I certainly, personally think, that a much less religious India and a much less religious Pakistan would have much more reason to find enough common ground to consider reunification based on aspects of common cultural historicity. BUT, I don't know enough about Indian common cultural historicity, to have a great deal of confidence, in such a prediction, apart from the times when all Indians had common enemies, such as the British.

I assume the Identifier DA671 lost favour with you. :grin:

I read the article:
3. https://m.thewire.in/article/history/why-rss-cannot-help-hating-jawaharlal-nehru-and-his-connection-with-the-people-of-india

This is ceratinly a passage that would concern me, if I lived on India:

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) describes itself as a ‘cultural’ organisation, and it is correct in the sense that it aims at changing the very way of ‘being Indian’ and conduct of all private and public activities. ‘Culture’ in the RSS discourse does not refer to the vibrant reality energised by common everyday experiences and creative expressions in India. To the RSS, culture means the rhetoric of hatred and actual violence and a system for concealing those conflicts and oppressions through subterfuge. It also refuses to see the fundamentally diverse character of Indian cultural experience. The pre-independence national movement, on the other hand, recognised this diversity along with dialogue and historical ups and downs inherent in it. Hence the slogan ‘unity in diversity’.

and this:
Despite all its claims to being authentically Hindu/Indian, the RSS nationalism is wholly adopted from Western right-wing nationalisms. The admiration of Nazi methods of ‘purifying the national life’ contained in ‘We, our nationhood defined’ (published under the name of M.S. Golwalkar in 1938; only much later was its authorship denied) can be easily seen reflected in day-to-day informal conversation of any RSS cadre or sympathiser. The glorification of lynchings and other heinous crimes is nothing but putting those methods into practice.

seems to have some kind of presence, in some equivalent shape or from, in every country in the world.
We must all unite against such groups whether we are atheist or theist.

I liked the comparison of Nehru's wish to maintain/incorporate/value the contribution of, all aspects of historical Indian culture. I understood his comparison with palimpsest (once I looked up what it meant) as his idea of not ignoring or disregarding the 'river forms' that form the ocean that could be compared to what modern India could become.
I accept that Nehru or Gandhi had no wish to establish Hinduism as the national religion of India and they were both against partition.

In Discovery of India, he said, “I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms… Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me…I have been attracted towards the advaita (non-dualist) philosophy of the Vedanta… some kind of ethical approach to life has a strong appeal for me.”

Do you think Nehru was just too scared to declare himself an atheist?
Would he have been committing political suicide, if he had, during those times?
Is there any significant atheist movement in India?

It seems to me, this concept of hindutva, is a double edged sword. It seems attractive, in that it offers a pathway to atheism. But it also seems to be a concept/label, to absolutely avoid, as it seems to offer a parallel path of crazy nationalistic fascism.

I read this article.

2. https://indianexpress.com/article/education/references-to-gujarat-riots-purged-from-social-science-books-for-ncert-classes-6-12-8538768/ — DA671

If Modi wants to sell to Hindus the idea that all things muslim are evil, then passages taught to all school children, that demonstrate, that one of the greatest and most learned leaders in India, who was also a Hindu, placed the unity of all Indians above all religious doctrine, has to go, or be diluted as much as possible.
Modi knows that cultural teachings are indeed critical, to establish control over the thinking of a mass of people, that will lead to actions taken by that mass of people.
Gandhi would never accept Modi's demonisation of muslims. So removing text from school books that demonstrate that Gandhi would never have supported a self-aggrandizing narcissist like Modi, makes sense to the Modi agenda.

As for the metaphor: controversy over Darwin's work > attackers and defenders > kicking and kicking ass > football > players, object of contention > time-clock > observer > me — Vera Mont

Yeah, I like that excuse! Thanks! :up:

I can't even get my flippin Stage II book finished, so that I can at least tell you and Vera that I have at least managed to do that! :groan:

Wonderful. Me, in a soccer game, I'd rather be the time-clock than the ball. — Vera Mont

I couldn't find a TPF emoji for 'confused?'
How about:

Increasing my knowledge of the history of India and it's most influential politicians would be most welcome, but I currently have a large backlog of articles/papers/books/vids etc suggested by others, that I have stated I will read. I think science will have to increase my lifespan somewhat to read and watch all I would like to read and watch.

