My idea of freedom is quite different and way, way off topic here. Might be worth a thread of its own to see whether people's idea of freedom as varied as their idea of meaning. — Vera Mont

:up:

You can fly off and contaminate other solar systems — Vera Mont

That's a horrible view you have of what humans do. That comment/opinion reminded me of the character Agent Smith, from the matrix:

Yes. The difference is that, though I still have the same ideals, my illusions have been blown to ratshit. I preserved their remains in fiction, like Cinderella in the glass coffin. Who knows - maybe someday a prince will come and resurrect them. — Vera Mont

I hope you wont take this the wrong way Vera, but I do feel sad, perhaps even pity, for the burden you carry, as a socialist who has been so jaded and disappointed by those you sought to help and that which you sought to change. Feel free to tell me where to shove my sadness/pity.

I think we agree regarding @niki wonoto and I wonder why he/she/they, have not so far, posted at least a brief rebuttal to the concern/claim I and @Mikie have posted. That in itself is rather bizarre. But still, @hypericin could still be correct. Chronic depression can cause many bizarre behaviours.

We all struggle with personal meaning and purpose. Personal pathology and the experiences and level and style of nurture we have experienced as children, can affect each of us at such a deep, fundamental and very personal level. There is also the power that is 'addiction' and 'habit,' which can be extremely difficult to completely conquer, and few of us ever do, once such takes a strong hold.

Personally, (and I have used this a few times now on TPF) the idea of choosing to live life as a blessing or a curse, is a very real choice. The most important consideration I have, for creating my own meaning and purpose in this life, exists around those words I have emboldened above.

I learned, that I can choose, to allow a feeling of despair, to persist inside me from the moment it starts, for as long as it festers. The more I leave such unchecked and unchallenged, the more it grows and roots in my psyche. I realised, that if I choose to be apathetic and wallow in my own self-pity or I choose to fight and defeat my attack of despair, that the same time period, passes, regardless of which choice I make, for any particular duration of time. This became a vital understanding for me. So, I choose to fight, fight and f****** fight some more, against any and all inner risings of personal despair, and any feelings of lack of reason and purpose or lack of meaning to my own personal life.
I now rarely experience such inner attacks. Sometimes all the bad news can bring one on, or the despair expressed by others, especially loved ones. But my inner question of 'well what's your choice here pal? Do you wanna keep living these precious moments of your life as a curse or a blessing? This is not a f****** computer game, you don't get to reset the gameplay to an earlier point, you don't get these moments back, EVER! So, I choose again, not to live my life as a curse and I re-establish and refresh all my personal meanings, causes and purposes that help me maintain, progress and enjoy my life. I simply will not be any other way, as I have lived, in the main, a happy life because of such.

@Vera Mont
@Tom Storm
@Athena

On what what do you base your opinion of my notion of freedom when it was never mentioned - except by Athena in a misunderstanding. I was referring to the American myth: land of the free, home of the brave. — Vera Mont

A fair criticism. I perhaps did make some assumptions about your notions of 'true freedom,' by projection rather than by clear statement from you. You seem to me to be quite dismissive of the notion of the global unity of our species, due to our individual notions of personal freedom, but I accept that might just have been my misinterpretation. Am I wrong in my assumption that you think competition between humans will ultimately defeat the benefits of co-operation, even though your personal political stance is socialist?

To what? Not a discussion of American history and education.
Why do you keep going off into space? — Vera Mont

I think, because that's were I think our future lies and we can't allow our bloody past to continually delay that purpose. I hate that notions of territoriality, xenophobia, the money trick, BS religious fear, etc, keeps so many pinned on and to this little Earth.

Of course they did. Same choices, same decision we're still making. "Better" and "worse" are a matter of perspective. Good for one, bad for another; winners and losers. — Vera Mont

No, for me, that's just too rigid and not nuanced enough.

That's true freedom for me! The freedom to seek that which we currently don't know.
— universeness
Commendable. Entirely off topic, but lovely. — Vera Mont

Not imo, if the topic is 'culture is critical,' but I appreciate your encouragement.

I doubt it. Everyone is nostalgic for the recent past (especially if they were on top) and disparaging of the distant past, when people didn't know any better. "So sorry for the massacre at Wounded Knee. Support our troops in Afghanistan." — Vera Mont

Why do you not also type, 'There are many many Americans who were against the American invasion of Afghanistan. Would you say that today, most Americans consider wounded knee an atrocity?

Not with all those missile silos and landmines, deep water oil rigs and container ships, it don't. — Vera Mont

No attempt at balance? by at least mentioning the global movements trying to achieve global ecological protections, nuclear arms reductions, better and stronger welfare systems, better social care systems, improved political cooperation, cooperative space exploration and development, more cooperation between national science universities, improving attempts to feed, house and educate more of the poor, etc. I am not suggesting that we are in anyway doing enough, or easily winning the battle that co-operation and not competition is the only way forwards, but it seems to me that you are rather fixed on the negatives.
Did you not recently post here that many good folks are still fighting the good fight?

And my disdain comes from the vile actions of multitudes in the service of the nefarious few, whom vast crowds worship and obey. — Vera Mont

I then must assume (but again I admit I may be projecting again, as you have not actually stated this) that you think those who don't fit into your category above, are too few and too weak to defeat the group you disdain. Perhaps it is on that point, that we disagree most.

