in such way spied. Or, on the other side, perhaps I would be happy. Perhaps may I say : I have nothing to hide, then come on and spy me, just to show how much pathetic the governments are in their search for enforced security.
My two cents
-
There have been a lot of talks about the problems of the scientific knowledge we have about the world. Particularly about its "gaps", holes where science has yet no clue or only partial clues on how something might work.
In my own field (linguistics), we have dozens of those gaps, still awaiting developpment, especially about "how the language capacity have come to us", "how do a child learn language". And, I don't feel those gaps as absolutely problematic : when you read a book, it takes time to read it completely, even more to understand it, and... when your book is the Entire Universe, no surprise that we haven't fully read it yet. (I've already used this image)
AK Thug AMish almost went on the idea of the "God of the Gaps". It is a theory among anthropologists and philosophers, where everything that couldn't be explain by physical reasoning was explained surnaturally.
AK Thug AMish :
This is exactly the idea I challenge in my little story. When one would ultimately come from the "metauniverse" (the possible truth behind the reality of this universe), it may at will contradict the universe. (It will not, though, contradict its own reality...)I'll just add that if you do believe God can connect with people in a 'personal' way, or any way for that matter, that God would have to exist at least in part in the natural world. And, if God exists in the Natural (as opposed to supernatural) world, then God must obey the laws of nature (ie not contradict himself). -
Myself, I'd like to be an alien.
There's a misanthropic reason behind this wish, as I would then easily say : "I am not of them, the Humans." Potentially, it would be more humanist, where this would imply I do come from an outer world, and so, possibly, would I be given the chance and possibility to travel the Universe, and perhaps, fully be part of the World. Finally, an excuse to be different
-
Well, here's a question in which my stories have some sort of answer.
I am secularist, but this doesn't forbid me to think about such thing. (Conlanging is futile, yet, I like it!) And my thoughts are that it would be possible. Now, to what it would look like...
Synopsis of Hitori, the part when Hxoseo meats with the Protectors of the Universe*
I was there, walking along that old road between the mountains. It wasn't my first day along those roads, but it was the first after my Purification. How pure did I feel, I cannot remember well, but I do remember what happened that day, when I met them.
They were four, they showed to be great beings, but they were hiding themsevles inside largeclothes covering them. They were suspended in the sky, and, contradicting all laws I had learn younger, slowly descended to me. As slowly, I began to join them, yet I still didn't felt I was either flying or floating, I was just standing, as on the ground.
And then, we went on that close mountain. A rocky peak, yet surrounded by deep snow. And then, cleansed, I spoke some welcoming words, to which I received nothing else than silence.
The wind blew for a time, cold yet refreshing. I did not feel pain, it seemed I was immune. They were surrounding me, and I stood silently, seeking each one's eyes, if they had any. I did not feel in danger, nor terrorized by them. I felt as if surrounded by benevolence and friendship. They had shown no weapon, and I don't think I could be one who could attack their might.
And then, they began to speak. They showed me things. They showed me the Universe, its truth, its reality, or at least, something really possible. They showed me their power, power which had no laws, only the limits of imagination. They showed be its beauty and its horror. Well, I think it was their goal, but I told them that beauty and horror is no guide to understand life, the key being existence itself. And so, they stop speaking, and now, the asked me the question that was deeply in their mind.
"Will you join us, be one of us, protect this Universe and what is in it, qnd melt your existence with this Universe's essence?"
I showed no will, not dismissing. I stood there, and then asked what comes with such proposition. Yet, I showed interest, I showed what would please me more than anything : explore the Universe. And then, I said to them, that I would be part of them, yet, I would do it in my own fashion. And ever since, I was cursed, being a Protector of this Universe.
* In the mythology of Ie Ien, the PotU are beings that can contradict both logic and nature of the Universe, hence, as potent as a "god", two of them are metauniversal beings, whose reality is beyond our truth and who are projecting there existence into this reality, the two (later three) others are of this reality, though understanding the truth of our Universe. Their role is to make sure the Universe doesn't collapse, and the two first are also here to have fun...
So, with all this, I show that, even though I wouldn't be afraid, it would be to me, an ordinary encounter, tobe dealt as with any. What else could you do...
-
There is a fallacy here.
The men did not pay 27 dollars for the hotel room, but 25 (remember, the host gave them back 5 dollars, not three). What happens is that only three dollars a given back (leading to 28 dollars), and finally the bellhop kept two dollars. So, the manager has 25, the men have 3, ans the bellhop has 2. Final count, 30. And everything is right
-
If I am not mistaken, I remember where there is a large field of such stuff in Canada, right beneath my beloved Isle of Melville. Yet, I don't think it is such a great idea. I might quote here Tolkien, through is spokesperson Gandalf, when he says that we must not think of our own time, but to take care of the problem definitely, when it rises.