Just as well for poor old Darwin, eh? — Vera Mont

Darwin does not have to personally be here, he has many millions of defenders.
His number of defenders are increasing, globally.
Jesus, mohamed, yaweh, allah, buddha, Vishnu etc, not so much, except in very poor countries.
All the 'guff' about Darwin's influence and Legacy (or if you prefer the almost synonymous 'inheritance from Darwin.') seems to be alive and kicking and it continues to help to kick gods ass back into non-existence, in more and more human minds. I assume you approve of that affect of Darwin.

:rofl: :flower:

Maybe, but I refuse Marx responsible for Stalin's deeds. — Vera Mont

Wow!!!!! That's a mighty jump Vera! What did I post that suggested such linkage?
Marx cannot be blamed for a horror like Stalin, neither can communism or socialism, in the same way as Mahatma Gandhi cannot be blamed for opportunists like Modi.
If I created hell and horror in peoples lives, and claimed that I did so, based on my personal interpretations of Vera Mont's book, 'The Ozimord Project.'
That would not mean that Vera Mont was responsible for my actions, it would just indicate how much I had misinterpreted Vera Mont or in the case of Stalin, it would simply point to his devious means of conning people into believing he was a Marxist, or a Montist, or a communist or a socialist, instead of what he truly was, a self-aggrandising, narcissist, butcher.

Whatever I may leave behind is not my legacy.
It's a tiny part of their inheritance. — Vera Mont

What you leave behind (legacy), those who remain or are yet to arrive, inherit.
You are hair splitting Vera!

No I have no advice to offer. It seems that you are the only one on the ground, who knows most about his situation, that is doing her best to help him. If you cannot bring anyone else in, such as a friend of his or one of his family members, to speak for him, then he has only you. What else can anyone expect from you, but your best efforts. I hope if I ever find myself in a similar predicament to this man you describe, that I have a good person like yourself, on and by my side! :clap: :flower:

why is this the fault of capitalism? — Judaka

Because capitalism provides a well known, easily understood methodology which anyone can use to become individually rich and powerful. Such has even been parodied as the American Dream.
The more narcissistic, ruthless and devious you are, the better your chances of high success in the capitalist world. This is often dramatised in the movie industry:


But the effects of capitalism are better exemplified in the boom (for some) and bust (for most), times they cause, that we all have to pay for, but most of the rich that caused it, pay nothing and in fact, many of them actually get much richer.
Few of those who use capitalism to steal from the majority, get punished for their crimes compared to how many poor folks get punished for their crimes.

The same thing occurred in feudalism, socialism, and colonialism and you've even said the exact same thing yourself, right? — Judaka

No, feudalism is a forerunner to modern capitalism, it was a stage, that started from the scenario I already posted from The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. A system in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles. Lands and resources that were stolen from the masses in the first place.

True Socialism has never been successfully established anywhere in the world, yet!

Colonialism is just exported capitalism. Different words were in vogue at the time but the main methods used by the few to control the many, all still exist within capitalism today. It is only the efforts of those who have fought very hard against unfettered capitalism, that prevent their older practices being in full open use today.

I don't think I said or implied that they didn't... My point was completely unrelated to this. — Judaka

Well, probably the major issue with your argument is that capitalists aren't part of the government. — Judaka

You're introducing a huge topic and including multiple countries, all of human history, and complex political & economic realities on a national and international level. You're making a lot of claims in each comment without really delving into them deeply. I have a superficial understanding of your position, but I don't like trying to weave a grand narrative that simplifies everything so that we can very easily summarise all of human history. It's easy to say how 2000 years of history have been, and disgustingly difficult to add nuance to counter this argument. To analyse just capitalism is hard enough. Probably all I can say is that I agree with you on some things, but I've got no interest in debating such a broad topic. — Judaka

That's ok. The horrific affects and the clear, present and continuing global threat of unfettered capitalism is indeed a very broad topic. I was responding mainly to:

I'm interested in trying to answer the question of how critical capitalism has been in shaping the economic prosperity of countries. — Judaka

Capitalism has been critical in the creation of a tiny nefarious elite gaining power and influence that has global reach and can directly affect the daily lives of billions of people. This to me is far more important than what prosperity it has created for the few in each nation.
Capitalism has meant that the majority of people in each nation are labelled 'have nots' relative to those few who would be called 'haves.'
I will leave it there.