Yeah, probably a good idea. Looking at all the thread titles, I began to wonder, is this person getting some kind of kick out of simply trying to spread notions that life is not worth living? In the hope of pushing some vulnerable readers further into despair? I hope I am wrong but ........

Okay. How about horsepuckies? It's less polite. — Vera Mont

No, I have never heard of that term either, let's settle on horseshit, we will both have heard of that one, even though ( As George Bernard Shaw suggested) we are separated by a common language.

Athena claimed that Americans had true freedom as long as the western wilderness existed. I pointed out that the freedom was limited to few Americans at the expense of many others, both human and non.
Nothing to do with big pictures, space travel, Scottish independence or brain capacity. The white settlers and their government were perfectly aware of the consequences of their actions and considered it within their right to do whatever it took to get what they wanted. It's not that complicated. — Vera Mont

That was the very point I was trying to make to you Vera and to Athena, I don't agree with either of your notions of 'true freedom' on this mote of dust/pale blue dot. It's the 'big picture' that's far more important.
Do you not agree that our species is still in it's infancy? You are suggesting that those in history had the same ability as we have today, to make better decisions than they did. I agree with you that some did but there were far less enlightened and less educated people in the past, than there are now.
The entire knowledge base we have gathered, due to all historical efforts made to memorialise such, so far, is, imo, tiny, compared to what we don't know. That's true freedom for me! The freedom to seek that which we currently don't know.

I wasn't allocating individual guilt. The fact is: the American polity wanted westward expansion, and the Indians were in their way. So the government broke its treaty and sent in the army. The Indians won that round, so there followed a major military campaign to force them into reservations - where they still are, pale blue dot or no. Somebody takes; somebody dies. If that stark reality doesn't fit the grey spectrum or the American mythos of rugged individuals taming a wilderness, too bad. — Vera Mont

Your generalised historical description of those events are accurate and you know I fully agree that they cannot be justified. My question to you then becomes. Do you think many more humans, all around the planet, now utterly condemn those events, than ever have in the past? If you agree, then does that not speak well for the progression of the general enlightenment of our species? I would also say to @Athena, that I think such improvements in general enlightenment, are happening, despite regressive god posit influences or old Greco/Roman fables. My main argument with you Vera , is, as you know, your at times, general disdain of your entire species, because of the vile actions of a nefarious few.

A bizarre TPF member, this Niki Wonoto. Perusing the profile page, 15 threads over the past 4 years and from the random 4 I checked, not one response, just posts a thread opening and that's it. Is there no Sherlock style mod who cares to comment? @Mikie?

An even bigger pile of horsefeathers! — Vera Mont

:grin: Not a term I am familiar with? The only horses I have heard of with feathers are mythical flying ones like Pegasus, but google explained it to me with:
Horsefeathers are not literal feathers that you see on birds. They are long, sometimes very thick hair that grows on a horse’s lower legs, fetlocks (ankles), and pasterns. Some breeds have more feathers than others. The feathers help protect the horse’s leg from water and hazards, such as rocks and prickly bushes.

So, I learned something new, and my brain has the capacity to learn that which for me is new information. Brain capacity has not got much to do with intelligence or wisdom. A relatively empty, high capacity, vessel could be a description of the brain of many humans, past and present.

What's that to do with robbing, killing, dispossessing and enslaving other people, in the name of their own freedom? — Vera Mont

It's got to do with the very large range of monotonic greys between your rather black and white treatment of the area. Do you think evil people are born or created via there own experiences?
I am sure you would agree, it's probably both but many many more are created than born, would be my bet.
Some folks are brutalised from day 1. I may slaughter innocents because my innocents were slaughtered and I was unable to understand that two wrongs don't make a right.
I think many more of us now accept that an eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

You mean most of the pillaging and killing was done under duress? — Vera Mont

No, but do you accept that some of it was?

The ones in control wouldn't be in control without all the willing henchmen, lackeys and mercenaries who expect rewards for their service. — Vera Mont

True, but that is just the main 'gang,' does that make every soldier who has ever fought in a battle, a gangster?

Settlers wanted the land — Vera Mont

Settlers wanted a better life for their family and for themselves. I agree that many of them knew exactly what was happening to the indigenous people and did not care, others were too dumb to know/understand, some excused themselves, by claiming that god chose them to run this land and some arrived way after the indigenous people had been removed, and assumed that the land was waiting for them, unoccupied or that the original owners left, because they wanted to.

Thieves don't all steal for Fagin and drug dealers sell to kids, knowing it's bad for them. — Vera Mont

No, some of them did it to survive, as at that time in their life, they could see no other way. If another way was offered to them, I am sure most would have taken it.

Neither ignorance nor coercion are acceptable excuses: they know what they're doing and why. — Vera Mont

So if I came after that which you loved most in this life and gained full control over it and I threatened to destroy it, if you did not comply with a task I insisted you perform. You would feel able to deal with that? and you feel all people should be able to deal with such situations?

not unlike your excuse for Custer. — Vera Mont

Any excuses I might offer, may come from detailed investigations into the lives of some of Custers soldiers, certainly not Custer.
I try to judge people on a case by case basis, rather than suggest something like all German, Japanese and Italian people, or even all members of the German, Japanese and Italian forces in WW II were evil, Nazi b*******. I am not suggesting you are doing that, but you do seem to be suggesting that every member of the 7th Cavalry who was killed at little big horn, was as bad and as guilty as Custer.