To replace oil with methane, is only solving the problem for a time. When methane will no more be sufficient. It could serve as a partial answer, to give us a few more years, but never will it be a definite answer...
-
Yiuel,
what language would this be?
As far as I know those terms are neither Quenya nor Sindarin
It is a reconstruction based on Quenya quendu and quendi. Your both words are seem to come from "eldo" and "elde".
-
I was born in a catholic family. I remember going to church, when I was really young. But, all this faded away, and by some of my sayings, even as early as 8 years old, I showed that I had a natural tendency to not even consider deities in my own reflexions about Humanity and the Universe.
Recently, there has been a poll about what beliefs one had. And I had that strange reflexion about what I actually believed. This is when I fell on secularism. In the English Wikipedia, there is a short definition of secularism as a belief : it is to think that any metaphysical questionning is irrelevant in one's existence in the Universe.
I have shown here my "Game of the Universe", my reflexion about truth and reality, a very mtaphysical matter. I remember that people criticized it as being very theoretical, not to say, "unworldy" or too abstract to be the basis of a reflexion. It is, and, in the end, I dismiss the issue and only think about the Universe itself (what influences me). What is interesting about this way of believing is that I do not dismiss the possible existence of god (it may be part of the Universe somehow), and I do not dismiss as well its non-existence. It is remiscent of agnosticism, but it adds on that if it becomes a physical matter, it will be relevant.
(And relevance is the point of secularism : it doesn't care about capacity, it cares about relevance, and there is a point of seeking knowledge on everything that influences us.)
-
The word itself doesn't seem to imply any race at all, but it implies sentinence. The specific words for elf-man and elf-maid are, I assume, "penno" and "penne" (Quenya quendu and quendi).
-
I tend to see Melkor as a pure nihilist.
His desire is that, since he cannot possess all of Arda, he will mock it and, ultimately, destroy it. (Yet, you get the problem that Melkor, whatever he tries, will always be deceived, the existence of the world itself is way beyond him.) Dagor Dagorath is his ultimate try, but the fate is clear that even though Arda will utterly be destroyed, Eâ will not, and the world will be made anew.
Sauron, on the other side, is to me a "mere" pathetic dictator. He has no goal into destroying Arda, his goal is clearly "to rule them all". He wants everyone to follow into the praise of darkness, I'd tend to say that Sauron temptate everyone to give them their darkest, most secret desire, the desire of controlling his life. He, ultimately, looks more like a "populist", promising everything, but, finally, leading to a world fully controlled under his will.
(This is then how I better understand Gandalf's last words to the hobbits, before their parting, as he was there to show people how to take care of their own lifes : maturity is not only the right to live, but also the duty to know how to live it. And, as such, Gandalf gave both their deepest desire, their ultimate freedom... and the strangest doom, to live.)
-
As for extreme-left being democratic, we've all seen the results in Russia (for Europeans) and in Cuba (for Americans, and I intend the continent). As such, the results of extreme is to be fully exclusivist : it cannot stand other sides. Dissidence is forbidden. (Yet, they are indeed democratic, in another way : they have been put in place by a populist (not necessarly popular) action, hence a democratic claim, but this can be said of most extreme regimes as well.) Or maybe shall we compare the rise of the Nazi in Germany to the rise of the Soviet in Russia. I wonder which one of the two was the bloodiest... There is no war linked to the raise of Nazism, even though there is some terror. While there are clearly wars predating the Bolchevic Revolution...
Perhaps there is our answer : while extreme-left cannot easily raise without any army, extreme-right can. The extreme-rightish ideas tends to rely a lot on such dichotomies that appeal to one's inner beliefs, even appealing to one's desire to have a personal control over his life (nothing foreign). This would lead people who want to have control (and this quality is found in most people in the West, because of the habeas corpus) to try to have it. And such feeling are enhanced by today's economy : the economy is in a way stronger, but never there was so many unemployed people with such great economical perspective. As the economy, your food, is your basic security, people may be drawn more easily to get control over their life, especially after they were given a such easy one.
In fact, a lot of people probably wouldn't fear extreme-right if they didn't remember the Nazi. Or they'll try to discard it.
-
I feel here that people tend to categorize as dichotomies. Poor us who have to endure Plato's heritage. (Plato was the first one to divide the world into dichotomies, as far as I know)
In Canada, we have such false dichotomies.