There is a need to show that economies can succeed without resorting to unethical practices. — Judaka

I would call such demonstration, socialism / secular humanism / resource based economy.

Well, probably the major issue with your argument is that capitalists aren't part of the government. For example, Jack Ma who founded Alibaba is an extremely rich and powerful capitalist, who exploits his workers ruthlessly in pursuit of profit. However, he is still ultimately a private citizen living in a totalitarian dictatorship. If Jack Ma pisses off the wrong people in the government, the laws don't protect him at all, and he can be imprisoned and stripped of his assets. — Judaka

No offense, but I find this quite naive.

Putin and Trump are capitalists who have both led powerful nations. Putin will make his chosen, or continue to allow his chosen to be, billionaire's (or oligarchs) or at least very very rich, in the exact same way that early monarchies created Earls, Dukes and Counts etc.
Money is the main means of exchange, used by capitalism, and the money trick, is one of the main tools any nefarious individual can use to gain power and influence.
Any Duke or billionaire that does not accept King Putin as their overlord/don/god etc gets disposed of, in one way or another by direct killing, ruining, or by some other method of stealth.
Rich elites can have full control over an elected government or they can influence or even 'fix' an election in the way that has been reported, regarding some elections all over the planet. 'Money talks,' is a well known phrase. On occasion, it's even the King that gets replaced.
But to suggest that capitalists don't also hold government positions or government level power and influence is just plain naive.

I would assume you are familiar with concepts such as 'political lobbying.' Do you think all such 'influencing' is above board? Even modern gangsters in every country will have 'politicians' in their pocket. A gangster makes most of their money using capitalist style manipulation of control over supply and demand. The only main difference is that the gangster does not care at all, what product they make money from.

Personal profit is the main purpose of capitalism. Small profit that earns an individual(s) an inoffensive amount of money that means they can afford to live to a standard that most non-greedy people would find to be 'comfortable,' is defendable.
In the real world, this is not the outcome of capitalism, as it is practiced by private individuals who wish to become an elite.
I have heard such descriptions as:

For the same reason, we can't call a king's ownership of his lands private ownership, since he rules and governs those lands, he is not a private citizen. — Judaka

and:

I think to call a system capitalist, trading doesn't suffice — Judaka

Buying something from one place and selling it in another doesn't qualify. — Judaka

Many many times before, and in many different varieties and flavours, and such are merely unconvincing attempts to excuse and dilute how nefarious, monarchy and capitalism are.
Capitalism is a system that is based on competition. If you observe competition, you will find that only a few win.

I wasn't intending for this to be a thread about the ethics of capitalism, but I do think that the moral logic of the system is flawed, — Judaka

Hard to discuss the merits or flaws of an economic system, without addressing it's ethical standing.
I fully agree with your point about capitalism being morally flawed, but I would choose stronger terms to express the same view.

whereas you're comparing it to examples of government-based exploitation. — Judaka

I did so, because that's where unfettered capitalism, always takes us to.

I kind of agree with many of your conclusions but how you got there confuses me. — Judaka

The path I took was from the beginning of the story of capitalism to how the money trick still works today and onwards to the very destructive effects it continues to have on human civilisation and why it helps to keep all of us on a road to extinction. I apologise if you feel I have been unable to make my reasoning clear to you. Perhaps you can explain to me further why you find my reasoning confusing or incorrect.

Existence is a scientific state not a property:

A property can be physical or chemical etc, it can describe a change or variable attribute.
A state is an instantaneous observation, such as solid, liquid, gas. A property is variable and can cause movement from one state to another. Existence is a state that can change into a state of non-existence.
'State' and 'property' are not synonymous.
If god has an existent state then can that state change into a non-existent state?
Even cyclical or oscillating universe hypotheses still intuit a 'spark' to start the process that then becomes eternal. The eternal god posit suffers from the same problem, 'what sparked god?' and what sparked the spark. That's why it's called an 'infinite' regression.
An ontological argument for god has no significance at all, to theism as it is at it's best, a very poor argument for the existence of A god or first cause mind with an intent/need to create. It offers nothing to the theist by way of supporting evidence that their god flavour exists. Allah and Yahweh remain as likely, as the spider god or the energy god or any, from an infinity of potential god descriptions/properties.

