Disbelief

December 30, 2008 — xanthippa

Perhaps it seems counterintuitive to define ‘disbelief’ before defining ‘belief’.  Yet, in this case, approaching things ‘from behind’, can allows a definition of what does not constitute belief.  Since belief is such a complex matter, it may, in fact, be effective to define ‘disbelief’ first so as to better focus on the different concepts we all lump together as ‘belief’.

Disbelief is simply ‘absence of belief’.

If I were to present you with the statement:  ‘my great-grandmother’s eyes were blue’, and if you would have no way of knowing if it is true or not (no facts are supplied along with the statement and there are no means for you to obtain the facts/you do not dig for the facts).  You would now be faced with two choices:

 

1. Believe

Having read some of what I have written, you could conclude that I am a reliable source and that if I say that ‘my great-grandmother’s eyes were blue’, then they truly were.  While this particular belief may not alter your life to any significant degree, you  invest your trust into me  and accept the statement at face value. 

You believe that at least one my great-grandmothers indeed had blue eyes.

 

2. Disbelieve

You may find that even though there is no reason for my statement to be false, without any supporting evidence, there just is not enough there for you to believe the statement. 

The following sub-categories of ‘disbelief’ are in not somehow official, scholarly, or in any way learned from any source.  Please, do not consider these divisions as somehow ‘authoritative’ or based on any specific philosophy (something I chose never to train in – but that is tangential to the issue….) – they are just my way of looking at the principle of ‘disbelief’.  Yet, I hope they will help to clarify the concept of ‘disbelief’, because it seems to me to be terribly misunderstood in current popular culture.

  • Tentative acceptance (conditional acceptance) 

You may decide that the information came from a credible source, so it is likely to be true.  You have no reason to doubt it.  Yet, you reserve committing to belief  in the veracity of the statement: if more information were to come along (like, say, a statement from several people who knew my great-grandmothers, or some other unforseen event which provided contradictory data), you would have no problem changing your mind on the matter.

On an intellectual level, in the absence of further evidence, you tentatively accept the statement as true, but you do not putt any emotional investment into its veracity.  Were you to learn that the statement is false, you might change your opinion of me as a source of information, but it would not greatly trouble you.  Though, for now, you may behave as if the statement were true, the absence of any ’emotional investment’ in its veracity means you disbelieve it.

This is why I contend that Pascal’s wager  does not constitute belief, but tentative acceptance.  Therefore, in my never-humble-opinion, it is a form of disbelief:  it is an acceptance on an intellectual level, but not on an emotional one.  The emotional investment is, in my opinion, necessary to constitute ‘belief’.

The tentative/conditional acceptance is what, in scientific terms, is termed a conclusion.  It is similar to belief, but not quite there.  It asserts that according to the best information currently available, this seems likely – it is the best conclusion from currently available information – yet, this conclusion is open to ammendment as additional information comes to light.  This is as close to belief as science ever gets….and, irritatingly (to me, anyway), many scientists refer to their conclusions as beliefs.  In reality, when a scientist replaces conclusions with beliefs, they cease being a scientist!

  • Possibility/probability assessment

Here, instead of believing the statement, or tentatively (conditionally) accepting the premise pending further data as truth, you may entertain its veracity as a distinct possibility.  Perhaps you might even give it a ‘probability rating’ – whether scientific or subjective.  Whether this probability is 1% or 99%, it is still a probability assessment – not a belief.

Back to scientists:  if a scientist assesses a conclusion to have a  high probability of being true, they may express this.  Again, this is not in any way the same as belief:  it is a probability assessment, without the emotional investment necessary to cross the boundary between possible or probable on the one hand and belief on the other.  Irritatingly, many people (including scientists – most of whom are not really all that up on liguistics and the nuances of expressions, and many of whom are rather deaf to ‘social nuances’ to start off with) erroneously lump this position in with belief when they speak about it – yet they do not, in any way, imply belief in the religious sense..

  • Absence of opinion

You may read the statement, file away in your mind that I had made it, but make no conclusion about its veracity.  You simply do not care enough to believe it.  It’s there, you can recall that this statement had been made, but that is really the end of it for you. 