The trinity wasn't invented until 400 years later. — Vera Mont

Some new information can help folks become more enlightened and some sends them deeper into confusion and division with their fellows. Our big brain capacity is merely a potential. Becoming an enlightened human with a progressive moral compass was much harder to achieve in the past than it is now imo.

People were not any dumber than we are. — Vera Mont

But they did know a lot less about 'the big picture,' the planet they lived on and the universe they exist within. They had no notion of 'pale blue dot,' for example or the cosmic calendar scale.

Human brain capacity hasn't changed much since Neanderthal man. — Vera Mont

True, except the Neandertals were a different species to us. Related yes, but not the same species.
You might find this interesting:
Neanderthals had bigger brains than people today.
In any textbook on human evolution, you’ll find that fact, often accompanied by measurements of endocranial volume, the space inside a skull. On average, this value is about 1410 cm3 (~6 cups) for Neanderthals and 1350 cm3 (5.7 cups) for recent humans.
So does that quarter-cup of brain matter, matter? Were Neanderthals smarter than our kind?
While brain size is important, cognitive abilities are influenced by numerous factors including body size, neuron density and how particular brain regions are enlarged and connected. Some of these variables are unknowable for Neanderthals, as we only have their cranial bones and not their brains. But anthropologists have made the most of these hollow skulls, to learn what they can about the Neanderthal mind.

People then, just like the people now, just like the people in ancient times, knew what they were doing. They didn't care, just as they don't care now, what damage results from serving their short-term gains.
Who gives a damn what happens three generations down the line? — Vera Mont

True for the ones in control, not so true for those given the choice to kill/abuse those who their masters instructed them to, or face their own demise and the deliberate demise/starvation of their loved ones.
Depicted in Braveheart. Via the Bob the Bruce characterisation: "Men fight for me because if they don't then I will throw them off their lands and starve their wives and children."

because the ones with the power to bring about that change will exert every erg of that power to prevent it. — Vera Mont

Soooooo true in the case of the nefarious rich! That's why the battle against them is so hard and rate of progress so glacial. But nonetheless undeniable.

Addition: We even had the theists trying to appease their god invention by having the likes of Jesus, speaking to his trinity self with the words 'Forgive them father (of forgive them trinity), for they know not what they do"
The ESV translation of Luke 23:34 says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” How's that for a get out of jail free card?

If it's incorrect to consider your acceptable universe an example of naturalist monism, then please explain why — ucarr

I'm talking about the problematic implications of your speculative claims with respect to known physics and you're talking about what metaphysics you surmise is implied by my objections to your supernaturalistic (i.e. substance dualist) metaphysics. — 180 Proof

I often misinterpret @180 Proof, as I don't have his in-depth knowledge of academic philosophy but I don't think he is concerned with or particularly disagrees with your definition of 'natural monism,' based on a description of monism, such as:
A theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.

I think his point here is that you have no compelling argument or evidence to counter the scientific proposal that the universe is a closed system. If the universe was not a closed system, then some mechanism by which energy/information escapes the universe permanently, or brand new energy/information enters, would have been discovered by now, as it must happen everywhere? The first law of thermodynamics would then be proved false. It's not happening in quantum fluctuations and pair production and it's not happening in black holes. What mechanism are you suggesting, demonstrates it? The supernatural? If so, that's just not good enough! For many many reasons, including the fact that the supernatural or super-nature or god, are unfalsifiable proposals.

Thanks for having a look at it.
You should watch the vid about Ravish Kumar that @Existential Hope posted. I think you will find it a very familiar story and perhaps you might reconsider:

So, I don't have a stake -- zero investment -- in what India or Bharat calls itself. — BC

Hope filled lyrics! The woman in the video, played her role well. A dark, stormy, tear filled night, but tomorrow is another day. I have watched some testimony of Jewish survivors of the holocaust and as intensely grim as their words about what they went through were, they nonetheless spoke positively about a future. Some used the words 'This to shall pass,' as words that had a lot of meaning and hope for them.

I think the fact that these national horror stories are happening in so many countries right now, suggests, that our species is approaching another major nexus of change. The run up to WW II saw a great deal of global horror regimes form as well, but there are different rules now. Even crazies like Putin, Modi, Trump et al, know that in m.a.d, they perish as well. I think what is happening globally may well be the darkest before a new and better dawn, but it may take a while yet, and we may have a lot of horror to deal with first.
I am just watching the news in the background at the moment, about the unrest in Iran, due to the anniversary of the murder of Mahsa Amini. One female protester recording on her phone, "We will not go back, we are not afraid of them any more, we will not go back!" The documentary you highlighted, shows yet another attempt to rule and direct a population through fear. I again am reminded of Gandhi's words:


Addition: I think quotes from your link such as:
While attacking the Congress, Pragya Singh Thakur, BJP MP from Bhopal, hailed Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, as a "patriot".
Will be the kind of rock a group like the BJP and characters like Mr Thakur, will perish on.
Such dimwitted attacks, eventually backfire on the attackers, imo.