On the federal level, you have Quebec VS Rest of Canada. (Politics in both regions tend to be different. And you'll see hoe pathetic it is.) In Quebec, you have the nationalist-independentist party Bloc Québécois. They are "liberal-regionalist-socially open". Then you have the canadianist-federalist Parti Libéral. They are "semi liberal-unitarist-socially semi open". They tend to me more conservative. In the Rest of Canada, you have the liberal-socially open Liberal Party. Finally, you have the conservative-socially closed Conservative party. The Bloc Quebecois equivalent on social and economical issues is the NDP, but is too small, nationwide.
And their ideas aren't much brilliant imho.
-
It is not merely a law, it is a supreme law
-
Well, here's a debate, hardly emotive on these forums.
It is about the just reelected prime minister of Japan : Junichiro Koizumi. He's an enigma to me, though he clearly shows himself...
In my classes about Japanese culture, we were all given ideas of the general acting of Japanese people. If someone can deviate all of those stereotypes, he certainly is the one.
He declared the elections because he wanted to secure the parliament when enacting his reforms of the Japanese State (including some drastic privatizations, especially the national posting company). He won it, and now, he can go forth with anything he wants.
Among his ideas :
- Privatization of national companies, including the national mail.
- Fire a few beaurocrats, and reforming the state to make it smaller.
- Changing the constitution, to make it able to Japan to have an official army (yet, letting unchanged the other article, about Japan never using military to attack).
About the first, I already expressed my doubt about privatizing everything. This is because I was raised in Quebec, for most of my life. We have in Quebec a few examples of great sucesses in State companies. (Hydro-Québec, electricity, Société des Alcools du Québec, alcohol stores, Loto-Québec, lottery) or of cooperatives (Caisses Populaires Desjardins, a banking cooperative). Notice how much the first one is probably the least expected entry, other countries are trying to make such companies private-ownings. They are all profitable (each having dividendes summing to at least 1 billon dollars each)...
This doesn't mean I am against private initiative, neither against private ownership. Some people are capable of great management, and have enough initiative, but when something might concern all the people, it has been shown to cost less if everything was commonly managed (and, indeed, well managed). In fact, I would encourage private initiatives, even more than founding great industries to stay in some place...
About the second, I express doubt, but not as much discontent. I would actually be happy if the state could be smaller, and sometimes, it can be indeed. A simple state.
But something is forgotten here. Society is not simple, the people aren't simple, a country is not simple. That means that, passed a lower bar, the state even if smaller, is nowhere efficient. We have great examples in some emerging countries (Somalia, Afganistan) where the state is so small that it cannot do anything. Indeed, having too much is also a problem : it killed the Imperial China, it gangrenized the whole Russian State, and can lead to inefficientcy as well. The task is to find a middle, where the size is big enough to have some control, yet, not such big that all ressources given are finally useless.
Finally, about the third issue, I say : well it was time. I'm sure people here will be surprised by such positivism in my answer, but it is because I think a country's administration must also include a body of people well prepared to answer if there is a disaster (as a war or... a you-know-what). And what I like in his proposition is that he doesn't want to touch the second part, which to me is equally an important part : if we can all learn to not use of fist...
His personality is completely anti-conformist. His hair are, proeminently, bishounen-like (long and never attached). He wears almost what he likes when he will, and then again, what he likes is not what is liked among Japanese. (he is not the tie-type). He is divorced (a shame in Japan, before), moreover is does not live with his children (the uber-shame). He in fact lives with his oneesan (older sister), something really deviant in Japanese culture.
He visits Yasukuni, the infamous shrine in Tokyo to dead post-Meiji warriors. I think it is more of a daring to a lot of people to some sort of faith. He is himself very forgiving, and willing to go forward. Perhaps is he not warlike, but I think his darings are a clear example that he doesn'T look for compromises, unless his proposal is a compromise.
As a person, except for his Yasukuni visits (I cannot honor (or affiliate with people who honor) those who have killed for some gain), he pleases me a lot. I am myself somehow a deviate, so it doesn't bother me that he could be. But, there is something I don't like. Much like my former Prime Minister P.E.Trudeau, he is very mediaphile : he shows himself, and it doesn't bother him at all. Everything would be great if he wasn't that demagogue : his ideas are always devised among simple fallacious arguments (about the idea of a smaller state, his main argument is the population of Japan who will become smaller within the next two years... ). This has helped convince me not to become a Japanese citizen (a possibility) for the moment : I am not prepared to follow such ways, and I don't wish to.
Yet, on a final note, he's not closed to foreigners. He might be the one who will facilitate immigration to Japan, allowing some permanent resident to become fully citizen... So, I'm looking at all this.
What do you think. Is he doing right, is he doing wrong, does he miss a few other possibilities (which I think he misses)...
Discuss.
-
You'd have problems here, as a few aren't white.
I probably am part aboriginal. And I know a few here who aren't white. (And, we do not count the fact that I am a very open person, and seek mixing origins...)
Religion Survey
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
I had the exact same problem.