  • Belief in the opposite

OK, I admit it:  I am uncomfortable including belief in the opposite into the category of disbelief.  Why?  Because unlike the other positions, listed above, it involves holding a belief.  Not a belief in the statement itself, but rather, a belief in the opposite of the statement in question.  What would be the opposite?  Here, you might believe that my great-grandmother’s eyes were green or brown, so long as you believe they were not blue.

This is disbelief=withholding belief with respect to the statement in question, even if it is not general disbelief. 

  • Belief in unknowability

Again, I am not happy to include this positive belief in the category of disbelief, but, it must be included because it constitutes disbelief with respect to this statement.  The positive belief held here is that there is no way of finding out whether or not the statement is true:  that the veracity of the statement is unknowable.

 

This is not a perfect division – and I am aware that not everybody will agree with the lines I have drawn up to distinguish belief from disbelief.  Yet, I have attempted to apply logic consistently throughout.  I would welcome any and all comments which would help enrich this discussion.

 Aside:

If you are interested in a great documentary on the topic of disbelief, I would recommend ‘Jonathan Miller’s Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief’.  While I am not sure if I agree with everything he says (I’ve only been pondering it for a little over a year – and I am a slow thinker), it is interesting and thought provoking.  It is available for sale, or order over the internet in various places.

Alternately, the 3-hour series can be found many places on the web…  YouTube has many channels which feature it.  One of them has broken it up as follows:

Part 1.1,   part 1.2,  part 1.3,  part 1.4,  part 1.5,  part 1.6

Part 2.1,  part 2.2,  part 2.3,  part 2.4,  part 2.5,  part 2.6, part 2.7

Part 3.1,  part 3.2,  part 3.3,  part 3.4,  part 3.5,  part 3.6

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, freedoms, human nature, ignosticism, language, philosophy, politics, religion, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Scaling up communities – Part 3

December 9, 2008 — xanthippa

We, humans build communities.   As our societies grew, since the dawns of history, so did the size of our communities – and we reaped a lot of benefits from this.  Yet, the ‘scaling up’ process -while raising our standard of living – has some costs associated with it, too…

Part 1  of this series looked at the significance of Dunbar’s number (about 150):  the number of people who comfortably fit into our Monkeysphere (that is, the people we relate to as individuals, rather than statistics).  This is about the maximum size of our community, before we start ‘scaling up’ by perceiving ‘others’ as concepts, rather than individuals….the reason why the suffering of our parent or child ‘touches’ us more than that of a stranger.  

In Part 2 , I tried to demonstrate how scaling our communities up meant heaving to sacrifice some of our individuality (having to interact with more people than can fit into our Monkeyshpere – and whose Monkeyspheres we cannot fit into) but that the benefits of this,  specialization and greater productivity, benefits us by allowing us to reach a higher standard of living.  The side-effect of this scaling up of communities is the emergence of governance structures.  

Here, I would like to look at one of the many implications of scaling governance structures up – and the emrgence of a specific group of people to administer them:  the ‘civil servants’.

I cannot remember which king is said to have uttered:  ‘I AM the State!’ – perhaps there were many.  Yet, most ‘states’ (and here, I use the word state to mean a political association with sovereignity over a defined geographic area) today are not ‘a person’. ‘State’ is a concept which only exists when real flesh-and-blood people act as its agents. 

In other words, a ‘state’ cannot ‘do’ anything ‘physical’, because it is not a corporeal being in and of itself.  A ‘state’ cannot pick up a stapeler, or a gun – or write a constitution.  It is individual people, the agents of the state, who act on behalf of the state:  they carry out the actions necessary to establish the state’s existence and perform the physical actions needed to fulfill the obligations of the state in the social contract between it and the the polulace which created it.

As we have already seen in the earlier parts, as we, humans, get more successful at ‘community building’, our communities get bigger and we can no longer decide each ‘common position’ in the same way we used to:  we no longer know every other member of our society personally, so the methods of the ‘smaller scale community’ are no longer applicable. 

By ‘scaling up’ our communities, through our social contract, we have chosen to give away some of our individual decision-making choices and agreed, in certain areas of our life, to abide by the decisions that ‘the group’ has arrived at.  The group may choose to accept the decisions of its leader, or each citizen may be able to vote on every desision, with the majority opinion becoming binding on the group – or any number of other methods…but that is not the point of this post.

The point I am making is that once this ‘group decision’ is achieved on a specific topic, it becomes the ‘law’ (OK, I am simplifying the process – but not the principle) or ‘policy’ of the ‘state’.  This ‘group decision’ is implemented/enacted/put into practice/fulfilled through the governance structures of the state – with ‘the civil servants’ acting as ‘the agents of state’ who carry out the actions necessary to enact (enforce, fulfill, etc.) it.

In democratic systems – and I am specifically referring to our ‘Western Democracies’ – it is not likely that every citizen will agree fully with every ‘law’ or ‘policy’ of the state.  And, in our Western systems, that is a good thing, because it is through open debate that we grow.  (OK, so this bit is more theoretical, lately, than most of us would like, but in principle…)

And this is where we run into a real problem, a bit where the ‘scaling up’ of our community creates a moral dilema:  what happens when the civil servants – the very agents whose actions are the only means for the state to act in order to fulfill its social contrats with its citizens – what happens when these agents of the states personally disagree with what they are obligated to implement?

While they are ‘off the clock’ as private citizens, they have every right to be the individuals they truly are.  Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state – what should govern their behaviour?  Their inividual views and opinions, or the policies/laws the society has agreed to accept? 

Difficult question, to say the least.

IF they should follow the ‘social contract’ mindlessly, they risk becoming the very agents of injustice, of ‘tyranny of the majority’ – and atrocities like the Holocaust could NOT have happened without ‘agents of the state’ refusing to enact immoral policies, blindly putting into practice the unthinkable.  Never again!

On the other hand – what happens if the majority of the citizens approve a just law, yet one which is not favourable to the civil servants?  What if it is designed to protect a minority – but not a minority that (for some unknown reason) the majority of civil servants do not respect?  Or, what if it is meant to curb the intrusion of civil servants into citizens’ lives?  It is not unprecedented that most of the agents of the state would be morally opposed – or, at least, personally unwilling – to bring these policies/laws into practice…

So, where does the balance lie? 

At which point should the civil servants set aside their individuality – and their morality – in order to perform the will of the group?

Difficult question, to say the least.

Without the civil servant’s denial of their individual morality, while acting as agents of the state, the state cannot effect its will – and so it will effectively cease to exist.  Yet, without applying their ‘morality’ to their actions, the civil servants may be empowering immoral laws or policies.

Where does the balance lie?

In my never-humble-opinion, the civil servants are the ‘last check’ on the state:  they cannot but evaluate their own actions based on their personal morality.  Yet, while they are acting as agents of the state, they may not act upon this personal morality.  It is up to them to weigh the balance between continuing to act as agents of the state – or not.  If they choose to no longer act as agents of the state, they must abdicate their role of ‘agent of the state’….

In other words, if enough civil servants resign over moral objections by refusing to enact the will of the state, the state will cease to exist.  This must be a heavy weight on the conscience of each and every civil servant!

Return to ‘The Big Picture’

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

REAL cultural tolerance!!!

December 8, 2008 — xanthippa

A few days ago, I had an experience that proved to me something I think most of us already know:  the ‘official bureaucrats’, ‘brave and steadfast guardians of multiculturalism’ (in the name of which they are ready to oppress us) really have no clue what ‘being multicultural’ is all about!!!

Having arrived a little early for my son’s ‘parent-teacher interview’, I walked around a little, admiring the pictures and poems posted in the school hallways.  Unusually, in front of the library door, there were a couple of chairs and a desk.  In these chairs sat two girls, I’m guessing about 12 years old.   They were supervised by one of their Mom’s (sitting off to the side) – their smiles betrayed the heritage.  Both mother and daughter wore a hijab – so I am making a presumption that they were Muslim.  The other student, the daughter’s friend, did not wear a hijab. 

Yet, the two of girls were obviously good friends – and they made an awesome team.  These two girls decided that it was important to help kids less fortunate then they – and they figured out a way they could make a real difference in the world!

In order to raise money for a charity helping kids in Africa, they focused their creative efforts.  Taking up card-stock, delicately ornate origami paper, glue and calligraphy markers, they made a whole slew of Christmas cards to sell to parents coming to the parent-teacher interviews!