Markets isn't capitalism. There's a decent thread on this forum on the subject. I think it's called "what capitalism isn't". — Benkei

If there are no significant price/profit controls then any commercial market from a black market to a stock market to a bric-a-brac stall, is a capitalist system, which is open to nefarious control that puts personal profit above the well being of people. I can live with the bric-a-brac or small business model or strongly controlled capitalism, as an assist to the two advantages I suggested earlier, but not the black market, stock market, free market economy, capitalist markets that help gangsters to thrive and allow billionaires, multi-millionaires and international/global, privately owned businesses to exist, who often wield such power, that they can directly influence national governments and military/police forces and by doing so, blight the lives of masses of people all over this planet.

Celebrate. Give the peons a day off. Stage a parade! I won't get in your way. — Vera Mont

Will you join in, as you are one of the peons or would you join in and tell the peons to start a revolution, or would you not join in, in case you get reported to big brother?

Cripes!! Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?
I don't want to be a leader of any movement, because crucifixion is very unpleasant. I don't want to be a flag-bearer, because so are torture and prison. I don't want to be fighter, because they tend to get hurt. I'm an attentive rider. And thus, my life and 'legacy' won't have an impact on history. And that's OK. — Vera Mont

No, to me, you have been suggesting that come what may, we are unable and incapable of gaining full control over this wheel of progress, you imagineer.
You sound like a big fearty Vera! and that's ok to. As I have suggested before, you are not able to know the impact your legacy will have.

:lol: Yeah, It's used a lot on dating sites where they request contact from folks with a GSOH.
I have never been involved in any way with on-line dating. I don't condemn anyone who does however.
It seems to be the modern way, regardless of my personal lack of attraction to such a system.

At least your pessimism tries to emerge within a GSOH (good sense of humour) framework.
People often ruminate using a trigger thought such as 'I wonder what Vera Mont would have said about that,' then they go on to offer their opinion. That is part of my answer to your 'so what?'
I could go on with more of my examples of "that's what!" or 'this is what!' but you could probably predict most of them and you have probably already raised shields.
You keep insisting that the only important impact that matters to you is that which directly impacts you and if, before you were born, or after you are dead, means, that you cannot be impacted, then, that's all that REALly matters. But you are sooooooo wrong in that imo, for all the reasons I have already mentioned.

The wheel of progress doesn't need to try. It just keeps rolling. Anybody tries to get in its way, slow it down, change its course, gets flattened. — Vera Mont

Even if that imagery has some objective truth value to it, why is that not a cause for celebration?
Why can we not be riding comfortably atop this wheel, until we die, and naturally fall of and get replaced? rather than be crushed between it and the surface you imagine it rolls on.

I don't know whether he's deluding himself and don't care: whatever makes people feel good is all right with me, so long as what makes them feel good doesn't make someone else feel bad. — Vera Mont

I broadly agree, unless the people feeling bad are those that Dave considers deluded and the bad feelings they experience, results in them beginning to question their theism as Dave wants them to.

I see. Absolute proof, then. — Vera Mont

Only in the same way that your opinions are absolute proof.

No; hence the 'quotation marks'. It's something you held up as a talisman; as worth striving, fighting, suffering and dying for. — Vera Mont

I reject your 'talisman' imagery as such is woo woo based.
I don't think that people who have lived and are completely unknown today and have left no legacy we are aware of, left no legacy. We touch each others lives and our environment in so many ways we do not even realise. To me, having lived, is a legacy on its own.
Everything that has ever lived, brought their own purpose and meaning into existence and the actions taken by that life, affected the environment and other life that that life, encountered.
I think that's pretty close to being irrefutable. It does not really matter that we have no memorialisation of their existence. Their legacy is far reaching nonetheless.

Have you followed the full Q storyline so far? Q fails much more than they succeed.
One committed suicide, which resulted in a Q civil war, which was settled by two Q reproducing!
Q introduced humans to the borg? Q is portrayed as being obsessed with, and finally afraid of humans as they conclude that humanity is the one species that could potentially surpass Q.
Perhaps Q was deliberately portrayed as what the authors consider humanity should always guard against becoming.