Thank you for sharing that informative video. If you find some free time, I would once again suggest that you watch that documentary. — Existential Hope

Just finished watching the doc. Ravish Kumar is a brave man. The documentary confirmed some of my worse fears about the Modi mob. It's a very common recipe and totally from the 'how to promote fascism' mentality. Use rampant nationalism and stoke religious divisions as much as possible. Screams of "God bless Mother India" and "death to Pakistan" reverberate and echo down through the annuls of our bloody history, all the way back to 'God bless our tribe" and "death to your tribe."
At least you as a Hindu and me as an atheist have common ground in our condemnation of such.
The end of the documentary seemed to offer some hope for Mr Kumar's journalism, in that he gained a prestigious award for his efforts.

You have a lot of inner vitriol to deal with. Me getting banned from TPF will not help you with your general state of mind. It would/will be a very minor event for all concerned. You obviously don't wish me all the best. That final sentence demonstrates your inability to control yourself. Get some therapy!

I was not being rude, just factual. If you find my responses to you, not to your taste or too harsh for your sensitivities, then don't include my ID in any of your postings. I have no issue with you, it is you who takes umbridge with me from time to time. I suggest you accept who I am, or stop responding to any of my posts.

I had a look at the links you recommended. Some wanted me to accept cookies so I just left them.
But I read about the Persian influence on the name Hindustan. You might find this interesting, I certainly did:


The indigenous people of India, probably did come from proto Indo Europeans, and the Hindi language probably does have commonalities with some ancient Indo European language which also branched into Greek, Celtic/Gallic, Russian etc.
Do you think a name change from India will further damage the chances of a reunion with Pakistan?
What do you think Modi's agenda is here?

I don't think the point you make is a strong one or an important one.
Argentina was a reference to it's silver.
The name Cuba may come from the Taíno language, meaning 'where fertile land is abundant' or 'great place'. However, its exact derivation is unknown. Christopher Columbus landed in Cuba in 1492 and named it "Juana" after a Spanish prince, but the name Cuba was later adopted by the Spanish.

Countries like Rhodesia (named after the English horror, Cecil Rhodes) was renamed Zimbabwe, which is not a word from the conqueror's language.

I will leave it to the people of Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Puerto Rico and Cuba to describe their feelings about the Spanish conquistadors.

We need a god so we can project all our notions of goodness into the god. Their projection of goodness is what makes supernatural beings so real to those who believe in them, and their belief can work miracles. The concepts are real and can be effective. :grimace: Does any of this work for you? — Athena

It might have, hundreds of years ago, but not now. I understand your 'use' of the gods as folklore which has value in it's representations of human dilemma, human desires, human projections and even human politics and human morality, but, notice how often I used the word human and not god.
The basic disagreement between us is that you believe the god and goddess representations still have value for humans. One of my goals is to convince as many people as I can that we have progressed enough in the past 10,000 years of tears to rid ourselves of them. The Klingon advice and reasoning below, works very well for me.



I also loved the god representation and the dilemma's (depicted in the disagreement between Bashir and O'Brian) offered in this clip. We have plenty of modern stories we can make use of Athena. We don't need all those old ones that have been so soiled and twisted and manipulated into the pernicious affects organised religion, peddled as the real words of real gods have on the everyday lives of humans. We can't continue to be the knuckle dragging moronic god victims, depicted as the Jem'Hadar, in this clip.

Why is life not sufficient in itself? — Vera Mont

Searching for an answer to your question could bring meaning to a life!

Your problem means nothing to the average working yob. Nor does the historical background. There are still old imperialists who take pride in past 'glory'. If you want to encourage a grass roots movement, you need in sync with grass roots sentiment. — Vera Mont

Hey! I am down with da kids round about Glesga, Scotland, Britain and da world!!
Rather than strong unionists dying out naturally, (I think they reform just as strong, in each new generation) I think it's the old imperialists you mention, who are dying out (good riddance).
The grass roots movements I mentioned have started and have actually been around in Scotland since Thatcher's demise. I am in sync with them but I am not a direct part anymore because I am now so against party politics. I am still affiliated however.
Addition: Scottish Young Socialists!

Cassandras of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose that's not already lost. — Vera Mont

:lol: Hey @180 Proof does this ring true 'bout' you?
"Trojan priestess dedicated to the god Apollo and fated by him to utter true prophecies but never to be believed."

Since "Great" Britain and the "United Kingdom" mean nothing to you, then we should obviously strike those two words from the map — BC

I appreciate your willingness (or your sarcasm) in offering me such a dictatorial status, but I will refuse it, as I am a democratic socialist, who requires majority consent from all stakeholders or their democratically elected representatives, before establishing political policy or taking political action such as re-naming this place Britain or (my personal preference) The republic of Britain. But as a socialist yourself, I am sure you already know how it is supposed to work.

It's like the linguistic mob that wants to edit out references to a male God, Lord, King, He, His, and so on. — BC

Yeah, but a god with a gender is just 'silly,' imo.

So, I don't have a stake -- zero investment -- in what India or Bharat calls itself. — BC

I think you do, Is your politics restricted by your nationality or does it have a global branch to it?
Would it matter to you if there was a campaign in India to change its name to Hindustan?

