Linux is Unix based. C language comes from Bell Labs.

To try and wrest this back to the topic... The argument was that Russia had better follow western societies (even at the risk of commercialisation) since there were no viable alternatives. I pointed out that the lack of viable alternatives was a deliberate result of the system itself and so couldn't be used as evidence (it didn't win in a fair competition). You said that ruthless competition was sometimes good, — Isaac

The USSR collapsed. That wasn't because of the West.

See, if you persist in your terse, cryptic style of posting rather than making clear and expansive arguments, you'll continue to confuse me. You still haven't told me which Western values caused the Russians to go a-conquering. — jamalrob

Sorry. I'm painting while talking. :grimace:

One way to understand western European history is to say that Rome left a lasting mark. It's an image from the past that was cast into the future. So when anybody became dominant, the idea of Rome was there in the background. That's Western imperialism. It's Norman style, take no prisoners, cataclysmic conflict where no one is left in doubt who's in charge. That's the myth anyway.

Russia doesn't have the same kind of imagery in its history. It has Byzantium, but that was just a trading partner. I mean, how would you describe the prevailing Russian myth?

I have ideas about it, but what do I know?

I'm actually not sure why you brought up Marxists — jamalrob

Marxism is a form of apocalypticism. It took root in a Russia already steeped in Christian apocalypticism.

Did it? I know nothing of the history. My point was that it's open source, ie not a monopoly. — Isaac

Open source isn't in opposition to monopoly.

I think you missed my point.

It's mainly the exceptionalism, I think, and the assumption that they lead the world or should be doing so. (Obviously this is a gross generalization) — jamalrob

Notice how Marxists think of themselves as special. They have esoteric understanding of history and the world. This is the nature of apocalypticism.

That kind of mentality existed in Russia before the USSR. It's always been in the USA as well.

My PC runs on Linux. — Isaac

Why do you need Linux? But yea. That came from a government regulated monopoly.

Ruthless competition certainly lead to the development of my phone — Isaac

No. Your phone couldn't have come into existence in a competitive environment. You need a single infrastructure.

The same is true with PCs. You need one common OS to allow the fruition of the technology's potential. Later you can add more OS's, after the initial stage.

These things happened organically. The system is a tool. The vision is ultimately in charge.

This might be unfair, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your idea amounts to a kind of orientalism, sometimes found in popular histories of Russia. — jamalrob

I really hate bias. I want to gather my own ideas about how cultures work, but I'm aware that simplifying leads to inaccuracy.

I'm sort of stuck with my particular psyche that needs to grasp culture like I'm understanding a person. Then I try to force myself to look at exceptions to my rules as signs that I missed something.

One thing I kept coming back to with Russia was the way it's surprisingly similar to the US. They both have strong apocalyptic streaks and that sometimes influences events.

I thought we were all trying to be more civil... — Isaac

I really appreciated your comment. I meant that leftists would do well to spend a little time in silence reflecting on how much power they once had and how that was squandered.

I agree entirely, but it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the absence of a viable alternative cannot be used as evidence in a system which deliberately destroys alternatives. — Isaac

True.

Unless, of course, you agree with ruthless competition, in which case, yes, Western capitalism seems currently to be the winner. Not sure that's anything to crow about, but it might just be an uncomfortable fact. For now... — Isaac

Ruthless competition is good in some cases. Monopoly works well in others. There are a number of aspects of your environment that originated in Western monopolies. Your phone is one of them. So it's not really an east/west thing.

I think some of the reasons for the failure of leftist projects might have been in the design.

. Create a system which exploits workers to put enormous economic and militarily power in the hands of a narrow elite.

2. Use this power to ruthlessly destroy any alternative systems.

3. Point to the absence/destruction of alternative systems as evidence that no other system works. — Isaac

This is true except it leaves part of the story out. If your opponent crashes your head into a brick wall, you might stop and wonder if you could have represented yourself a little better.

All leftists everywhere need to shut up and think about that.

I just didn't know what you meant when you said that "every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence". — jamalrob

Oh, sorry. Yes, you're right. I wasnt even counting Ivan's efforts as imperialism. That didn't seem to be his focus for most of his reign.

But if you just mean that Russian imperialism has always taken place partly against and in the context of the actions of countries and empires to the West of Russia, then yes, of course- — jamalrob

I meant that their greatest imperialistic efforts look more like an injection of western values than something home grown. Is that wrong?

don't know if this fits with my knowledge of Russian history. But then, my knowledge of Russian history isn't great. How do you mean? Peter the Great? — jamalrob

Peter and Catherine.

would think it's precisely because of its geography that its imperialism, defensive though it might significantly have been, has very much been part of its basic nature. Having said that, I don't know if it's useful to talk of a basic nature. — jamalrob

Russia was originally a mercantile based society, selling furs and timber to the south. When their trade routes to the south were cut off, they receded into feudalism, slavery appearing first as social welfare, then as an institution.

Russian history is kind of bizarre from a European perspective. Read about Ivan 4 and the crazy events that followed his death. Russia almost became the eastern part of Poland. It was saved by the church, which is another endlessly fascinating part of Russia.