For damn sure flattening me would not retard the wheel of progress by one microsecond. — Vera Mont

Your life is fairly well memorialised imo. Vera. Who is trying to 'flatten you?'
I am sure you have watched the rather theistic scenes from 'It's a Wonderful Life,' when Mr Stewart, acts out the impact on the lives of his family and the people in his local 'amurican' town of his characters non-existence.
I don't like the movie but I do think there is some truth in the cause/effect that happens when individual lives interconnect. I do think you underestimate the affects your life has had, and what impact your legacy will continue to have, after you are gone.

I know the Octopus had a sublime effect on Dave Warnock. Is it completely unreasonable to suggest that the Dave/Octopus video will continue to have an impact after Dave is dead, probably even more so than while he is alive? Would Dave be deluding himself in some way, if he takes comfort in that thought? and feels that he can die a little easier due to having such memories, that he may choose to recall during the actual moments of his dying and his death?

A problem as I see it when debating the history, is the nations that we use to talk about capitalism, and of using the West to do this. As the West had dominated the globe well before either the industrial revolution or modern capitalism. Western nations also enjoy a lot of other privileges and succeed in a variety of areas, so it's unfair to compare their progress to non-Western nations, in my view. — Judaka

Are you suggesting that none of the early city states like Jericho and Uruk, or joined city states such as the Sumerians or the Greeks, ever employed capitalism? Buy cheap and sell dear was employed even under early barter systems. It was always about control and manipulation of supply and demand.
The more you can gain control over supply and the more need for the resources you control that you can promote or cause, the more profit you can make, and the main capitalist approach is to nurture that profit, no matter what the cost is to the well-being of 'other humans.'

I first read about the immorality of the capitalist approach, in the book The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists when I was around 16. I wrote a thread about it on TPF titled The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and the money trick. I think it was my first thread on TPF
From that OP and that book we have:

The money trick is a chapter in the book. It describes how land first fell into the possession of the few.
The main points would be; The toughest person would beat up all challengers to become the leader of a group. This process continued and grew from gang size to clan/tribe/nation size etc. The reward for the few was always control/ownership of land and its resources, despite the fact it was the majority that fought the battles. This system makes perfect sense if you consider our Darwinian 'law of the jungle' beginnings. Animals will fight other animals to steal their kill or gain access or control over areas of high resource etc. It's also logical that when leaders reach the status of 'Don' or 'Chief' or 'King' etc that they would eventually do less of the fighting themselves and send out subordinates to do it for them and reward them with land and titles such as 'Earl' and 'Duke' etc.
Once the 'few' owned the best land etc. They would employ/force large numbers of 'their subjects,' (named slaves, peasants, serfs etc). To 'work the land.' The produce would then be owned by the landowner and be consumed by them and their nearest and dearest to a gluttonous level. The rest would be stored (warehoused) for the purposes of trade etc and those who produced the material would be 'paid' at a subsistence level only. There would often come times when the warehouses were full or trade was interrupted etc and peasants were thrown off the land by the landowners. They had no storage of resources so would often starve and die or become part of the masses of 'poor'.

This is what capitalism is founded on. The mistake made by humans in the early days, was not uniting together and killing every gangster who would be king and claim personal ownership of land and resources.

Many of the world's non-capitalist countries have historically been led by governments characterised by corruption, political instability, mismanagement and repression. They're also isolated from the world economy and receive very little in foreign investment or support, being surrounded by a hostile world. — Judaka

Corruption, political instability, mismanagement, repression etc exists in all human communities, whether or not they employ the word capitalist or socialist or communist when they describe their political system. Capitalists often rise to power in all such systems, already existing, or historically exemplified.
They use the kind of tactics you mentioned above, to maintain their power and influence.

An aristocrat, a plutocrat, an autocrat, a totalitarian, a pope, a messiah, a king, a televanhellist, etc, etc are all just more extreme examples of the application of capitalism.

More and more people are becoming educated in each generation, to be able to gain a full understanding, of why attempts to create a fairer political system, such as communism (as in the original meaning of commune) or socialism, has failed in the past.
Failure is due to internal corruption via personal greed(capitalism) and narcissistic lust for personal power and external pressure, from powerful elites in control of international, capitalist run, trading markets.

If not strictly controlled, for the safety of all, capitalism will always result in the rule of a small, predominantly nefarious, elite, regardless of the size of the community involved.