But we will all have difficulty finding names for ourselves that are entirely founded on whichever native land we are from. "America" derives from the name of an Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, who otherwise had very little to do with the matter. — BC

Would it matter to you if Trump and co wanted to change the name of America to Great America, (or perhaps even Christland :scream: ) in true MAGA style? How about the United Kingdom of America, with Trump officially anointed as King by the Evanhellicals? There are good historical reasons why I object to 'Great Britain,' with its military might of Empire connotations, rather than the original intention of 'larger land mass,' compared to that which was occupied by the original folks called Britons or to distinguish them from French Bretons (Now Brittany). We also did not become a united kingdom through the consent of the people, we have never been a united kingdom and we never will be.

Yeah, I am just kinda 'prodding' at you BC, no offence intended. I am just trying to find out if my prodding causes any interesting reactions, feel free to prod back in kind. Remember, I thought your chosen name/ID for TPF, was not reflective of the tone of your postings or are you really a truly bitter crank? You can't be, because you did decide to move to the more enigmatic BC.

My point is that language and maps and usage are this huge accumulation of past events and persons that were mostly not rationally organized. They just happened. — BC

As time moves on and we learn more, we often change how we refer to people and places. We used to refer to people and nations in stereotypical ways that most of us choose not to use anymore. I am sure you would not accept, all us Scots, being called mean and tight with money for example.

India has already changed many of its City names from the names imposed by imperialist Britain.
In Russia, Stalingrad and Leningrad are gone. Many countries changed their name after becoming independent by casting off their imperialist conquerors. Is India trying to do something similar here? or is this just Modi's attempt to get a little closer to his real wish, which I think it to re-name the place Hindustan.

Do you think my suspicion of Mr Modi's real agenda here is far fetched @Existential Hope?

Why not have a referendum on the issue? Do those who would have the right to vote in such, know enough about it? Would the current Indian authorities, allow the people to be fully informed of both sides of the debate, and allow enough time for people to discuss the issues involved, and make an informed choice? Referenda can be a fantastic democratic tool, but only if the voters involved cannot be easily fooled or manipulated. If that is not the case, then referenda can do more damage than good.

I think @niki wonoto likes to spark but does not stick around to take part in fighting the resultant flames. A pure provocateur, would be my bet.

It's interesting. I am having a so far, brief discussion with @Vera Mont on the (now lounge) thread, 'Culture is Critical,' regarding the fact that I would like the 'Great' of Great Britain dropped and The United Kingdom has never meant anything to me. I think that if Britain is to reject it's old 'Empire' label, then reformatting it's global identity label would be a good step. Is Bharat, just a literal translation of India into Sanskrit? Does the Modi mob (pardon that phrase, but I really don't like Modi,) want to make this name change because of the connections between Sanskrit and the fact that the original Hindu scriptures where written in Sanskrit?
If the reason for the name change is mainly in deference to the language of Hindu scripture then I think that would be a regressive step. I thought India was named after the Indus valley civilisation (and the river running through it) and I also thought that the name Indus was Latin and literally translated to Indian or/and indigenous. Hindi is the main language of India so what is India in Hindi? An internet search gave me भारत, but does that just translate to Bharat in English?

Addition: From my brief internet based readings about it, the early Indus civilisation was the most non-militaristic, peace loving community, ever recorded, of that size/population.

I didn't say any of that. Accepting that we're animals and unable to control ourselves isn't giving up. Stoicism is realizing that we have all but no control and doing what we can with the little control that we do have. — praxis

Good to know that you will do what you can to help.

Well, I haven't been a humanist since ....... — 180 Proof

I continue to keep putting a sticky label of doomster on you and then pulling it off again as many of your posts seem very socialist and secular to me. The glue on the label is now compromised. I am sure you see good in humans as well as bad.

Maybe it's time for another species to be dominant. — Vera Mont

↪Vera Mont :up: — 180 Proof

I knew you two would find common ground! :lol:

Save your campaign funds. You just lost a fair chunk, if the not the majority, of the working class. People don't like 'greatness' taken from their self-image. Not too sure they'd go along with abolishing the monarchy, either. Maybe in a couple of generations - but by then all the stalwart trade unionists will have died off, too. — Vera Mont

'Great' Britain originally just referred to an area that was bigger than that occupied by the ancient Britons/Celtic Britons. It was also a way to distinguish us from the French Bretons (sometimes called lesser Britain). My problem with it comes due to it's later connection with the British Empire as 'the greatest empire in history' and as an indication of military might. 'Great' used to indicate power rather than as a comparison to a lesser physical area. I would like to dilute the 'mighty' notion of empire that imo, acts as a barrier to Britain becoming a socialist nation. The empire legacy has to be 'dealt with'/accounted for/moved past, for us to grow up, and become something far better.

The union of the crowns and the union of the parliaments were not democratic processes. This place became the UK, mostly via forced conquest and the collusions of vile familial dynastic nobility groups who were spawned from early tribes, from the early Celts / Germanic Saxons and Angles / Romans/ Vikings (who founded the Norman French) etc. We need to become a democratic union of peoples as we have never been a united kingdom. Either that or we become separate, independent nations and then hopefully join in 'federation.'

Our Monarchy is a legacy/spawn of all that is bad about how 'Great' Britain and our 'un-United KINGdom, came to be and we must first deal with all that, if we are ever to earn a worthwhile socialist/secular humanist better future. It just requires a grown up debate, a large amount of campaign funds would not be needed imo, just a lot of time investment from dedicated volunteers.