When I asked, they told me they came up with the idea together.  Their eyes shone with pride of ‘doing right’!  And, they were justly proud – their cards were beautiful!  At a $1.00 a piece, I saw every parent passing them (including myself) dump all the change from their wallets and walk away with a stack of Christmas cards.

The Mom was the ’empowering parent’:  not only did she agree to supervise the ‘sales’, she was the one to buy the supplies, too.  The Mom was happy when other parents stopped and asked questions, and she looked downright ‘parentally proud’ when someone complimented the two girls or their Christmas cards – or their greater goal! 

And the girls deserved every compliment they got!  Many young people have awesome ideals, but these two girls had actually figured out a way they themselves could have an impact in making this world a better place for others.  My deep respect goes to them!

Now, I would like to repeat the reality of this:  I (an ignostic) have just bought a whole pile of the most beautiful Christmas cards ever from 2 very young people, one of whom wore the hijab (and, thus, was presumably not a Christian).  And the adult supervisor/enabler was (in my best guess) a Muslima.  I have no clues as to the cultural or religious thoughts of the third person.  Not one of us found anything in the least offensive in making, selling and buying cards wishing everyone to have a ‘Merry Christmas’!

To me, that is a perfect example of the way that people – without government imposed ‘official multiculturalism’ and the bureaucrats who force us into cultural apartheid – will do that most human thing ever:  build communities! And it proves we can do it without regard as to our background culture, religion, or any other superficial means of labeling us, classifying us and dividing us! 

That whole ‘divide and conquer’ will only work if we allow ourselves to be divided!  And if we allow ourselves to be divided, we will be conquered and our rights and freedoms will be taken away!

We must not be hiding our cultural icons from each other, for fear giving offence!  If we hide them, we cannot share them – nor can we rejoice in them!  We can learn from each other by sharing in each other’s festivals, ideas and thoughts.  That is the most human thing ever – and we must not allow those who wish to rule us by dividing us into ‘cultural solitudes’ to succeed!

We can understand that anything which celebrates the human spirit and the beauty of caring and sharing can help us build our community and grow as human beings.  And, at times, our young people can even teach us how sharing in each other’s celebrations can help people whom we do not even know!

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is REAL cultural tolerance! 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, ignosticism, immigrants, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

There is more than one way to stop ‘free speech’

September 29, 2008 — xanthippa

Many of us who are 100% ‘free speechers’ wave our hands dismissively and tune out when somebody raises the issue of ‘fair use rights’ on copyrighted materials.  This is a mistake. 

Just as ‘free speechers’ are not just a bunch of racists and rednecks, no matter how loudly their opponents laber them as such, ‘fair use rights’ advocates are not just a bunch of ‘pirates’ and ‘thieves’.  If they were, they would simply steal the content – and certainly not bother to stand up and fight for their rights.

What we need to recognize that these issues are connected:  both revolve around finding the ‘right’  balance of rights versus limitations.  Once we recognize the similarities between these two seemingly separate issues, we can better understand how to arrive at a balance we can all be satisfied with – at least a little bit.

Just like we are willing to put limits onto ‘free speech’ – the proverbial ‘yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre’, and similar limits – it is also justifiable to place limits on the use of ‘music’, ‘movies’, books’ and other intellectual content meant for consumers.  In the first case, ‘public safety’ is threatened.  In the second case, the rights of the creators of this ‘IP content’ need to protect their investment and their ability to reap a fair compensation for having created it.

This does make sense.  The trick is, and always has been, in finding acceptable balance of rights. 

The problem arises when the laws are written so as to only protect one side’s rights, at the expense of the other.  It is no less oppressive than having unreasonable limits placed on one’s freedom of speech, in order to protect some from ‘hurt feelings’. 

But there is another connection, a very fundamental one, between these two issues:  both seek to restrict communication.  Limiting freedom of speech imposes limitations on an individual as to what they are, or are not, free to communicate.  So called ‘fair use’ laws seek to control the means of communication….

Recently, I watched a program that drove home the difference.  It is one-hour long (and part 2 of a 2-part series), but it is well worth watching.  Here, in brief, is the background…

In Sweden, there used to be different ‘fair use’ laws than in North America.  Under Swedish laws, it was legal to set up a company called ‘Pirate Bay’ – even though this was, at that time, illegal under US laws.  The ‘Hollywood industry’ used its influence to pressure the White House, which, in turn, pressured the Swedish government, into police raids and materiel confiscation against ‘Pirate Bay’, even though their own attorneys advised the government that the operation was perfectly legal…..  Part 1 of the show, ‘Steal This Film’ deals with this.  I found the segments of it on YouTube here, here, here, and here.

Part 2 discusses the very interesting issue of how these ‘fair use’ laws are (and are not) balanced – and why.  And yes, how this directly impacts ‘freedom of speech’.  Very interesting, the whole lot of it.  The links for the YouTube version are here, here, here, here, here and here.

While Part 2, section 2 has a comprehensive history of ‘copyright’ and its implications from book printing on (and thus VERY much worth watching), it is Part 2, section 4 that sums up – in my mind – the essence of this debate.  It is not just about IP – it is about the control of the means of delivering ‘culture’ to us all…  And whoever controls the means of delivery also controls which voices will be heard.

I suppose one could see the ‘fair use’ battle as the corrollary to the ‘free speech’ battle.  While one is a battle to allow one to speak freely, the other one is the battle to allow one to be heard freely.  After all, if one is allowed ‘free speech’ – but only in isolation, where what one says is not actually heard by any other human being – it is a hollow victory…

It’s something to think about.

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

If a tree falls in the forest….

August 27, 2008 — xanthippa

Having spent time in such serene surroundings like this:

Canada has magnificent trees. This one looks like it's in the thralls of a wild, primal dance!

Canada has magnificent trees.

…is it not surprising that my mind had taken a break from the ‘everyday’ and slipped into a bit of philosophising?

If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, would it make a sound?

In the past, when discussing this with my kids and husband, we have invariably fallen into the pitfalls like, for example, trying to define what does ‘sound’ mean:  is it simply the movement of air molecules in a particular way, or does it have to be ‘perceived’ by human ears?  (If it is recorded, then the sound we hear is made by the recorder, not the tree…and endless possibilities along these chains of thoughts.)

This year, I began so see it from a different perspective…

Richard Feynman is perhaps my favourite genius of the 20th century – and I am convinced he is an ‘Aspie’ to boot! ( Just reading his most awesome book, ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!’, is an excellent lesson in how an ‘Aspie’ mind organizes thoughts and commits them onto paper – plus it is fun and curiously comforting to read).  In his Lectures (available as podcasts, and ideal for relaxing with while ‘away from it all’), specifically, in the ‘Quantum Mechanics’ lecture, he also visits this question about the proverbial tree falling in the forest… 

Dr. Feynman gives some very specific qualifications regarding this issue:  he would not be a physicist had he not done that.  He states that in the real world, even if there is no observer when the tree falls, there are still unmistakable physical signgs that it had, indeed, made a sound.  These signs, perhaps as minute as little scratches from vibrating leaves/needles as the sound energy is transferred to them, could then be observed after the event itself and the presence of such sound would be conclusively demonstrated.  Thus, he concludes that ‘in a real world, of course, a tree falling in a forest makes a sound‘.

He is, of course, absolutely correct – given the qualifications he does.  

Yet, listening to him made me think that perhaps his ‘after the fact observer’ – as our familial discussions from the past – were really missing the whole point of the question!

Whether during the act of the tree falling, or afterwards; directly or through recording devices of some sort (even leaves and needles) – this introduces an observer.   And the fact remains that if an observer is present, and the original condition (or, rather, its intent) is breeched.

Yes, I’ll gladly concede that in the real world, it might be impossible to have a ‘no observer’ scenario – but that is not the point.  The question asks us about a hypothetical situation, where no observation (during or after the event) occurred (even had it been possible). 

Let us imagine an observer who makes a direct observation that 999 trees, as they fell, indeed did make a sound.  Then the observer leaves, and our proverbial tree falls.  No observation as to the sound of any kind had been made during the event.  The scene has since been altered so much that no additional evidence can be gathered.  How can we answer the question now?  Did our proverbial tree make a sound, or not?