There are two main problems with any notion of completely wiping capitalism out, as a way of trading with others.
1. Encouraging entrepreneurialism.
2. Not destroying an individuals sense of personal freedom.

I am socialist, through and through and I remain in my belief that socialism/humanism and a resource based global economy is inevitable. But we need to allow 'small, fair capitalism,' so that we can retain and encourage the very valuable contribution of the entrepreneurial mindset, to any community, including a global sized one, but no ridiculous irrational states, like billionaire or multi-millionaire should ever become possible. Such just leads to nefarious individuals gaining autocratic power like Stalin, Hitler etc did, Putin has done and Trump would love to do.

People must be given as many free choices as is possible within any 'better' political system.
Such a system can only survive if it remains fully democratic and is demonstrably of, for and by the majority of all stakeholders involved.
To me, capitalism is like any really dangerous substance, you can survive it, in small doses but a big dose will kill us all and continue to accelerate our species towards extinction.

The nature and spread and power of slavery, god worship, territorial war, imperialism, racism, sexism, ideological madness and even genocide, have all changed significantly since the days of Socrates.
Really? Well, they sure got bigger in the ensuing 2000 years! What is the "before" you're comparing the "since" to? And how do you measure the contribution of Socrates vs the contribution of Paul of Tarsus - or all the other men who wrote down philosophies along the way? — Vera Mont

Such is based mostly on personal interpretation, as the reliable historical evidence is almost non-existent.
It seems to me that all the issues you mentioned were worse, the further you go back in the history of our hominid species.
The biblical Paul may be interpreted as a influencer for good by some but I interpret his life as an influencer for evil. I think he was an antisemitic traitor and a Roman lacky. The Romans were forever saving his skin from angry Jews. He is probably just another made up character, just like Jesus, his brother James, his pal Peter (both rivals to Paul imo.) They are all probably parodies of real rebel Jewish leaders that existed and fought against Rome. Did you know the name Mary, literally translates to 'rebellious woman?' The Romans might have referred to you as a 'Mary!'

No question. That doesn't mean being held up as a martyr, a legend, a beacon to Bacon, or long-term influencer does you any good at all. — Vera Mont

But you are not the only judge of such Vera! I don't choose to call Alexander 'great,' I don't think you do either but I would still have a lot of work to do to convince all future mention of him to replace 'great' with 'butcher.'

Pessimists don't complain; they know it would be a waste of breath. They observe and comment and predict. — Vera Mont

Complaining is the main sustenance of all pessimists! They observe, yes, and then their comments are complaints and their predictions are doom laden and quickly become tiresome, unless they choose to finally employ some phrase such as, 'this is just my opinion guys,' or 'This is just how I feel about the situation.' etc. Then it's time to offer them some tea and sympathy whilst me, the optimist, twitches the curtain, just to check for any mushroom clouds nearby, in-case, before the blast hits, I get to shout, "YOU WERE R..........

nobody will know the correct time. — Vera Mont

As an optimist, I know that there is no correct time, as all time is relative. Time is an individual experience from cradle to grave. I like that Carlo Rovelli based, description of time.

Not plotting or intending; just prescribing. The ways and means are up to whomever I influence in my 'legacy'. — Vera Mont

So legacy does have some importance for you after all Vera. It seems to me that you have been previously touting the idea that it has no significance for those who are dead, so why acknowledge it's potential future role, now?

Yep, here is something Aristotle was supposed to have taught to Alexander the butcher.

"Aristotle taught Alexander that a monarchy is only better than a democracy when the king knows better than all of his people. He also taught Alexander that to be a great leader he had to conquer Asia. He told Alexander, “Rule the Greeks as your equals, but treat all others like animals.”

I think Aristotle would have got on very well with Hitler. Very little editing would be required:
"Aristotle taught Adolf that a fuhrer is only better than a democracy when the king knows better than all of his people. He also taught Adolf that to be a great leader he had to conquer the world. He told Adolf, “Rule the Germans (or perhaps the blue eyed blond haired Ayrans) as your equals, but treat all others like absolute inferiors.”

I think there are many other names and titles of evil men, admired by western cultures, that could be edited easily into the above aristotelian lesson. Okay. Hitler is not admired much by Western Cultures but his historical equivalents are, from Caesar to Ghengis Khan to Napoleon!

I think our broad common ground is maintained.