I understand and you are correct, we need to all become more enlightened, but far too many of us are just not there yet, so as Ocean Colour Scene sang , "we gotta fight some more."

What's the alternative? Are you willing to now throw your hands up in jaded despair, and declare, We are all f*****, we don't deserve to exist, we have failed to be a net positive in this universe and we can NEVER achieve better. I just cannot and will not do that!!!! Can you? Will you?

I just hope that's not true as I have to believe that we can do so much better, than our bloody history exemplifies. We have achieved incredible, ingenious, solutions to the terrible and terrifying dangers we faced from our environment and from each other, as we went through and left our jungle based beginnings. Despite all the wars, natural disasters and the actions of the nefarious amongst us, there are more people alive today, than there have ever been in the past 13.8 billion years. Over-population is now a problem, only because of who is in control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

More advances in technology and automation would indeed help us become a united species and a united planet, where everyone can take their basic means of survival for granted, but only if such tech advances, are not controlled exclusively by a nefarious rich and powerful few.
I know you are more referring to AI surpassing humans and replacing us in the governance of us. I am for stopping that from happening.

Had to look that one up. A paraphrase of Heidegger I assume. Not a guy I know much about, but I am trying to learn a little more about the philosophers TPF members like yourself, know a lot about.

only a Singularity can save us. — 180 Proof

The problem is that the term 'singularity' is another very over-burdened and often misunderstood label.
Even the mathematicians call singularities, 'where the mathematics misbehave.'

I'm not seeing a silver lining there. Lots' of stormclouds gathering here, too.
Scotland may do better. Is independence still in the cards? Mind you, the EU is not in great shape either, atm. So... unless Putin blows us all into the stratosphere, we shall see. — Vera Mont

Not anytime soon, I hope SNP declare the next general election as a dry run on an independent Scotland for the Scottish voters. If the SNP state that if they win a majority in Scotland at the next general election, then that is a demonstration of the will of the Scots to be independent. Then I think that's about the best that could be achieved for now. I don't mean that the SNP should then hold an independence referendum, regardless of the agreement of Westminster, as I don't think we could handle the repercussions and such a move could end the cause of Scottish independence for the following 50-100 years. We might even end up with an SNA clone of the IRA, and that would be a disaster for all concerned. I remain conflicted as to what has the best chance of producing a socialist nation, as an independent Scotland or as Britain. A socialist grass roots movement, launched after an independent Scotland is realised? or a new grass roots socialist movement within the whole of Britain? I know many would say neither option has any chance but I personally, kinda place such folks, with those who said TV was just a fad. If it was a whole new grass roots movement, I would start with something more simple like a national campaign to officially remove the 'Great' from 'Great Britain' or officially remove the name 'United KINGdom,' and the British Monarchy. The republic of Britain sounds good to me.

As the USA 2024 election gets closer, I do get the impression from online American folks discussing such, that this is almost a civil war of words, that could really turn into violent insurrection. Perhaps the most important election ever held on the planet.
Would you agree with that? Do you think it's that bad?

Thatcher helped to destroy the labour movement and accelerate the decline and disappearance of socialism as a credible challenge,and oversaw the move to the financialization and neoliberalism that we have today, and which remains almost totally unchallenged. Thatcher —> capitalist realism. — Jamal

Yep, that was her plan from the start. She wanted revenge for the unions crippling the Heath government. Her engineered miners strike was well planned and her happiest moment came from her own lips when she said that she considered Tony Blair her greatest achievement.

Not only that, but she enticed millions of people away from socialism and organised labour, e.g., with the Right to Buy legislation. — Jamal

Also true, and a common tactic the rich use when they are losing. They make some of the poor, much better off, but they do it in a way that eventually damages the majority of the have nots, via the current unaffordability of housing, the unavailability of council houses, and the unaffordability of private rental accommodation. This helps deepen the divisions within the majority and takes the focus away from the nefarious rich. The SNP removed right to buy in Scotland. It's utterly shameful, that Labour did not, under Blair/Brown.

It might be personally comforting to think that Thatcher’s policies backfired by radicalizing the working class, rather in the way that tsar Nikolai’s intransigence helped to bring about the Russian Revolution, but except in isolated cases that represented the last gasp of the political working class (the miners’ strike), that’s not the legacy. She certainly produced a lot of resentment, but it was and remains a resigned and inactive kind of resentment. — Jamal

The words I underlined in the first quote above and the paragraph I quoted from you, immediately above, is where I disagree with you most. Scotland moved away from the labour party, because after Thatcher used us as guinea pigs for her vile poll tax and we showed her just how much we hated her in response, we then got Blair, and we soon learned how 'New Labour' was actually a shade of tory. Blair was revealed as a tory succubus. Scotland abandoned labour for SNP. A party that was not even very socialist but demonstrated more socialism, in their policies than labour ever had in Scotland.
Now we are in flux in Scotland. SNP is waning and labour under Starmer is not much better than Blair/Brown. The socialist movement in Scotland is very much alive and is becoming more and more organised. It has yet to find it's renewed true expression. It was hoping to do so, after Scottish independence was achieved, out of what would then have been the ashes of the SNP. The long haul seems to be the main tactic for now, but a lot depends on events elsewhere.