And this, in my never-humble-opinion, is the crux, the core, of this principle:  one can only say that one does not know.

It would be reasonable to predict that it is highly likely that the tree had made a sound, based on previous observations.  But one would not know !

This is the difference between direct observation and a guess.  Perhaps it might be an ‘educated guess’ (based on the previous 999 observations) , but it is still only a guess.  And that is the whole point:  to get us to stop and think, to learn to recognize that difference between what we know and what we are making educated guesses about (or a semi-educated guess about).

One of my sons thought this simply reduced the question to the ‘Schrodinger’s Cat’ scenario, but I think there is a difference.  This is not about probability curves and their collapses, this is about learning to recognize the blinders we all wear which let us treat guesses (whether ors or those of others) as equally valid to observed facts. 

And it is about time that some of these blinders statred coming off! 

After all, guesses, even educated ones, are not facts – and we must not fall into the easy trap of treating them as such.  Especially in cases where the guess is not based on 999 direct observations of this very event…or not on even one such event having ever happened!

Which leads me to the next question:  If the global temperatures change by 0.6 of a degree, and no well-financed lobby group is there to use it as a pretext to organize a scare-mongering, funds-transfering campaign, would anyone notice?

Perspective - we all need it!

Perspective - we all need it!

Posted in Aspergers, illusions, perceptions, philosophy, politics, science. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Question about ‘Hippies’

August 1, 2008 — xanthippa

All right, we all know what the Hippies stood for:  peace and love and removing socially repressive barriers imposed by mainstream culture.  Sort of  modern-day Dionysians, except with LDS and marijuana instead of wine…

They self-describe as being peaceful, accepting, laid-back…  When one hears the word, we think of open-air music festivals, free love, the ‘peace’ movement, bad hair and ‘punch-Buggies’ painted in psychadelic colours and other similar cultural icons of the 60’s era.

Here is my question:

What can we conclude about the Hippie counterculture from the fact that they self-branded with the only car whose distinctive ‘look’ was designed by Adolf Hitler?

Posted in art, freedoms, human nature, illusions, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

‘First they silenced…’

May 16, 2008 — xanthippa

 The old saying says:

Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

Perhaps we should re-phrase it to:

Those who do not learn the right lesson from history are destined to repeat it. 

After all, learning the wrong lesson could be worse than learning no lesson at all!

This all goes back to my rant on how often people do not recognize the difference between ‘symptom’ on the one hand, and a ’cause’ on the other.  Are they really so difficult to tell apart?

Many years ago, I went through a period when I was reading a lot of eyewitness books about WWII and the political atmosphere in Europe following the war.  I came across something intersting that Barbara Amiel had written:   she spent her childhood in ‘wartime London’.  Following the war, there was a determination among her relatives that nothing like this must ever be allowed to happen again.  And because Hitler was perceived as being ‘right wing’, Ms. Amiel asserts, ‘everyone’ became suspicious of – and opposed to – everything that was deemed to be ‘right wing’.

In other words, the lesson this group of people learned was:

  1. Hitler = right wing
  2. Hitler = evil
  3. ergo, right wing = evil

This is almost as sophisticated reasoning as that used for forcing women to wear a hijab, so they would not tempt men to rape them – as uncovered meat tempts cats to eat it. In other words, that is not the correct lesson.  Yet, many very intelligent people still fall into this trap in one form or another.

Yet, lots of people do learn the right lesson.  This one may be exemplified by the ‘First they came for…’ poem, attributed to Martin Niemoller:

“First they came for the Communists, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Yet, even now, people are misunderstanding the poem!  So, please, in my never-humble way, let me pay homage to the right lesson here and write today’s version, as it could be.

“First they silenced the crackpot and nutcases, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a crackpot or a nutcase.

Then they silenced the bloggers, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a blogger.

Then they silenced the journalists, newspapers, magazines and books, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a journalist and didn’t write newspapers, magazines or books.

Then they silenced the Christians, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t religious.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left who was allowed to speak.”

If we fail to learn this lesson, this will be in store for us!  This is NOT HISTORY!  This is now, here, in OUR WORLD! 

This is what happens when people think a political party, or a particular political bend is the problem and fail to recognize that political oppression and governments who do not follow due process of law to achieve their ends that is the problem!!!  And if you are an adult, and not afraid to see a graphic example of the result of a state not bound by its laws is, here are some pictures that were too gruesome to print in a newspaper. 

But I warn you – do not look if you are sqeemish.  It took me a while to realize what part of the human body I was really looking at…

As it is taking so many of us to realize what type of oppression it is that we are facing!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Common law vs. civil law

May 15, 2008 — xanthippa

Humans form communities – that is one of our defining (and best) characteristics.  In order to coexist peacefully, we must agree on a set of rules to govern our interactions. Yet, different communities don’t always go about it the same way.

Some adopt ‘common law’, which takes the approach that all behaviours are permitted, except for those deemed to be harmful, which are then specificly forbidden under the law.  This suggests an underlying philosophy that each person is a free, independent individual.  People ought to be free to act according to their will, and only those behaviours that infringe upon the rights of other individuals within the community to enjoy thier freedoms are forbidden. The goal of laws is to ensure all individual members of the society are able to exercise their freedoms as much as possible.

Communities which develop one of the forms of ‘Civil law’ have a different point of view.  They specifically list the behaviours which are acceptable to the society and permits them, all others are forbidden.  This suggests a philosophy that it is ‘the society’ which is the ‘basic unit of worth’, not the ‘individual’.  As such, it is the goal for the laws to protect the society.

This is a really big philosophical difference. 

It seems to me that common law promotes individualism, while civil law seems more focused on collectivism.

Of course, this is a major simplification.  Also, there are several forms of civil law. This is not intended to be an exhaustive description…  Rather, it is meant to explore the differences in the philosophical undercurrents between societies which choose to govern themselves under civil or common law.  It is not meant to look at the specifics as they are, but at the patterns of thought that led to the differing attitudes of how we ‘ought to’ govern ourselves.

Common law (in its idealized state) sees the individual as the empowered one, the one with inherrent rights who chooses to lend some freedoms to the state in order to create a society.  The law is loath to interfere with these rights and freedoms of each one of its citizens and will only curb them with great reluctance.  It could be summed up by the sentiment: 

‘Upholding the rights of the one ensures the rights of the many.’

Civil law sees the society as the one with all the power.  ‘These are (or ‘ought to be’)  the customs of our society, thus codified here into law.  Do not stray outside of these behaviours, or you will have to answer to the state.’  And while many countries that practice civil law have accepted that an accused individual has the right to a fair trial, including a presumption of innocence, not all of them do.  It could be summed up by the sentiment:

‘Every one must adhere to these rules, because they are in the best interest of the society.’

Many modern countries do incorporate some aspects of both philosophies.  Rather than opposite sides of a coin, I see these as different ends of a continuous philosophical spectrum.  Most countries fall somewhere within this spectrum, and may move along it in one direction or another with time.

Yet, regardless where along this spectrum a particular state’s legal system lies at any specific time, these underlying philosophies will influence its attitude towards its citizens.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Stop global warming now, or…

April 15, 2008 — xanthippa

‘Global Warming’ is a problem.  As is ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’.  And the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.  Yet, new hope is dawning on the horizon – and it may soon help all of us responsible people to solve these serious, man-made problems.  I just glimpsed it, and thought it so important I am breaking into the ‘Aspergers’ chain of posts in order to let you about it!

No, there has not been a new breakthrough in science, nor have we actually done much of the stuff the so-called ‘watermelons’ have been shrieking at us to do.  Not even a bit.  Yet, today, I glimpsed a new weapon!  A powerful weapon which has the power to make all these problems managable – if only we will have the perseverence to consistently apply it!

What is this wonderous weapon?  How can we wield it?  It is nothing less than humour!

The words “Stop global warming now“a ppeared on the TV screen, then faded.  Now the word “or” came and went, with a circle materializing about it.  “Or all the …(name of a chocolate confection)… will melt!” as the circle resolved itself into a magnificent, mouthwatering peanut-butter cup!  And just to drive the point home, it shimmered, as if ready to melt. Yuuuuum!

How shall this solve the problem of ‘Global Warming’, ‘ACC’ and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’?  The best way possible.

