I am puzzled. The sign is obviously protesting war (the outline of a tank is in the background). How can there be such a huge difference in human reaction, to the topic of killing? On the evolutionary scale we all use the same hardware in our heads. I could understand minor differences, disagreements in detail.

What we have, in fact, is an atomized culture, without shared values. No consensus, no universal belief system seems to be present. It seems to be an ‘all for himself’ existence, without roots in a living whole.

What we seem to share is our television experiences – our reaction to TV news, TV shows, TV-reality-shows, TV-sports, TV-wars, TV-commercials, TV-documentaries. When it comes to real life issues, then everything is up for grabs, anything and its exact opposite has advocates and supporters. Just as any Internet Forum (from Babble to Znet) will demonstrate.

What reality, if any, do we share?

[ 10 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
What reality, if any, do we share?

---

Only the part governmed by our DNA, which is that we are all human, and therefore possessed of brains sufficiently complex to not be computable by current methods.

Beyond that, it is clear that we are very much different individuals (by "we" I refer to all human beings, myself included) because environment intersects with genetics in a different fashion for each of us.

It is to be recalled that there is biological evolution and cultural evolution. The latter, because it is so much more rapid and stored partly in the brains of each of us, manifests itself so much more diversely than biological evolution can.

Our environment and individual experiences throughout our lives determines how we percieve the world. We learn to accept certian "truths" from an early age and build our knowledge on those basics. We process new input in a way that fits our beliefs. This is how we make sense of the world.

But with people all over the world living in different conditions in different cultures we are bound to have different ways of seeing the world. Our reactions to the same events will differ based on our past experiences. People with similar experiences, growing up in similar cultures, sharing the same beliefs, will have much more in common and react much more similarly than those with totally different backgrounds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by satana:
Reaching people with different worldviews means searching deep into the source of their beliefs to find a "common denominator". And then working up from there. These common beliefs and values differ from person to person.

---

In view of all these elements, I find it puzzling (to say the least) that we can not seem to agree (with a large enough majority to form a consensus and force our politicians) about issues of basic humanity: war, killing, poverty, compassion, justice, freedom, responsibilities of citizenship (just to name a few).

I am not saying what we should share. I am just surprised that we seem to share so little. Have I missed anything? Or is it possible that once-existing national cohesion has been carelessly (and perhaps deliberately) eroded to the point where we can be manipulated into supporting anything? Or at least prevented from opposing it?

When the Nazis ordered all the Jews to wear the big yellow stars on their clothes, in wartime Denmark, next day most of the Danes (starting with their king) wore them.

I can’t see it happening in North America. Maybe it would take a foreign invasion to unify the people?

[ 09 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

I could go on, but you get the point.

Yet, all of these things are being done, right now, in Canada and the US, and there is no consensus in our values, strong enough, to make it stop.

So what, if anything, do we share?

[ 09 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

"We share whatever it is that we are willing to share. Like London said, it is a highly propagandized nation. This 'atomized' country seems to have only one God and that is of "Money".

What do I share with you? I share that same feeling and I too want to know the answer to that question. I want all of us to answer that question. I want to see people who are not afraid to recreate a culture for ourselves as something to rely on, as a given, in any context.

I was just talking to a guy on the bus about this exact topic. This place is a cultural disaster area! It sickens me that I cannot meet people because there is this unmistakable void between me and every single person I encounter.

Why must we have a relating point such as our favorite television program, our favorite band, our favorite sports team, our favorite writer?

When can we simply see the commonalities between us and open ourselves up? Why are our hearts locked in safes?

How many goddamn hoops do I have to jump, just so that you can see I am trustworthy?

What happened to sitting down at a cafe with a stranger and inviting them over to meet the family afterwards?

What do we share? We share in our pain of isolation. I spoke other writings about gravity. Culture is much like gravity, or a force brining us together, while the absence of it leaves us floating off into space.

Perhaps we share in our denial of our situation. If we keep doing what we are doing and take the cold depths of space as granted by God, or whatever it is the particular person believes in, than we shall all suffer the same fate, except it may look different from the 1st person point of view. When looking at others floating around it looks different, because their favorite movie isn't 'The Big Lebowski' or 'Catch 22'. And their style is different or their skin is a different color.

Misery, desperation, isolation, denial, we all have those in common.

I would like it to be a bit more colorful than that, personally, and would, without any hesitancy, with you and others create (pick your verb if this one isn't good enough) a place, a state of mind, where we all can say, "we are all 'this' and we share it for eternity and nothing anything or anybody can do can change that, unless it is us who chooses to do so."

Thanks for your time and I really appreciate your topic and would love to talk about it until the sun sets, rises again, sets...

Find the overlap. Find the common denominator. Find what we have in common. There are lots. Most of us hate pain. Most of us love physical and emotional well-being. We have common physical and emotional needs. Murder is a crime in most human societies. At least against fellow citizens. Theft, rape, abduction, assault are considered bad things all over the world.

We should be able to agree on SOMETHING, for crying out loud. We are not THAT different. Build on that, and we have a culture. Then we can act to prevent exploitation, poverty, wars, discrimination – stuff most of us hate. We can still argue forever about fashion or music or sports or whathaveyou.

This vacuum of moral relativism has run its course. It was an overreaction to dogmatic beliefs in religion and ideologies. We should get over this paranoia. Nobody is going to force you into a religion if you admit that enslaving people is bad and should be stopped. You may still keep your identity, you may still continue watching soccer if that’s your sport.

It is not either-or. It can be real life: vibrant, dynamic, colourful, with almost infinite variety. Share what we can, be proud of the rest. Don’t be so horribly afraid of fellow human beings. Most of them are just like the rest of us.

[ 10 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

Build on that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
It's a question of time.

---

There is such a thing as 'intelligent panic'. What makes it intelligent is: it's still in time.

Every side feels justified in this. And yet every side feels their justification is perfectly valid whereas the other side's inflexible attitude is 'wrong'. Here are a handful of examples (and i'm generalizing the groups here totally, i know all don't feel this way but for simpicity i'm lumping everyone in a bit unfairly):

The left see the theft of other peoples property in another land as intolerable, yet defend the destruction of personal property during their marches.

The gov't demands people obey the law, yet frequently allows laws and police actions that knowingly violate the charter of rights.

The police demand the public respect them and work with them, yet many departments knowingly engage in 'demeaning' and hostile practices which are outside the law and their mandate.

Native groups demand their rights as granted to fish and hunt under the law, yet regularly poach with little regard to animals or fish and frequently break the law.

Hunters and fishermen fight religiously for their rights to maintain what they consider a critical part of their heritage and life, yet cannot understand why the natives are so worked up about it.

Left wing public sector workers demand an end to 'exploitation', and yet hold the public hostage and threaten those not involved in their disputes to force the employer to the table to meet their demands, exploiting their position of power over these 'uninvolved' people.

Capitalists and buisnes owners demand a 'free market' with fewer gov't entanglements and rules, yet stick their hand out and demand help if their businesses are failing.

Business owners scream and pound their fists over the 'brain drain' caused by lack of competativeness, yet balk entirely at the idea of more funding for education or training to create a better trained work force.

Anti-fish farm activists will aggressively persicute legitimate businesses operating within the law and will compile massive data to show that they are in the wrong entirely, and demand a moritorium. But they won't lift a finger to help find a way to do it better or to help make it viable and sustainable, demanding instead these businesses loose everything and be shut down, even if thousands are out of work as a result.

Pro-fish farmers will ignore data even if it is resulting in veiwable damage and disregard the environmentalists entirely - while demanding that they be allowed to 'self-regulate' their activities.

America DEMANDS that leadership be based on democracy, and retains the right to attack those who may pose a threat. Yet they are morally outraged when another group attacks them, and pass laws to limit gay marriage based on 'religious principles and morality'.

For example - Lets look at the need to assist those who are suffering. It would often seem in discussions regarding the subject between 'left' and 'right' that there are fundimental polar opposites in attitueds and ideology. However, when the fires in bc displaced and threatened thousands of people, most people in bc leapt to donate time, money or goods to help out. A small and simple example perhaps, but i believe it demonstrates that there is a pervasive understanding and desire to help those in need.

The interpretation becomes the point of contention - with one extreme as 'I'll help only those who help themselves' basically, and the other being 'People should have, and contribute what they can. But having is a right, not a reward'.

quote:

---

No consensus, no universal belief system seems to be present. It seems to be an ‘all for himself’ existence, without roots in a living whole.

---

Aye, there's the rub: that is precisely what we share, at least in part.

Don't despair, there is a hegemonic ideology at work in our society, it is totalising and pervasive.

I think that alongside a universal desire for one's self interest there is also a universal desire to 'protect the pack' so to speak. When people percieve others in need, they still react quickly and with conviction. It's the perception that's different.

We have a myriad of cultures and backgrouds in Canada, we didn't want a melting pot - we wanted a mosaic. So, often interpretation and poitn of view is going to be diffent.

I'm not sure why you'd WANT it to be different Francis. And further - you and I both know that your 'different reactions' wasn't to the concept of killing or even simply war. I'm sure there were hundreds of other things people reacted to based on thier view point. Everything from 'Why is this person demonstrating here when we're not at war' to 'It's great to see people out taking a stand regardless of what their subject is'. And even just looking at the subject of 'war' covers a whole lotta topics other than 'killing'. That's just too simplistic a way to look at it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:
My belief Franics, although i would have a tough time coming up with much more than circumstantial evidence, is that our core belief system is actually fairly common and strong.

---

The problem, the way I see it, is the lack of ‘circuit-breakers’ in people’s minds. Just as in electrical wiring, a current above a specified maximum will trigger the breakers and interrupts the flow of the electric current, humans ought to have a similar psychological mechanism at hand.

We are far too clever and rely far too much on our reasoning ability. That is why clever lawyers can get murderers off the hook by arguing some technicality. We ought to have some common-sense safety mechanism that cuts in and says: it is not right that a murderer should go free, no matter what the book says.

We should have many other common-sense trigger points that would outrage people’s sense of decency, fairness, compassion. The site of a hungry child sitting on the sidewalk, watching a limo cruise by, for example.

We let our clever leaders convince us of anything. They make us believe that mass murder in foreign lands is in our best interest. If we had this psychological trigger mechanism, then we would reject the ‘logical conclusion’ by saying: “Nothing can justify THAT!!” And then we would refuse to go and do their killing for them. Or, at least, a sizable majority of us that would make a difference.

Some people know, some people guess, some are ignorant of the real facts and the lies woven around us by our masters. But all of us should know that killing people who never harmed us (nobody thought little Ali's family were terrorists), minding their own business on the other side of the Globe, shouldn’t be allowed. Yet, there was popular support for the war.

Regardless what role fear and misinformation played – enough people should have known better than cheer the killing.

After the first world war, people were horrified by the years of carnage. There was a determination of: “Never Again”. Yet in two decades, the unthinkable became thinkable again and worse horrors followed. Because people did not have the automatic checks and balances to prevent the mass murder. Not enough people had the courage to stand up for what they believed in. Not enough people rejected the order to march and kill.

If only we shared this one thing: the courage to stand up for what we believe in, the courage to say ‘NO’ and mean it, the courage to refuse being pushed beyond a certain point – then we would have a chance.

As long as we lack that courage, determination and integrity to draw the line in the path of evil, evil will always win.

[ 10 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

Part of the problem is perspective. For example, in your ww2 analogy, the problem might easily be viewed differently than you propose in your statement - "Not enough people rejected the order to march and kill". It might be viewed with equal validity as "not enough people said 'we WILL march and kill if you persist in your ways'". A strong show of force before hitler began conquest by war may have diffused the whole thing.

And there is where we get our 'perception' problem again - looking at ww2 some would have said Go now! it'll save lives in the long run! The other side would say Don't go - For much the same reason! Both sides think war is bad, both would like to see less loss of life. But the method is the trick.

For example, look at afghanistan. that war was viewed by many as necessary, because we could not have the taliban supporting al queda who was prepared to attack america. That's closer to an 'us or them' thing. We KNEW the taliban supported bin laden - they admitted it so there wasn't a lot of room for doubt. The world govt made a decision that it had to be done, and agreed to help clean up the mess after.

Compare that now to Iraq. The support that bush had from canadians generally came for one of two reasons - the belief that saddam did indeed have the ability to hurt us and our allies, or the belief that we shouldn't abandon the americans when they 'need' us. Both of course were untrue - the US certanly didn't need us to win the war, they only wanted our help to 'legitimize' their actions. So now we have the 'lie' aspect you mentioned. Bush says Dulce et decorum est... Lets go boys! and people believe him.

The ‘us’ and ‘them’ are always ‘good people’ versus ‘bad people’. Wherever they are, however they are mixed together. I believe that the number of ‘good people’ on this planet far outweigh the number of ‘bad people’.

If ‘good people’ had the courage of their convictions, then the ‘bad people’ would be powerless.

If the German ‘good people’ had the courage of their beliefs, then they would have stood up to Hitler and his thugs. Then no one need have had to sacrifice millions to stop Hitler.

If the American 'good people' had the courage to stand up to the 'American bad people' then Saddam Hussein would have never been foisted on the 'Iraqi good people' and need not have been feared either in his country or in ours.

I am sure you get the point.

The original, core problem is good people’s lack of courage, integrity and consistency on one hand; their complacency, laziness and naivety on the other.

Citizenship in a human society carries rights and responsibilities. We gladly embrace the rights, but we assume someone else will carry the responsibilities.

The result is the world we live in.

[ 10 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

[ 12 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

Oh - and a propensity for allowing over-analysis to impede our decision making process to the point of rendering our actions meaningless.