The best response to Thatcher's Blair/Brown/Johnston/Sunak legacy, is imo, the progressive political tactics happening steadily and surely in Scotland, with a renewed and reinvigorated intention to become an independent socialist/secular humanist nation.

@Vera Mont, @Athena
I get emails from various groups based in the USA, regarding the work they do. This is only because I donate to one or two groups (UK based), who are fighting for causes I believe in. This is from an American group called CFI or The Centre For Enquiry. At least they are trying to combat, right wing excesses. What do you think? How aware is the average American, of the direct affects, that the now imbalanced SCOTUS is having or can/will have, on eroding/weakening the protections the average American currently has, against the increasing level at which "corporations will be freer to act in their own interests."

The dog days of summer tend to be slow ones for lawyers across the country. The Supreme Court has gone on vacation, as have many practicing attorneys, so there is a lull in headline-generating court cases.

As I’ve written many times, in recent years the Supreme Court has not been kind when it comes to issues CFI cares deeply about. The Establishment Clause—that guarantee of our rights that requires that the government not favor one religion over another, nor favor religion in general over nonreligion—has taken a series of body blows in the decade I have represented CFI, and this latest term is no exception. On a practical level, this means we are likely to see a quiet period in Supreme Court religion jurisprudence. That doesn’t mean our well-funded opponents on the religious Right have decided they’ve won enough and will be resting on their laurels; I have no doubt that they will seek new ways to advance the cause of religious, and especially Christian, legal privilege. But cases take time to work their way to the Supreme Court level, and the religious Right’s recent successes have left no immediate backlog of cases for the Court to hear.

One matter that will be in front of the Supreme Court next term that has a direct impact on CFI’s mission is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case gives the Court’s supermajority something it’s been eagerly awaiting: a chance to readdress the level of deference courts have to give government agencies when they interpret the statutes that govern them. For forty years, this area of law has been governed by what is known as Chevron Deference, which states a court shall not rule an agency has overstepped its bounds unless its actions can be shown to be arbitrary and capricious. Justice Thomas in particular has long sought to rein back the administrative state; with Justice Jackson having recused herself from the case, it seems inevitable that tighter restrictions will be placed on agencies’ ability to regulate. What does this mean for us? It means the EPA, the FDA, the FTC, the DEA, and many others will find it harder and harder to protect the public, and corporations will be freer to act in their own interests.
To hear more about the outlook for the Supreme Court, especially in the religious arena, keep an eye out for an upcoming episode of our Point of Inquiry podcast, where host Jim Underdown will interview CFI Board Chairman and constitutional law guru Eddie Tabash and me about these matters.

Just keep nurturing your fellows guys and keep your dissent against those who prioritise personal profits and power over people, very high. I predict you both will, despite your doubts, because it's the best option we have. A better way to exist as humans, has always been the biggest and best idea humans have ever had imo. You can't kill that goal by killing the people that maintain it, as it exists in all of us and just like a rotten apple can infect the rest of the barrel, attempts to kill the best idea we have ever had, can often turn even rotten apples into new true socialists/secular humanists.
The actions of vile human beings like Maggie Thatcher created as many, if not more socialists in Scotland and elsewhere, than any British socialist leader I have heard of.
There is also the famous line of "The most effective way to convert a Christian to atheism, is to get them to actually read the bible."

True socialism is therefore inevitable imo, as they will be back ad infinitum, until the better global human society we know can exist, does exist. I know many folks think our extinction via our own stupidity or our obsolescence via AI will come first, but I remain unwilling to accept that, after all the hard work and very costly advances made so far over the past 10,000 years of tears.

That's why it's always necessary to eliminate the true socialists when you take their flag. — Vera Mont

It has been ever thus. The historical exemplifications offer overwhelming evidence. But we always come back, in every new generation. I like a quote from the Kirk Douglas, Spartacus movie, that I think has always been true, since the first murdered socialist. They will be back and they will be millions!
In the movie, Kirk uses 'he' rather than 'they' but I thought I might update it. He had just killed Tony Curtis, to spare him crucifixion. Hollywood license but I still very much liked that particular line.

No, I didn't, it would have been a superfluous addition imo.
The position I hold, is that political gangsters are unacceptable, no matter what 'honourable intentions,' an individual claims, is their political foundation. Hitler and Stalin or Putin and Trump are pairs of equal horror. Horror that rises from the left or right of politics is the same horror. I see no need to always state that horror can rise through either side. I think it is important to type the following however:

You cannot be a true socialist and be a gangster. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
You have to stop being one to become the other.

Damn good words sir! Encore! Encore!
If only all who have the right to vote, could really understand the points you made.
The horrific right wing gangsters currently seeking, and in many cases, successfully gaining power, all over this planet, would not be happening. The path towards a better experience, living as a human being, would then become far more populated imo.

Going from the last definition, being a person of grace is being god-like. In this case, the god is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being and truly I believe we are healthier with a concept of god that brings out the best in us. This is possible without the superstition that destroyed one other religion, Zoroastrianism. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not. — Athena

Your intention is fine, if a little too rigid imo. I think:

Going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment is a life without purpose. — Athena

Is without purpose, if that's all you do! I did a lot of weekend pub/disco, adventure/indulgence etc but I worked hard during the rest of the week and managed to complete an apprenticeship, study at night schools, complete an honours degree course at uni, a postgrad in education and had a 30 year teaching career. I was never unfaithful to anyone in that time and only had two serious relationships in my life. I was engaged twice but both relationships failed. No kids, thank goodness. I am not against having kids but I agree that it's important to have as stable and as strong a support system established, as you can possibly achieve, before you do. Including contingency plans.

The trouble with the main quote above, is that the 'god' label is so soiled with woo woo, and pernicious scriptures, that it's use in any paragraph, which is designed to make a moral statement or give moral advice to others, simply totally fails, imo.
I would reword the quote above as:
"A person of grace is a person of strength and humility. Human grace, is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being, but a human potential. I believe we are healthier with a concept of grace, that brings out the best in us. This is possible without superstition. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not."

The Greeks had their three charities/graces. Three goddess inventions. Wiki describes them.
Aglaia represented elegance, brightness and splendor
Thalia represented youth, beauty and good cheer
Euphrosyne represented mirth and or joyfulness

Education should utterly remove the need for such child like notions, imo.
Notions of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Brahma etc, are absolutely no different to these three Greek metaphors, for desired human states/ predilections.

Thank you so much for this wonderful gift. — Athena

You're welcome Athena, but I think Tim Booth should get all the credit, for writing such good lyrics.
I found this wee website, with this introductory comment about the song. I don't think it's far away from our interpretations:

"This song is very much open to interpretation, and depending on they way you process the words, it could can be a warning against overindulgence, a look at surviving life on the edge, or a commentary on how you can always turn your life around. James vocalist Tim Booth, who wrote the lyrics, has explained that the character Daniel in the song saves a woman named Grace from drowning, and adds, "He doesn't realize that in saving her he's really saving himself."

I liked James song. Last night I saw a show about ethnicity and how rape music gives these victims a voice. James is a good counter to that. Like being all messed up is part of life.
Like oh my God, I am White and I am all messed up and there is no one for me to blame for this. Well, I am female. I suppose I can blame men for oppressing me but now that women are "liberated" who can we blame? — Athena

It's one of those songs that leave the interpretations of the lyrics to the listener but does set a definite base focus, as your words that I underlined above, indicate. My personal interpretation was a variation on yours. I took the song writers to be suggesting that the images they were invoking were accurate for many people but the fact they were 'getting away with it,' was 'messed up.' The writers could also have been admitting that this is what is 'messed up' about themselves and aspects of their own life experience, so far.

"Are you aching for the blade?" (are you violent, or attracted to violence or attracted to being the victim of violence?), "Are you aching for the grave?" (Do you have no fear of death, but in fact welcome it and don't give a flying f*** for anyone else life?)
"That's ok, were insured" (we have protections against such viewpoints.). "That's the living" (the way some people choose to be and choosing to live life as a curse, has a negative affect on us all).

"Daniels saving grace, she's out in deep water, hope he's a good swimmer"
Grace as a person Daniel is trying to save or grace imaged as a feminine aspect of Daniel, which is currently saving Daniel.
Whichever image you choose, that 'grace' is in trouble, as it is in deep water so, the writer hopes Daniel is a good swimmer and he and his 'grace' can mean, he can survive his own inner turmoil.

"Daniel plays his ace (life as a card game of chance), deep inside his temple (his mind or his place of worship). He knows how to serve her (his grace imaged as his feminine side, or saving grace, depicted as his 'ace' or best chance to serve that which is the best of himself.)

"Daniel drinks his weight. Drinks like Richard Burton. Dance like John Travolta. Now"
Oh, how familiar this line is for me. My youth spent doing exactly this, in the pubs and night clubs of Glasgow. I was also a good dancer and did very well, attracting female attention. My main two friends were also good looking guys and we did not often, go out to a night club without ending up going home with a girl. But, what did we achieve, absolutely nothing, shallow, hollow, but seemed fun at the time. Getting away with it all, but basically 'messed up.' That's why the way the lead singer Tim Booth emphasised and stretched the word 'Now,' a little, spoke so clearly to me, as pub and club escapism fun, is very much of the moment, and can seem very 'mis-spent,' when looking back. But, I do think that the reality is more nuanced, than such a conclusion would suggest.

"Daniels saving grace. He was all but drowning. Now they live like Dolphins."
I always considered this as a 'hopeful' ending to the cautionary tale. But I never had a satisfactory personal interpretation of 'live like dolphins.' They look very free in their domain and they look like they are having a great time, as they do their water base acrobatics, to entertain an audience and show off a little, but they remain an endangered species, that still get killed a lot.

I hope I have explained a little better, why the song was important to me in my younger days and still is, today. I also loved this James song and its lyrics.
The only lines I could not relate to, were the ones about the hope that god exists. I never had such a hope, in fact I always hated the idea.

Sometime its good to see the crowd appreciation of the work of James:


Part of enjoying the human experience is the existence of such songs, when they can have personal importance to your personal life experiences. I am happy to suggest that such aids my personal 'spirituality,' in the sense that such encourages me to keep breathing and helps to maintain my ability to keep animated and keep fighting for a better way for humans to be. Even though my contribution to such a goal, will remain as small as it is now. 'Those who find themselves ridiculous, sit down next to me!'