As I identified them earlier, these are all man-made problems.  Not natural ones, not environmental ones, even though they are global in their impact.  These things are a successful cross between a marketing campaign, a socialist income re-distribution scheme and a full blown cult.  And the only science contained within them has been taken out of context, twisted and perverted!

This manipulative watermelon chiamera has bullied scientists, hijacked political debates and intimidated journalists for years now.  But they have a real problem:  it is becoming more and more difficult to dismiss the 10 years of temperatures that show no increase, to hush up the indictments of fraud inside the very studies their holy scripture, the IPCC report, is anchored in, and to silence the ever growing number of reputable (non-oil connected) scientists, analysts and thinkers who are pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. 

Since the watermelons’ credibility has been slipping more and more, their  hysteria has risen to a new high.  If the pun were not so horrible, I might even have said the pitch will soon be high enough to shatter the glass from the greenhouse! 

Just as ‘Harry Potter’s’ ‘boggart in the cupboard’ could only be exorcised by the incantation ‘Riddiculus!’, so these militant activists can best be stopped by frequent and consciencious application of humour.  Because all the busybodies and ‘bannies‘ who are righteously bullying ‘the human herd’ – whatever stripe or denomination they take – cannot abide being laughed at. 

So, let’s let laughter be our medicine!

Posted in debate, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Fitna

April 7, 2008 — xanthippa

The birthplace of Islam is in Arabia.  In Arabic, this word, Fitna , is said to be difficult to translate – but Wikipedia (not the end-all for learning, but an awesome place to start) explains is as “all-encompassing word referring to schism, secession, upheaval and anarchy at once”.  It also notes that ‘First Fitna‘ and ‘Second Fitna’ are terms used to describe the first and second ‘civil wars’ within Islam itself.

Even though many people are not aware of this, the most populous Muslim country is Indonesia.  In Indonesian, the term ‘Fitnah’ means ‘defamation, slander, libel’…

Is it not fitting, then, that Geert Wilders chose this word as the name for his very controversial documentary movie?  It may be his 15 minutes of fame (that is the duration of the movie), but it has certainly created a bit of an uproar.

Even prior to the movie’s release, individual Dutch people made little videos, to put onto YouTube, apologizing to the Muslim ummah (world family) and begging them to please not kill them because of it.  Really.  But, it would not be long and others would post ‘apologies‘ that are somewhat more imbued with deeper meanings…

But that is not all – Network Solutions, the company which was going to host the movie, even before the movie came out, pulled the site.  Sorry, decied to ‘investigate it’!  And all before the movie even came out!  And when the movie finally DID come out, it was quickly pulled, because of threats of violence against the employees of Liveleak.com, the company that hosted it.

So, WHAT is so horrible about Fitna, the movie?  Don’t let anybody tell you – see it for yourselves:  Part 1, Part 2.

And what is the POINT of it, anyway?

In my never-humble-opinion, the name of the movie says it all.  There is a war of ideas WITHIN Islam.  The Umma is being torn apart by very powerful forces.  And this movie, it is meant to be an exposition for the moderate Muslims, who wish to live in harmony with the rest of us, a wake up call to them:  these violent people, who themselves believe they are following the teachings of the Qur’an, they are the ones who bear false witness to your faith!!!  And you are the only ones who can set it right.

It is not, nor do I think it was ever meant to be, an indictment of all Muslims.  Not even a little bit.  Yet, it is meant to show how some Muslims are abusing their holy book, taking verses out of context (which they do in order to justify the violence), and how they are perverting their religion.  It is no coincidence that so many violent riots happened on Friday afternoons, after some men pretending to be religious men, and acting as Imams, used their perverted version of Islam to inflame hatred in their worshippers.

That is why, at the end of the movie, the filmmaker asks all ‘real’ Muslims to please reclaim their good and peaceful religion from these violent people who consider themselves to also be Muslims! 

Christians have had the same problem, and, to a great degree, they HAVE taken their religion away from the violent people who used it to make war and oppress people.  The filmmaker made this movie to show proper Muslims what is being done in the name of THEIR religion, and to ask THEM to do them same with Islam.

Or, do you think I am really off the mark?

Posted in education, freedoms, human nature, immigrants, language, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »