Which is worse?

[Shadow Nexus]

Um, OK, first, about anarchy.

The idea of anarchy leading to chaos is natural, after all, given our society, it is hard to understand the concept of order without power. Anarchy is not supposed to be "do whatever you want", it is supposed to be an organized order without a governor, based on the idea that man is naturally perfectible, and as such, it can use it's rationality to organise into a true, free, intellectual society free of alienation. Of course, problems occur, problems always occur, and anarchy could never work perfectly, it is an ideal to be followed.

Communism and Anarchism are heavily related. Communism is also a system without state, but Marx believed the supression of the state cannot be done ipso facto, and before that it needs a period of Socialism. Socialism is what has happened in many countires, yet in very different ways, as you know. Cuba, now, is a Socialist country.

Again, if you can, Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta" explains anarchism really well, and it entretains at the same time. I recommend it, I highly recommend it, seriously. And some scenes in it are very poetic. A true piece of art.

In order to avoid revolts and slipping into anarchy, it's necessary for the leader to be strong, but political stability comes at a great cost.

I believe a politic of dialoge, as oposed to the impositive dogmatism imperating in modern goverments, is much more active for the development and strength of the goverment. This is the main reason why I admire the soviet parlamentary system (People not voting presidents, but parliment members, and removing them when necessary), I believe it to be a great idea if taken into action correctly, without manipulation of the media, one of the problems imperating in Cuba.

For me it'd be great for Fidel to change the articles in the constitution and USA to lift the embargo. If that ever happens, I promise I'm emigrating to Cuba. But I doubt it will ever occur.

So again, I ask you, do you really think that the people and the state can be coordinated in such a way that you don't fall into neither anomie, nor fascism?

I do, and I believe in Enlightment. Sapere aude, all that crap.

And I realise I may be wrong, that it may be just an unreachable ideal, I may just be the Quixote who sees giants where there are windmills. Yet, it is either Enlightment and change, or either giving up into postmodern values, meaning a rather passive action, the classical "democracy and capitalism are find and dandy, let's keep with it and try to make the best of it". Hell no! The project of Enlightment has not failed, and what Kant said back in his time is still to be applied today, every day more. We are not in the end of history, we are just starting with the second volume, as the poet Mario Benedetti very eloquently said. And if the end of history is for Frankenstein to walk in fashion expositions, for NASDAQ to be a Veda for post-Brahmans and for Judas to sell in exclusive his betrayal to the pink press, then please allow me to say humanity has failed so badly it has already lost all hope. I do not like this sciences and fictions of emptyness, markets and flags, cosmetic and bad taste, and thus, it is either change or death. It is either Prometheus or Narcisus, or Sisifo. You are from Chile, you probably know Pablo Neruda, so as he said:

Debemos hacer algo en esta tierra
porque en este planeta nos parieron,
y hay que arreglar las cosas de los hombres
¡porque no somos pájaros ni perros!

Y bien, si cuando ataco lo que odio
o cuando canto a todos los que quiero,
la poesía quiere abandonar
las esperanzas de mi manifiesto,
yo sigo con las tablas de mi ley
acumulando estrellas y armamento.

[Rei]

Uh. Well, I don't care enough about politics to discuss imaginary/impossible systems, so, yeah. I think that we do what comes naturally. I think most people want there to be a government, and someone to be at the head of it, so there's a clear path and we know what the hell we're doin', and we're a part of a group. Everything groups, and most everything has something at the head of it. Animals have alpha males/females, galaxies have supermassive black holes, and so on. I don't really know where I'm goin' with this, but, yeah.

You know, if you're part of the right group, extreme conservatism can be pretty sweet. Hitler was awesome if you were Aryan and hated Jews. Granted, not many are gonna be a member of the lucky ones, but younever know. With extreme liberalism, on the other hand, I figure everyone's in the same situation, which can either be supremely crappy or pretty nice. I think it's the same chance of that society being comfortable and well-off as there is someone being part of the right group in extreme conservatism.

So, both suck.

[Bernhard]

I personally think that extreme conservatism is worse.

[Anaralia]

Ah Shadow Nexus, I admire your optimism. We need more Quijotes nowadays, and since you're on my side anyway, I won't argue the point any further. I hope you really do find "a true, free, intellectual society free of alienation" someday.

Anarchy the way that you describe it is intriguing, and I'm going to look into it a bit further. It still seems a bit too idealistic for my taste, but it may just be that I don't have a good grasp of the concept. And any philosophy has to agree with basic human psychology, and, as someone said upthread, human beings seek leadership in all situations, even in reduced groups, so this is my basic problem with the concept.

And of course I know Neruda. That's a beautiful poem, and I'd never heard it in that context. Thanks for that.

[Besimudo]

Extreme Conservatism was the romance of the ancien regime...
Steeds marching into honourable battle, battles with men who care for nothing more than to die. A world with a king who gave his ultimate sacrifice, sacrificed his blood for men to live.

Extreme Liberalism is the world I have grown to know...
Cars commuting into work, work that men have no care for and would rather wished they had died. This is a world ruled by many, with no direction, no form so that they may live as pigs with immense appetites.


The sad thing is that liberalism is not the stuff of hippies and pot-smokers but is becoming endemic in our very psyche; it is an academic woe aimed at setting one against another not for the sake of virtue, but utility. I am right, you are wrong; we are all kings of our exteriors and will kill to protect them. Man against man in a sub-urban war over who pays his airtaxes and who has the rights to free football… If you don’t pay, why I. Charity is lost, now my neighbour you must die.

[Casey]

In the middle is the way to go, 'fair and balanced'. Agree what everyone else said, extreme liberalism=anarchy, extreme conservatism= fascism. etc. It all comes down to the types of people, and there role in society..

[The Man]

Both, equally.

Both are horrible ways to run a country.

I'd like to be able to concur with Shadow Nexus's viewpoint on humanity, but I think it's about as realistic as communism, which has always, in practice, turned into an oppressive dictatorship of some sort. Of course, it's never been implemented exactly as Marx envisioned it, either, but I don't think it can be, just as the idealistic libertarian view that big business will always regulate itself is unrealistic. (Although, to be sure, I think the libertarians do have a point that reducing government would be a good thing at this point - taken to extremes, though, would be ridiculous).

Extreme Liberalism is the world I have grown to know...
Cars commuting into work, work that men have no care for and would rather wished they had died. This is a world ruled by many, with no direction, no form so that they may live as pigs with immense appetites.

That is not liberalism at work; that is capitalism and technology. Most liberals don't want the environment to die, actually; we're usually the ones clamouring for the reduced use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases and the like. It does have a lot to do with politics, but the fact that the world is in its current state is largely due to the interests of corporations and those they employ. A lot of liberals want that to change, but I, for one, don't think it can happen as long as the U.S. remains the world's dominant power - frankly, we're too far set in our ways for the trend to change in our own country. Thanks to the misadventures of Bush and company, though, I think we're firmly entrenched on the path of not being the world's dominant power anymore.

[Besimudo]

Yeah, yeah I am aware of the "ifs" and "buts" Most liberals go to see the Buddhist Lama but refute the Catholic Pope as conservative, same level of tradition in my books!... And to add - you still use the multinationals products, how else are you communicating the internet?

[The Man]

Nuclear power works, I find. It's also quite likely that antimatter could be a feasible energy source in the near future, if all the safety hazards that could go with it get worked out.

Bush and company are the ones pushing so hard for everyone to depend on oil, and they're amongst the most conservative people I know of. That says something, I find. And there's a reason the most liberal major party in America is called the Green Party, and it has nothing to do with the colour of our money.

Treating Catholicism and Buddhism as though they're the same thing is misinformed, to say the least, because they're not the same thing in the slightest. Catholicism fits in firmly with a lot of strongly conservative policies - Frankly, it's quite a misogynistic religion, it forbids birth control, it strongly discourages sex before marriage, it opposes abortion, it opposes gay marriage, it tends to be highly evelangelical (which seems to be a tendency of conservative religions), and that's not even getting into the many past atrocities the Catholic Church has committed (amongst them are genocide and quite possibly historic revisionism). In short, Catholicism is one of the most conservative religions out there - often times blindly so, since it's pushing for the restriction of birth control in Africa, where it's leading to tens of millions of people's deaths from AIDS. Even compared to many strains of Christianity, it's a highly conservative religion - which is odd, because Christ himself was undeniably a radical, especially given the time he lived in. He himself hung out with prostitutes and poor-off fisherman, amongst other things - I highly doubt you'd find members of the Catholic clergy willingly associating with the same. His idea of love for one's fellow man - "Love thy neighbour as thyself" - is also an undeniably liberal axiom. (There's strong evidence to support the view that Christ's views were heavily censored and edited by the fifth-century Catholic church, but I'm not going to get into that right now).