I would consider myself risk-averse when it comes to unnecessary risks (ones that are created out of a temporary but strong desire). — DA671

But it can often be a great risk to try to fight the powers that currently be, especially if they are hurting sooooo many people, every day.
Mr Modi in India and his rather extreme 'manipulation' (if you agree that his use, is such) of Hinduism for example? Should people fight against such? Considering the potential risks involved?

I broadly agree but I also think that becoming over-cautious can also be unwise.
Is 'no pain no gain,' not cautious enough, in your opinion? Would you consider yourself risk averse?

It's a complex idea (because the world is not a one-dimensional place) and much depends upon our intuitions — DA671

Can the concept of balance exist in 1D or 2D? You cant 'fall' in flatland or lineland. :nerd:

the Greek poet Hesiod (c.700 bc), ‘observe due measure; moderation is best in all things’, and of the Roman comic dramatist Plautus (c. 250–184 bc), ‘moderation in all things is the best policy.’

Perhaps the idea of all things in moderation, would remove the possibility of 'passion' from our lives and reduce the 'buzz' of adventure and 'going boldly where no one has gone before.'
People will say bizarre stuff like "I will give this 110% of my effort,' etc. It's illogical but I am still attracted to the passion involved.
I think humans need a little imbalance, to feel more alive. It may turn out that some imbalance is culturally critical. Perhaps the wisest goal is for the human race to stop swinging from one extreme to the other, as we seem to have done, historically. But we should never covet perfect balance either, as we would lose too much. What do you think about 'no pain no gain?'

I have seen the pitfalls of leaning too much towards abstract ideas or going uncomfortably close to materialism. — DA671

Which definition of materialism are you cautioning against here?
1. A tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values:
2. The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
3. The theory or belief that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency.

I will put my 'balance' questions another way?

Does 'balance' exist as a linear mid-point between human concepts of good and evil?
If so, is political/social/economic/emotional balance a valid goal within any human created civilisation?
If we achieved a balanced civilisation, would we quickly get bored with it in your opinion?

Good to hear from you! I read your recent posts on the AN one trick pony trek. As usual your points were well made. What for you is 'true' regarding the concept of balance?
Is the concept of balance critical to the Hindu 'culture?'
In any human culture can good=evil achieve balance?

And then what? It did him no good. It didn't change the governance or future of Athens. It subtracted nothing from the worship of gods, which continues to this day and beyond. It didn't end slavery, halt religious conflict, prevent territorial wars, curtail imperialism, end racism, sexism, ideological madness or genocide. — Vera Mont

His death served the personal purpose, causes and meaning he cherished most in his life imo. If your death can serve your life, then you die well, imo. It then becomes a legacy question for those who hear the 'true' story of your life, to agree or disagree that your death served your life. A suicide bomber may also think their death served their life and they died well, but we always have the counter point that one persons hero is another persons terrorist.

You have no way to measure the affect the legacy of Socrates had/has on any of the issues you mentioned above. The nature and spread and power of slavery, god worship, territorial war, imperialism, racism, sexism, ideological madness and even genocide, have all changed significantly since the days of Socrates. It's just as valid to credit all improvements made in those issues, directly to Socrates as it is to credit no aspect of improvements made whatsoever to Socrates.

Both are a reality at some minuscule point in the cycle, just as a broken watch tells the correct time twice a day for second. In the real reality, at any given moment, it's an unknown hour and minute and the glass is either in the process of filling or emptying. — Vera Mont

The difference is that the pessimist will continue to complain that there are too many broken watches that only have any use twice a day, whereas your time would be better spent planning and plotting how to obtain a new more reliable, more robust, functioning timepiece, whilst quenching your thirst, on a hot day, by drinking your half full glass of ...... and planning and plotting how you intend to refill or even half refill your and everyone else's glass.