You need to read some good histories. Some aspects of Russian literature, music, and visual art require understanding the smoldering identity crisis that plagues the Russian culture.

As it happens I also suspect it's wrong to see the Soviet Union as merely another Russian empire — jamalrob

There's a particular governmental style that has arisen three times now in Russia. It's like a wheel with powerful aristocrats, bureaucrats, or oligarchs as the spokes of the wheel and the czar, general secretary, or president as the center. Though the center is supposedly an absolute ruler, his or her role is actually as a kind of broker for the aristocrats. That's the continuity Russia now has with the USSR.

I think every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence. Russia is actually really good at receding into itself and losing touch with the outside world.

It's a little counter to its basic nature to have to go out and conquer someone else, as you said, because of geography.

I’ve visited that one. — praxis

Me too. :cool:

On the other hand, those who say that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR might mean only that he wants to re-create an empire, not that he's any kind of communist. But even this is doubtful, and pretty much dismissed as an impossibility by all sides within Russia, even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, I think. A sphere of influence is not the same thing as an empire. — jamalrob

I also read Russian comments to the effect that return to empire isn't possible in the short term, but they seemed to have the impression that that's Putin's goal. Do you think they're wrong about that?

Which one is that?

Notre Dame:

There are all sorts of worldviews. I’m claiming that religions always make metaphysical claims (ultimate truths) that require uncommon access. Those with uncommon access have authority, assuming there’s no higher authority, so it is always a top-down sort of thing. — praxis

It's still not clear to me how you're using "metaphysical claims" and "ultimate truths". The term "ultimate truth" comes directly from medieval Europe. It was part of the ideology behind Gothic cathedral architecture.

How are you using it? Give me an example.

Faith in religious authority, yes. You are paying attention — praxis

Christianity has clear religious authorities. I was kind of befuddled when I discovered that it's an oddity that way.

Worldviews just sort of arise. Maybe there's some natural selection involved, I don't know. But it's never just a top-down sort of thing.

It looks to me like you ditched my question. Excellent. — praxis

Was it about faith? Because the rest made no sense.

In many cases, religion and science are the same thing. That would be true for ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Celtic, and yes all the old shamanic religions.

It kind of looks like you don't know what ontology is?

So we arrived in a ditch. Excellent.

Could you give an example of a metaphysical claim? (Because I think describing the nature of reality is metaphysical, so we're not on the same page.)

Let’s see, the Christ in Christianity refers to, well, Christ, and not the average Joe, no? AverageJoeianity would be funny religion though, and I thank you for inspiring the amusing thought. — praxis

I said esoteric Christianity has an ultimate, but it can't be spoken for.

Shamanism is about accessing what? — praxis

Shamanic religions usually have a sun god. What do you think they're trying to access?

What do you mean by ultimate?

Maybe one of these others would be a good example. — praxis

What's wrong with the examples I gave?

Sure. Shamanic religions don't have anything “ultimate“ in the sense I think you mean. And esoteric Christianity doesn't have an ultimate who could be 'spoken for.'

There are a lot of other examples.

This thread is a pig pen.

Anyone who can somehow convince others that they have experienced or speak for the ultimate. — praxis

Some religions are like that, yes.

Priests?

It refers to an ideology that relies on ultimate authority. — praxis

Whose authority?

How about Americanism. Is it better? We are told it is better like someone walking up to us and slapping us in the face. — FreeEmotion

That sounds like an unending drag. Who is presenting this to you? The company you work for? Your government?

What sort of thing is a concept? I think the notion quite problematic — Banno

The notion of a concept? Or the concept of a notion?

The Enlightenment ripped open a fissure in thought that poses religion against its opposite.

The OP article is explaining why that opposition isnt what it's often assumed to be, since religion, broadly speaking, doesn't have a specific opposite.

What's weird is that you're supposed to be wary of giving Russia or Ukraine bad advice. Like, they might take it and then you own the consequences.

That kind of communication is known as prayer.

suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'. — Olivier5

Oh. Could be.

but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that. — Olivier5

It's the old testament Father full of thunder and lightning. You can't reason with it. You just have to sacrifice your best stuff to calm it down.

For real.

And that would seem to be all. — Banno

Depends on your conception of divinity.

the southern unintelligible mumble--nobody knows what they are saying. — Bitter Crank

:lol:

How would a world in which God cared about all things equally differ from a world without God? — Banno

One has a God and the other doesn't.

I don't mean to argue for or against this idea but is novel (as far as I know) so I'm presenting it to see what others think of it. — Art48

The POE is a conflict between divine omnipotence and omnibenevolence. So the question would be: "Why can't God make all the creatures happy? Why do they have to make each other miserable?"

Your solution will work if you add Liebniz's solution: that we're in the best of all possible worlds. IOW, the world has to have these conflicting agendas: human vs virus, for instance. The world in which there is no conflict isn't possible, or it's not the best. Then you need to explain why.

We call it la Nouvelle Orléans. — Olivier5

Should it be Orleans Nouvelle?