Buddhism is a lot less interpersonal of a religion than Catholicism - It isn't out to mark anything as a "sin," and it's a lot more in line with self-enlightenment, which is typically regarded as a new-age, "liberal" value. I'll confess to not knowing nearly as much about the history of Buddhism as I do about the history of Christianity - It's something I intend to look into, but not until I'm finished understanding the history of Christianity more fully.

[Besimudo]

"Nuclear power works, I find."

Sure, tell that to the Russian, 1984...

So what you are saying is that the en vouge Westernised facade of Buddhism, fits with your new age liberal spin. That is fine, but both the Lama and the Pope: Head traditional chairs, you cannot deny this (I never said they were the same religion you are trying to play tango with me). The Pope may well be incorrect as far as profane matters are concerned, but that is of little relevance to his higher authority. You think the Catholics are strict! Most hippies are ignorant of the conduct of Buddhists and the strict rules - as one should not even look upon the Lama! Plus, the Buddhists rejected the liberal communist doctrine and were persecuted in Tibet as a result.

"misogynistic religion"
How au current, I can hear the feminists applauding, especially when they over look the fact that Mary is held as the literal mother of God's only begotten son! It is only the fundamentalists who take the myth of Genesis ad hoc in the treatment of Eve and the fall... And you have to admit that abortion is more commonly used as an excuse by the wicked boyfriend or ignorant parents, as most teenage girls would prefer to have their babies, rather than terminate them.


"Buddhism is a lot less interpersonal of a religion than Catholicism - It isn't out to mark anything as a "sin," and it's a lot more in line with self-enlightenment, which is typically regarded as a new-age, "liberal" value. I'll confess to not knowing nearly as much about the history of Buddhism as I do about the history of Christianity - It's something I intend to look into, but not until I'm finished understanding the history of Christianity more fully."

Salvation/Enlightenment is achieved in Catholicism and Buddhism by questioning self imperfections, via prayer and meditation, respectively and these issues are certainly not "new-age". "New-age" is proliferation of the self, the ego and the rejection of the divine realm; this does not sound like Buddhism to me.




P.S. Just as an aside, are you a member of a church? I noticed your reference to "Your own personal Jesus" unless you just like the music of Depeche Mode a lot...

[The Man]

"Nuclear power works, I find."

Sure, tell that to the Russian, 1984...

So what you are saying is that the en vouge Westernised facade of Buddhism, fits with your new age liberal spin. That is fine, but both the Lama and the Pope: Head traditional chairs, you cannot deny this (I never said they were the same religion you are trying to play tango with me). The Pope may well be incorrect as far as profane matters are concerned, but that is of little relevance to his higher authority. You think the Catholics are strict! Most hippies are ignorant of the conduct of Buddhists and the strict rules - as one should not even look upon the Lama! Plus, the Buddhists rejected the liberal communist doctrine and were persecuted in Tibet as a result.

In terms of most political matters, Christians tend to be conservative - namely, against abortion, against birth control, against gay marriage, for censorship, et cetera.

"misogynistic religion"
How au current, I can hear the feminists applauding, especially when they over look the fact that Mary is held as the literal mother of God's only begotten son! It is only the fundamentalists who take the myth of Genesis ad hoc in the treatment of Eve and the fall... And you have to admit that abortion is more commonly used as an excuse by the wicked boyfriend or ignorant parents, as most teenage girls would prefer to have their babies, rather than terminate them.

Abortion certainly is generally used as an excuse, but quite frankly, most of the people who have abortions would be crappy parents anyway. You could argue that they could just give the child up for adoption in most cases, and I'd agree with you, but there are certain cases when I don't think a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy at all, such as if she were a victim of rape or if the pregnancy were life-threatening to her or something. 'Sides, abortion is relatively like alcohol - You make it illegal, there're just going to be speakeasies, and odds are the doctors who'd work at those wouldn't be professionals, and therefore there'd be a lot more resultant accidents.

As far as Christianity's misogyny, I don't have time right now to make a list, but it's a lot more than just fundamentalism that demeans women to an extent. I don't know if it's even a conscious behaviour or not, but the way most Christian women are raised is to be ashamed of their own sexuality, as if enjoying it were sinful. I'm not sure if this is because of the Bible or because of the attitudes of most church officials, but a large number of Christian women seem to have a mental block towards enjoying sex. The role of women in the New Testament also appears to have been greatly reduced, as an the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents, which have no less claim to historical accuracy than the four Gospels and possibly quite a lot more, contain women with a far stronger role than they take on in any of the canon Gospels.

A decent exploration of the role women might have had is taken upon in The Templar Revelation by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, which you'll find in the religion section of any decent bookstore. It's an interesting read, to say the least.

"Buddhism is a lot less interpersonal of a religion than Catholicism - It isn't out to mark anything as a "sin," and it's a lot more in line with self-enlightenment, which is typically regarded as a new-age, "liberal" value. I'll confess to not knowing nearly as much about the history of Buddhism as I do about the history of Christianity - It's something I intend to look into, but not until I'm finished understanding the history of Christianity more fully."

Salvation/Enlightenment is achieved in Catholicism and Buddhism by questioning self imperfections, via prayer and meditation, respectively and these issues are certainly not "new-age". "New-age" is proliferation of the self, the ego and the rejection of the divine realm; this does not sound like Buddhism to me.

Looks to me like we've got different definitions of "new age." I always thought it was a pretty bullcrap label to be honest though.

P.S. Just as an aside, are you a member of a church? I noticed your reference to "Your own personal Jesus" unless you just like the music of Depeche Mode a lot...

Johnny Cash's cover, actually. I'm not really what would qualify as a Christian, but I do believe in a lot of Christ's teachings, although not, in many cases, as Christianity traditionally presents them.

[Besimudo]

"abortion, against birth control, against gay marriage, for censorship, et cetera."

Religion is the source of ethics and morals... so it must be the force against such pressure groups. Today, we already accept homosexuality and abortion... But as Guy Eaton writes ... These practices were taboo only fifty years ago, if the same level of moral degradation follows in society; eventually paedophilia will be equally accepted as a natural urge.

Can you see the trend that I am illustrating - first we become flacid on certain issues next thing you know we will be as decadent as the Romans.


"but the way most Christian women are raised is to be ashamed of their own sexuality, as if enjoying it were sinful."

This is a very Puritan interpretation. In the Catholic, both men and women are taught to be responible and take the sacrament of marriage (as it protects both parties both spiritually and economically) from harming themselves. The familiar lament of the "regretted sex" can be avioded simply by being chaste, untill you commit to someone you are willing to remain with for your life.


"I'd agree with you, but there are certain cases when I don't think a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy at all, such as if she were a victim of rape or if the pregnancy were life-threatening to her or something."

Quite a disturbing topic... But termination will not make the pain go away, in one way of looking at it; abortion could be compared with running away from your fears. Besides the cruel origins - a child is an innocent gift, who as a person had nothing to do with the rape or no say as to their fate... that is life or death.
The ancient people celebrated women as martyrs who died in child birth. This was seen as the ultimate sacrifice - so another may be born. I guess you need to be very spiritual to find meaning out of this though.

"Johnny Cash's cover, actually. I'm not really what would qualify as a Christian, but I do believe in a lot of Christ's teachings, although not, in many cases, as Christianity traditionally presents them."

Indeed. You are not Robinson Crusoe - As I am not a model Christian either.

Anyhow, Cheers.

[Imperia]

"I'd agree with you, but there are certain cases when I don't think a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy at all, such as if she were a victim of rape or if the pregnancy were life-threatening to her or something."

Quite a disturbing topic... But termination will not make the pain go away, in one way of looking at it; abortion could be compared with running away from your fears. Besides the cruel origins - a child is an innocent gift, who as a person had nothing to do with the rape or no say as to their fate... that is life or death.
The ancient people celebrated women as martyrs who died in child birth. This was seen as the ultimate sacrifice - so another may be born. I guess you need to be very spiritual to find meaning out of this though.

I agree with you. I think babies should be treated with respect- born or unborn.

[The Man]

"abortion, against birth control, against gay marriage, for censorship, et cetera."

Religion is the source of ethics and morals... so it must be the force against such pressure groups. Today, we already accept homosexuality and abortion... But as Guy Eaton writes ... These practices were taboo only fifty years ago, if the same level of moral degradation follows in society; eventually paedophilia will be equally accepted as a natural urge.

Can you see the trend that I am illustrating - first we become flacid on certain issues next thing you know we will be as decadent as the Romans.

How is gay marriage an ethical issue at all? It's simply a matter of some people wanting to impose their own values on other people. It's certainly not harming people. Pedophilia will never be socially accepted because it harms the children involved, who aren't old enough to do what they're doing. Both partners in a homosexual relationship have consensually agreed to be it, in most cases, and they're typically of an age where they're legally responsible for their own actions. If they aren't okay with being in their relationship, it's really their own fault for still being in it.

Abortion is obviously a touchier issue, which I'll delve into more deeply shortly. I don't approve of it in most circumstances, but I don't think making it illegal is at all practical. I think the system under which it is allowed should quite possibly be reformed, as it's subject to massive abuse (namely, except under extenuating circumstances like rape any woman who has more than one abortion is almost certainly terribly irresponsible). I don't think making it illegal is the solution, however; not that it's likely, given that Roe vs. Wade declared that unconstitutional anyway.

"but the way most Christian women are raised is to be ashamed of their own sexuality, as if enjoying it were sinful."

This is a very Puritan interpretation. In the Catholic, both men and women are taught to be responible and take the sacrament of marriage (as it protects both parties both spiritually and economically) from harming themselves. The familiar lament of the "regretted sex" can be avioded simply by being chaste, untill you commit to someone you are willing to remain with for your life.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Historically the Catholic Church has been very misogynist indeed; Peter, generally regarded as the father of the church, is quoted in one of the Gnostic Gospels as saying "[women] are not worthy of life." Along similar lines, midwives were hunted during the Inquisition because they knew secrets to easing the pain of childbirth, which the leaders of the church at the time regarded as due punishment for original sin. The idea was that if women had to fear the potential of a painful process of giving birth, they wouldn't enjoy sex as much.

The modern Church may have softened its anti-feminine stance, but the fact that all female characters in the New Testament are virtually written out and, when presented at all, presented in a highly unflattering light remains, as do a number of other facts I don't have the time to delve into. Certainly it's better than it was before, however.

"I'd agree with you, but there are certain cases when I don't think a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy at all, such as if she were a victim of rape or if the pregnancy were life-threatening to her or something."

Quite a disturbing topic... But termination will not make the pain go away, in one way of looking at it; abortion could be compared with running away from your fears. Besides the cruel origins - a child is an innocent gift, who as a person had nothing to do with the rape or no say as to their fate... that is life or death.
The ancient people celebrated women as martyrs who died in child birth. This was seen as the ultimate sacrifice - so another may be born. I guess you need to be very spiritual to find meaning out of this though.

It's a tough issue. I don't believe abortion is a good choice in any case, but it should be a woman's choice to have sex, and since that choice is deprived from her in rape, I don't believe she should be forced to go through with the consequences. I certainly don't see why, if a pregnancy is found to be life-threatening, a woman should be forced to go through with it; odds are that if the pregnancy kills the mother, the baby won't survive, either.

[Besimudo]

"How is gay marriage an ethical issue at all? It's simply a matter of some people wanting to impose their own values on other people. It's certainly not harming people. Pedophilia will never be socially accepted because it harms the children involved, who aren't old enough to do what they're doing. Both partners in a homosexual relationship have consensually agreed to be it, in most cases, and they're typically of an age where they're legally responsible for their own actions. If they aren't okay with being in their relationship, it's really their own fault for still being in it."

The act does not procreate, therefore it is purely for the fulfilment of the animal desires. Paedophilia is also wrong as it is the adulteration of an innocent. Humans need a system that helps them ascend to improve the mind and body. Besides this, the idea of marriage comes from the holy sacrament (and earlier pagan religions) and it was between man and woman.

"Peter, generally regarded as the father of the church, is quoted in one of the Gnostic Gospels as saying "[women] are not worthy of life."

Most women agree that fulfilment is in their children. Peter spoke on the marriage between man and woman... and its importance in the holy scripture (the idea of oneness) You also need to consider what is worthy in the eyes of the lord. Is a life unexamined worthy?

Do not forget that the East did and still does (except Japan and Korea) provide women with the one vocation and that is motherhood. Notice that Japan as a society has suffered due to the feminism - as women are perusing personal gratification rather than motherhood. This loss of direction has caused break down and many women are now considered too old to be brides.

Besides this Eve represents the fall, while Mary represents the saving aspect of femininity. You choose to focus on Eve and ignore Mary - do not forget that men were also deceptive in the bible. As it said it is the en vogue idea that any time a woman does something wrong in the bible it is perceived as a mark on the whole gender - and that is rubbish. Without the Virgin Mary, we could not have received the path to salvation... And without the fall of mankind, the mother of man kind Eve could not have given birth to children to witness Gods universe.