Hey, folks. This morning the guy I was helping was found unconscious in the road by his car. The ambulance has taken him away and I don't know what happened or will happen next. I expect it was another stroke. If he survives I hope he will be given a place to live where people are paid to help him. Right now I am finding it extremely difficult to focus and process thoughts. I think I will rest and try participating in the forum this afternoon. Right now, I am wondering what the F? I did not expect to have emotions that make my brain feel like scrambled eggs. Does anyone know how to deal with this emotional hijack? — Athena

I do.
My reasoning normally begins around, 'I am not directly responsible for everything bad that happens to everyone in this world.' Then at some point (normally within the hour),' I get fed up being fed up and I reach the 'the next hour will pass, thought, regardless of whether or not I decide to pass it in a depressed and pessimistic state, or a renewed optimistic state.' I can choose, to live the next hour as a curse or I can go and look at something more positive. Maybe I can observe something positive happening, that happens all around me, all the time. The pulse of life and living continuing. I sometimes just look at my bookshelf, and that can do it, based on my own notions of legacy or I stare for a while at the big print I have on a wall of the hubble ultra deep field. Looking into the content of that print, always destroys any moments of depression, I may temporarily experience.
My final recovery, normally involves some personal gratitude to myself that events in the world and around me can still depress me, as that must mean I still give a shit!
Do not surrender to 'tock' Athena, when 'tick' still tolls for you!

It took a second run at it before I could accept the remake of Cosmos, because the cartoon sequences reduced it somehow. — Vera Mont

I think that series with Neil De Grasse Tyson was a complete waste of time. Why try to remake the same series Carl Sagan delivered almost to perfection. The animated sequences were sooooooo poor. They even tried to promote their own stupid historical judgements such as portraying Joseph Hooker as some kind of evil character, in that awful and shameful animated sequence.
It would have been much better if they made some episodes that updated Carl's seminal series.

I guess this is all relevant to culture - if tangentially. — Vera Mont

Well, @Athena has been typing a lot on the importance and influence of 'storytelling' in the human experience, and how it is and always has been a vital and very powerful tool in shaping the minds, and influencing the thinking of the next generation. I think that is very true, but which stories we emphasize and which fables are allowed to be peddled as true or fact, is where many of the big problems begin.
I think the story of science is 'the greatest story ever told.' I really enjoy sci-fi but we do need more sci and less fi, until enough humans become less easy to fool, all of the time.

Maybe a new animated B5 movie will be better than no new B5? — 180 Proof

I do think Mr Straczynski is trying to protect his 'baby' from the corporate profiteers, but I suppose it's hard to know who are the true good, bad and ugly characters in that world.

There was one or two that were set in times other than the 20th century.
The series 'Enterprise,' set at the point where humans first set off into inter-stellar travel with Captain Jonathon Archer, had a lot of time travel episodes that went forward and backwards in time.
'The temporal cold war,' was a recurring theme.
In deep space 9 we had the two episodes called 'past tense' set in 2024, etc
But in general, you are correct, most of the Star Trek franchise, restrict their time travelling episodes to the 20th century. My favourite time travel style episodes were from Deep Space 9.
The two part episode called 'Far beyond the stars,' But I enjoyed that more because it was also about the terrible racism of those times and the 'fun' episode 'trials and tribulations,' as it mixed with an episode from the original series.

Thanks for the info. I am grateful for some new B5 crumbs, but a cartoon!!!!! :groan: (I will of course buy it on DVD, nonetheless :sweat: )
A time travel storyline is also quite a lazy way to go imo, and my least fav storyline of any sci-fi series.
I was never a fan of series like 'Time Tunnel' or 'Quantum Leap.' I also never enjoyed any of the time travel Star Trek episodes, or any of the alt universe episodes.
A full reboot of the series along with TechnoMage and Psy Core spin offs remains my demand!!!

Ok thanks for the info!

Is there something about the American constitution I don't understand? Is it unamendable by any sitting government? Is a national referendum required to alter the constitution?

I've always been completely sceptical of astrology – until now. — unenlightened

Especially when his year of birth is 46 and mine is 64. On a more positive note, that makes me 'the reverse' of Trump. But I don't know if that's as good or equivalent to 'the opposite' of Trump.

Could be worse! I had a friend (not seen him for about 20 years) who was called George O'Donnel and his initials were G O'D. He was born on 6th June 1966. 6/6/66! (pretty close to 'The Beast.') Not bad for someone who also identified as atheist! :lol:


Thanks! I had some brand of Bacardi at one point (just a small shot), that tasted like it was about 180 proof!

I was at a small family gathering yesterday, to celebrate my 59th birthday, when I found out who has the same birthday and month as me. :cry: :rofl: :cry: :lol: :scream: :vomit: :yikes: