View Full Version : Modern Party Politics: Terminally ill?
In my view the age of party politics as we know it is coming to an end...unless something goes horribly wrong.
What do you think?
Am I being pessimistic?
Am I being optimistic?
Am I blatantly wrong?
Does it really matter?
Interested to see who says what. :cheers
gurutoo
05-18-2005, 07:07 PM
Seems election after election, neither candidate is fit for the job and the voter is forced to pick death by hanging or drowning...
But not bad enough yet to quite qualify as terminal? :eek
Was that a gut reaction or do you have a reasoned argument to back up your position?
potter
05-18-2005, 07:24 PM
In my view the age of party politics as we know it is coming to an end...unless something goes horribly wrong.
What do you think?
Am I being pessimistic?
Am I being optimistic?
Am I blatantly wrong?
Does it really matter?
Interested to see who says what. :cheers
I think you've picked an interesting way to judge the tone of these boards Moo. ;) :wave
gurutoo
05-18-2005, 07:28 PM
But not bad enough yet to quite qualify as terminal? :eek
Was that a gut reaction or do you have a reasoned argument to back up your position?
Yeah, gut reaction tempered with a wee bit of optimism.
That's fair enough.
My optimism simply leads me to believe that we can come up with something better rather than make the old ways work better.
Once you think about a bit more I'd be surprised if your optimism doesn't lead you to the same conclusion. I'm not you can really class a belief that the old ways could work as optimistic.
Still, it's certainly better than thinking everything's smelling of roses!
gurutoo
05-18-2005, 07:44 PM
To be specific-I had a problem with the word "terminal" signifying no hope.
The two party system remains in place partly because of the fear ones vote being "wasted" by voting for a candidate with no real chance of winning.
I would like nothing better than having a field similar to the Kentucky Derby to choose from. all smart, all committed to the Constitution and in touch with the common man.
The stuff of dreams...
RedCon1
05-19-2005, 07:08 AM
I don't think the party system is the problem, it's the "two-party system" that is ruining us. Two parties can't possibly represent the whole country so, they seem to just represent themselves instead.
So, if the party political system isn't screwed, only the two-party political system, how many parties do we need?
2, 4, 8, 16, 342...is there really any difference?
RedCon1
05-19-2005, 09:37 AM
So, if the party political system isn't screwed, only the two-party political system, how many parties do we need? 2, 4, 8, 16, 342...is there really any difference?
Yes, there's a huge difference. two parties are insufficient to define the diverse political beliefs of all Americans. This leads to a lack of representation for the majority of Americans who are relegated, via the electoral college winner-take all system, to choosing the lesser of two evils. You're new to the forum so you have missed out on this topic. It ran its course about a week or two ago I think. In a nutshelll, most people agree that major changes are needed if America is going to survive. It is my contention that it would be beneficial for Americans to scrap the electoral college and its winner take all concept and move to a decentralized proportionaly elected democratic republic. In this way, everybody's vote counts and everybody has a voice. Nobody is left unrepresented and the reasons to bitch and complain about the government are drastically reduced. By decetralizing the government and increasing the difficulty involved with spending tax dollars, states would (hopefully) have more say in what happens with their tax dollars; thus, alleviating the flight of capital from the state coffers which is a serious threat to our country IMO. While there is no doubt that we need to pay taxes, many Americans agree, there are serious problems stemming from the relationship between the tax structure and the political structure.
Hmm...wish I'd found this place sooner now.
Not entirely sure I'm fully behind you but I'd have to read the old thread you mentioned to get a better idea of where you're coming from.
My concern is that all the potential solutions you mention wouldn't really change anything substantial and would simply put off the problems we are currently facing rather than fully resolve them.
Would you only change the way politicians are elected or would you also look to alter the way in which they work and the topics they deal with? Personally I've always felt that half the problem with politicians is that we ask them to carry out an impossible job.
RedCon1
05-19-2005, 12:59 PM
What I'm talking about would definitely involve a restructuring of the entire political system third continental congress style.
I take it there have been a few threads on this sort of restructuring before?
If not we'll get one started immediately!
Hi, moo, I have a question: In which country?
Hi Neko,
Not sure I follow you, sorry!
I'm from the UK, if that helps, but I wasn't referring to any country in particular. Every time I speak to a member of one of these fancy wetern democracy type places I learn that their political thoughts/feelings are consumed by a sense that they no longer feel emancipated. Everyone I meet votes (if at all) for the lesser of all known evils and always walks away from a voting booth feeling as if they'd been had.
This is something that politicians have pretty much ignored (to only their own detrement).
I disagree with Red's statement that more parties would solve the problem. I've come to view this as no more than a short-term 'patch up' job, that would serve to simply guarantee that our children and our children's children will be facing exactly the same problems in a few years time - there are plenty of countries with more than two parties to chose from and none of them are doing any better than us! As a result, I'm not satisfied with treating that as a solution, at best it's no more than a start - I'd never be able to look a child of mine in the eye and honestly say we'd done our best by them if we simply left them with 4, 5 or even 20 different parties.
I lean towards finding a new strucutre to society where those 'voted' for to become politicians would only be concerned with setting overall guidelines/standards - what needed to be done if you will, leaving the specialists in each individual field to best discern how things should be done to satisfy these guidelines.
I just feel that the job of a modern 'politician' asks too much of the people chosen to perform these roles, whilst the rest of the population is asked to make a choice (i.e vote) on such a wide variety of issues that no single person could ever be expected to know enough to satisfactorily judge who has the best manifesto. It's al guess work and gut instinct whith a hefty side order of bullshit.
I'm in the very early stages of trying to piece together a viable solution to this issue (rather than just moan on about it ;) ) so please forgive me for being a bit vague. However it would loosely go something like this:
People should vote on something like 3 issues:
Firstly they would be expected to vote once every X years to select a member of what would be a House of Social Standards. Members of this House would legislate to set out the standards Society expects (i.e. what individual sections' goals would be) without ever making any judgement as to how each particular section of society should best acheive their goals.
People would then vote for a second group, similar in style and aim to those of the House of Social Standards; differing only in that they function at a local government level, acting as safety guard to ensure all Standards set out by Society can be applied to each local situation without causing avoidable conflict/confusion. They wouldn't do much, but they will be the vital check on the 1st House's fallability.
The third (and possibly final) vote people would be called on to make would relate to their individual specialism. Each specialist group within society (i.e. medical professionals, teachers, engineers, manufacturers, etc etc) would be responsible for governing itself and ensuring it meets the requirements put in place by the first two Houses.
Obviously there are potential problems with this system and, as I said before, I'm in the early stages of ironing out all the creases. However, I do believe it would help restore some faith in the democratic system if we set out to alter the duties we called on people to perform as part of their political resopnsibilities.
My point was pretty much that the party system works differently in different, countries and even within countires on a local level it works better in some places than others- so people in different places are voting yes or no to different systems. Over here (France that is), for eg., we're not much of a democracy. Instead the equivalent of the British civil service is in charge, with occasional elections to let the socialists get on telly and stop the president from getting too complacent. Obviously, this means that I'm ill placed to answer your question.
Personally, I've never been much of a utopian (I'm not even that crazy about democracy), and the idea of having government ministries delineate people's goals gives me the heebie-jeebies, but what the hell, we can all dream, right?
the idea of having government ministries delineate people's goals gives me the heebie-jeebies, but what the hell, we can all dream, right
You see, this is why I love throwing ideas up in the air when they're still ridiculously unstructured; helps me work out where I'm misrepresenting myself.
:cheers
I disagree with your view that what you called the 'delineation' of people's goals would be bad. At present we say we live in a social democratic system and yet I maintain that our application of its central principles is fundamentally flawed.
In Soviet Russia, the idea of communism was bastardized and shoe-horned into the political void left by the collapse of the old serf-based monarchical system: the titles may have changed, from Tsar to Commrade and Royal Family to The Party, but the founding principles of domination and subservience remained firmly in place.
Because of this, Capitalist Democracy beat Communism in the big showdown of the last century because it was a far more tangible improvement to the old system than the opposition. However, this doesn't mean we didn't make the same mistakes, we were just slightly more subtle with it!
The reality of it though is that we still teach ourselves to follow someone else in almost everything we do. We still look to follow one person, or one small group of people, in something disturbingly close to the Messianic Phrophecies central to so many organised religions. The concepts of domination and subservience that we were so proud of sending to the rubbish heap aren't quite dead yet - and it is on coming to terms with this admission of arrogant oversight that our civilization will stand or fall.
My attempts to 'delineate', as you put it, are an earlier attempt to ensure that people are forced to look to themselves and their own capabilities more and more, and never be asked to cast their opinion on something on which they have absolutely no understanding.
I know how I want my country to run when we talk about general principles, but I'd be the first to admit that when we get down to the nitty-gritty specialist stuff I bow to the expertise of others. In other words, I know what I want from a healthcare system, but as to how I get it; I'll leave that to the Doctors thank you...not idiot politicians or beaureucrats!
So don't get the heebie-jeebies and turn away. 'Altruism' is simply a label for a dream everyone has, and seeing as how we're getting a little short on similarities and overrun by differences I think it would do everyone the world of good to simply ask: "How could we acheive X", rather than the more pessimistic "How can we solve Y".
Oh, and by the way, I used to be a civil servant so your description of France has just made my blood run cold. Edgar Alan Poe couldn't have come up with a more terrifying concept if he'd tried...but it ain't too disimilar to hear, British civil servants are simply a bit better at staying out of sight!
I know how I want my country to run when we talk about general principles, but I'd be the first to admit that when we get down to the nitty-gritty specialist stuff I bow to the expertise of others. In other words, I know what I want from a healthcare system, but as to how I get it; I'll leave that to the Doctors thank you...not idiot politicians or beaureucrats!
Congratulations, and well done. I can't even be sure of the general principals any more. Incidentally, this is one of my principal arguments against democracy- of course everyone wants efficient public services etc., but not being experts have no idea how to get them... And yet, we leave it up to the plebs to decide whose methods for ensuring efficiency are best.
Otherwise...
Of course, I realise that Marx's ideas were severely misrepresented by the Russians (Who was it to whom he said "If you're a marxist then I'm not"?), however, there is also the slight point that they are:
1. Open to interpretation. The actual mechanics of the revolution and life afterwards are barely touched upon, and possible obstacles (notably "ambition not conducive to the keeping of the peace", as Guicciardini, or rather one of his translators so nicely puts it) are not dealt with in any detail, excpet to say that there will be no more opression in a classless society, and no politics either since this is a means of opression.
2. Economically iffy. I forget the English term, but the idea of plus-value (that's to say the unpaid-for product of exploitation) particularly has taken a good many whacks since the 19th century, especially in the form of the neo-classical idea that factors of production are remunerated based on their marginal productivity.
3. Dialectic. And this is just a personal view, and I have put it last since there are plenty of people who don't agree with it, but hegelian philosophies of history get right on my nerves. Somehow it just seems somewhat arrogant to assume that there's a point to it all, especially when one is using carefully selected examples to prove it.
I like your points...but ;)
1. Open to interpretation. The actual mechanics of the revolution and life afterwards are barely touched upon, and possible obstacles (notably "ambition not conducive to the keeping of the peace", as Guicciardini, or rather one of his translators so nicely puts it) are not dealt with in any detail, excpet to say that there will be no more opression in a classless society, and no politics either since this is a means of opression.
All true. Marx was a pussy: beautiful ideals, pathetically undetailed. He knew what he wanted but didn't know how to explain the necessary journey.
Personally I think this was because he was suffering from Academic Myopia - a terrible affliction that gradually renders the educated mind useless as it slowly ensures that the head carrying it gets inserted deeper and deeper into the owner's rectum.
Marx was convinced that it (the 'revolution') would have to be difficult. Me, I believe it'll be exactly as difficult as we make it for ourselves.
But as mankind is incredibly good at working out how to get what it wants with minimum effort, it could be incredibly simple.
Economically iffy. I forget the English term, but the idea of plus-value (that's to say the unpaid-for product of exploitation) particularly has taken a good many whacks since the 19th century, especially in the form of the neo-classical idea that factors of production are remunerated based on their marginal productivity.
This may have to wait for a different post.
The whole of economics stinks to high heaven. Economists portray there theories as somthing akin to those of gravity and relativity. Universally consitant and infallible. Absolute horse crap.
Economics was man's attempt to run this 'virtual universe' we created (aka society) along the principles we had discerned from the physical world around us. Incredibly sensible, but they forgot to update their theories with every new advance, thus rendering their opinions about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
As a quick example let's take the concpet of full employment. Universally recognised as the holy grail of economics; secure this and everything's fine and dandy! But what do we actually mean? When you talk of employment how do you judge it? Shall we continue to qualify it by the current standards of financial productivity (commerically profitable), or should we actually take a wider 'beneficial to society' view, that would help encourage full time parenting, flexible working arrangements for the low-skilled worker etc etc.
My beef, really, is that the modern economy fails its own bloody business analysis tests! It's inefficient, non-sustainable, creates social division etc etc etc.
Anyway, moving on...
Dialectic. And this is just a personal view, and I have put it last since there are plenty of people who don't agree with it, but hegelian philosophies of history get right on my nerves. Somehow it just seems somewhat arrogant to assume that there's a point to it all, especially when one is using carefully selected examples to prove it.
I will never say there is some kind of universal 'point' to it all. That's too close to seeing the face of jesus in a slice of toast for me thanks.
However, and please excuse me if this sounds a little harsh. But enough of the self pity already. ;)
Of course there isn't a point. Unless you're one of those strange people who are convinced that the point of life is to wait quietly until you die as that's when it starts getting really good!
But there bloody well could be; if only people could understand the meaning of life. You see, it's actually really simple. In fact, it's been staring us in the face for around 150 years at least. It's all about trying to grow and develop...evolve if you will.
So if I seem to be supporting a hegelian hihstorical philosophy it's to point out what we could be rather than what we have been.
I can see that we are not going to get very far... But the journey may be interesting all the same.
The pessimist's view:
But as mankind is incredibly good at working out how to get what it wants with minimum effort, it could be incredibly simple.
I take issue with this. Individuals are incredibly good at getting what they want, mankind as a whole, less so. And this is precisely due to the fact that it is comprised of individuals, who are all busily getting what they want- money, power and sex generally, though there will always be a few deviants. The idea of eveyone suddenly coalescing into a happy, productive team is impossible on any huge scale, thanks to the aforementioned ambition.
My beef, really, is that the modern economy fails its own bloody business analysis tests! It's inefficient, non-sustainable, creates social division etc etc etc.
I like economics. I'm terribly bad at it (which is part of the reason that I gave up derivatives as a hobby), but I like it very much all the same. It reminds me of this:
http://www.ikebana.dk/images/20014.JPG
Ikebana- utterly unnatural, but far more perfect than anything that nature could produce. Of course it is inefficient and unsustainable and creates social division, but by its own criteria none of that matters, because the equations still come out right- if one person owns everything in the world, you still have Pareto efficiency. And if, as mentioned above, current scoiety is based on amorality, clearly an amoral study is required to analyse how it redistributes its resources.
Incredibly sensible, but they forgot to update their theories with every new advance, thus rendering their opinions about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
As a quick example let's take the concpet of full employment. Universally recognised as the holy grail of economics; secure this and everything's fine and dandy!
Good theories do not need to be updated with every new advance, of course the ephemera need to be rejigged to take technology and so forth into account, but things like supply and demand and maximum productivity/utility keep plodding along. (Note: I'm not claiming that economics is a hard science, or even necessarily that its a science.)
As for full employment- it is certainly the main thing (in keynesian economics at least, others may beg to differ), with low inflation, high living standards etc. attachd as caveats, but like equilibrium it is an ideal-type to be aimed for rather than something to be achieved- as long as you're heading towards it (and the caveats) you're doing okay.
:/
Whenever I start thinking that the world should be a better place I have a drink. The only cure worth the name.
(Edited for richtext)
Ah yes, and the historical dialecticism-
"'Dinner's at seven here. We don't usually change.'
'Except for the worse.'
'I meant for dinner.'
'So did I my dear boy, so did I.'"
-Kyril Bonfiglioli
Of course there isn't a point. Unless you're one of those strange people who are convinced that the point of life is to wait quietly until you die as that's when it starts getting really good!
But there bloody well could be; if only people could understand the meaning of life. You see, it's actually really simple. In fact, it's been staring us in the face for around 150 years at least. It's all about trying to grow and develop...evolve if you will.
I'm afraid that when I die things are going to get really bad. :D
That is, of course, the western view (the thing about improving ourselves, I mean, not that I am destined for hell), but really I see little to support it, and much prefer the oriental idea- that history keeps repeating itself and while the sinners may change, the sins stay the same.
Of course we can get somewhere! It’s not going to be easy...I'll grant you that at least! But...
Individuals are incredibly good at getting what they want, mankind as a whole, less so. And this is precisely due to the fact that it is comprised of individuals, who are all busily getting what they want- money, power and sex generally, though there will always be a few deviants. The idea of eveyone suddenly coalescing into a happy, productive team is impossible on any huge scale, thanks to the aforementioned ambition.
We're certainly on opposite sides of the spectrum on this one but I don't think that's actually a problem.
The ambition you spoke of has indeed been the primary cause of most of our problems but, as you go on to hint at later, this is exactly why our system works so well. As with all life, it takes that conflict and uses the energy it imparts to fuel our progressive momentum. However, I take issue with you on your view that this is the way things should be either as if it were some kind of law of physics or simply because we could never improve on what nature has shown us.
This is simply because mankind, at least for the last 15 - 20,000 years has not only been looking to improve on what nature has given, but has made a dam good job of it as well. Ok, so we've given ourselves a hard time of it and it is true to say that we use nothing that hasn't been provded by nature and base our work solely on our understanding of the laws that govern the universe around us. But, nevertheless, we do manage to improve what was provided by nature on its own (at least if you say 'improve' to mean suit mankind's individual needs)...although nature provided us so you could twist things to say that there's nothing mankind could look to do that wouldn't be 'natural'...but that's for another time.
I feel that part of our problem is that we have recognised the ambition that has driven us, along with the role of conflict in fuelling this momentum (thanks to Darwin); but whilst we have accepted that we can improve on things such as food supplies and methods of communication, we have failed to accept that we can improve on our supply of this forward momentum. It boils down to whether you belive man is the master of his own destiny or marching to someone (or something) else's tune.
I fully accept that the idea of improving mankind's collective outlook will be so stupendously difficult that it really is about as close as you can get to impossible whilst still giving the faintest of glimmer of hope. But I truely believe that this has more to do with our subjectivity than any undeniable truth.
I won't go into how we could look to do this else I'll be writing this for the next two years ;) , but I won't let you have the last word in saying it's impossible!
Of course it is inefficient and unsustainable and creates social division, but by its own criteria none of that matters, because the equations still come out right- if one person owns everything in the world, you still have Pareto efficiency. And if, as mentioned above, current scoiety is based on amorality, clearly an amoral study is required to analyse how it redistributes its resources.
Now, I may have misinterpreted this one but I won't find out if I don't try :)
As I implied above, I agree on this as a description of how our system has functioned - an economist would probably take issue with you on the lack of detail but I'm happy to go with you on it
But you talk of a society based on amorality and the resulting need for the system of resource distribution to be managed on similarly amoral lines in a manner that truely surprised me. It seems as if you're talking like this is either a good thing or 'the way things are', and I honestly didn't take you for someone who would think this way...maybe I was wrong, please put me out of my misery!!
I hold that this amoral founding is the primary reason we're in this dam mess. I'm not one of your conspiracy nutters, terrified of blood sucking 'Lizzardmen' or pseudo-Christian Knowledge Cults, but I do think there is something to be said for the amoral nature of our system having been hugely beneficial to those who felt (quite justifiably at the time) that to be selfish was simply the only way to ensure you'd always be OK. For me, this is why our system is unable to do anything positive…it’d been hamstrung long before we had even the faintest idea of what damage we’d causing to ourselves and the world around us.
Good theories do not need to be updated with every new advance, of course the ephemera need to be rejigged to take technology and so forth into account, but things like supply and demand and maximum productivity/utility keep plodding along. (Note: I'm not claiming that economics is a hard science, or even necessarily that its a science.)
As for full employment- it is certainly the main thing (in keynesian economics at least, others may beg to differ), with low inflation, high living standards etc. attachd as caveats, but like equilibrium it is an ideal-type to be aimed for rather than something to be achieved- as long as you're heading towards it (and the caveats) you're doing okay.
Good theories. That's where we're getting our wires crossed. I can't accept that description - that they've been beneficial for us yes, but the qualify as unchangeably good, no. Sorry! :/
The theories you seem so sure of are based on an understanding and application of both the laws of nature and what it means to be human. The last 100 years has seen an unbelievable shift in our understanding of these issues - so much so that most of us 'layman' haven't got the faintest idea of how big the changes we're talking about are because all the dam textbooks are being re-written. For example, in 6 years or so we'll have scientific evidence to proove whether the Big Bang came from nowhere or whether there some kind of cosmic umbilical chord around in the very early stages and so hint of the existence of something else. OK this may not have much to do with the particulars of what we're talking about here but I have a soft spot for it as an example of big some of the recent answers we've got to some serious questions have actually been. BTW, apparently the odds on favourite amongst physicists is for an umbilical chord to be found - can you imagine how much uproar that one'll cause! :lol
So I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that there is no room for improvement and that these theories need no updating. I don't know how much economics you've read, although I'd guess a fair bit (probably more than me), but I'm curious as to how much of it has been the primary resources from the birth of economics in the 18th Century and how much from later commentators/academics who have been looking to consolidate their field's position as much as break new ground.
I hope nothing I've said here has come across in an offensive way as I can get a bit frustrated with the view that certain things that we have come up with are unimprovable and this is one of the ones that really gets my goat having spent too much time around economics students at Uni!
So, go on then, what have I missed? ;) You've obviously thought about this a lot so there must be something I've overlooked and I'm curious as to what it could be!
It seems as if you're talking like this is either a good thing or 'the way things are', and I honestly didn't take you for someone who would think this way...maybe I was wrong, please put me out of my misery!!
I'm afraid I am one of those incurable pessimists, but a sort of optimistic one at the same time... In fact, I don't think of it as a good or a bad thing, but I do think of it as being incurable. If this is going to be a question of competion between each of our semi borrowed philosophies, you have been kind enough to mention your standpoint, so I shall lay my cards on the table too (quickly though, as Smallville is on in twenty minutes). The ideas which I am likely to be basing my arguments on, here at least, come from Machiavelli and Lao Tsu, and run something like this:
1. People are bad.
2. Just go with the flow.
We have succeeded, naturally, it being (to continue the gambling theme) the card up our evolutionary sleeve, in modifying our environment around us for our own good. However, we have advanced to such a state where further evolution is unnecessary meaning that effectively the only difference between us and the witch-burners is that we do not burn witches. We have not improved, but our technology has.
It boils down to whether you belive man is the master of his own destiny or marching to someone (or something) else's tune.
This is another interesting point, supposing we leave aside the question of God for a while (he has a dismally inconsistent record of practical intervention), we are still left with the problem of what "man" actually is (sorry, please believe me I realise exactly how poncy that sounded). Individuals certainly have a reasonable amount of input into what they do with themselves, but humanity as a whole isn't like a beehive or a collection of Japanese office workers, working towards an known and agreed goal- it wanders off in all direction, many of its members' objectives being entirely incompatible.
Good theories. That's where we're getting our wires crossed. I can't accept that description - that they've been beneficial for us yes, but the qualify as unchangeably good, no. Sorry!
Sorry for my vagueness, it is one of my main faults.
Oh dear, this is complicated. What I meant by "good" was not necessarily "Hey, I've felt myself getting richer since we got this theory", but merely correct, in that they discribe accurately (ceteris paribus) the workings of the economy. Since (see above) humanity is designed to act how it does and has no pressing reason to change, we can therefore assume that these theories will continue to apply themselves.
Of course I don't mean to say that we can't improve things (miracles happen, I suppose :D ), but it is extremely unlikely that it will ever happen. Somehow it all reminds me of a collection of short stories by Will Self (being an educated type you might have read it)- The Quantity Theory of Insanity.
Oh dear. We have been dealt a bum hand by life haven't we!!! ;)
Seriously though, I completeyl understand where you're coming from as I spent most of the last 5 years sitting in theat particularly grim hole.
What changed my mind was an introduction to current research in the field of neuroscience. You see, recent break throughs in understanding have taught us that the brain is developing in ways we never quite appreciated. It's commonly accepted that by the age of 18 - 20 you've stopped developing. This is partly true, as your body certainly will have by this time, but your brain doesn't finish growing til you hit about 24 - 26. Only at this point do your frontal lobes finish developing - and this is the key bit. This part of your brain is responsible for suppressing/managing those base 'animal' emotions/thoughts that you regard as proving your point that our situation is incurable.
I accept that we're only just getting to grips with these issues but we're getting much, much closer to that final breakthrough. That is why I will always maintain it's currable and hurl friendly insults at you for your blinkered pessimism!! ;) The key is, as always, education. Unfortunately politicians and even the odd bloody parent keep getting in the way! Come to think of it, most of the schools and Universities I've come across don't exactly do much to help the situation either. Don't get me started on the woeful standards in the teaching of Science... :wife As for my own subject of History...sweet mother of all that is good and pure... :dunno
Anyway, I'd be happy to take my reasons for this view further but I feel it may warrant a separate post.
The ideas which I am likely to be basing my arguments on, here at least, come from Machiavelli and Lao Tsu, and run something like this:
1. People are bad.
2. Just go with the flow.
Spend less time watching the news and more time around people - small kids in particular. Once you get past the mess, smell and generally annoying mood swings you begin to understand that the number of kids who start out inherently bad are miniscule. The People you're talking about were made.
Just because a lot of stupid people have been so woefully let down by their parents and educators that they believe their only hope of success is through adopting the 'bad' ways you point to as inherent in human nature, doesn't mean you're right.
we have advanced to such a state where further evolution is unnecessary meaning that effectively the only difference between us and the witch-burners is that we do not burn witches. We have not improved, but our technology has
Tosay this is to totally miss the point about evolution and human development in particular. As I briefly mentioned above this is where we've been evolving - and continue to evolve. You're right in saying our physical bodies won't evolve, but that's progress in itself. By concentrating on evolving the mind 'life' ,to give it an anthropomorhpic presence for a moment, can now ensure that the changes it needs to make inorder to try and survive can be done quick enough to keep up with a increasingly changeable environment.
Life want's to guarantee its survival and mankind is its best attempt so far - we're on a bit of a tight rope but this is we're man is heading, whether we like it or not!
Life can't stand the fact that there's nothing it can do to stop the Universe from ruinging the party so it's hellbent on taking control!
The interesting point is that the tool with which Life is loking to secure this goal, namely mankind, is becoming aware of what's going on.
I'll come back to the rest of your points a bit later; I'm afraid my views on the relationship between Society and the Individual need a bit of explaining and I'm only just getting to grips witha few key areas I've recently been introduced to. For now, it runs on similar lines to the Eastern philosophy that treats Society and the Individual as the 'Greater' and 'Lesser' man respectively; highlighting that all the behaviour patterns displayed by Society as a while could be identified within any individual (and vica versa).
Hope you enjoyed Smallville!
Oh, and just for the record, Will Self falls in my 'Brilliant Mind, Crippled by Myopia' category.
I haven't any proof of this, but I expect that both Will Self and Marx (gruesome twosome) are/were far more intelligent than I am, which may possibly render my own arguments invalid. However, Sancho Pança said something about good ideas still being good ideas even if they come from idiots, so I shall press on, much as to an optimist I may sound like a Greek chorus.
Now, to biz:
Oh dear. We have been dealt a bum hand by life haven't we!!!
Perhaps, but it serves me well enough to bluff myself out of trouble.
Spend less time watching the news and more time around people - small kids in particular. Once you get past the mess, smell and generally annoying mood swings you begin to understand that the number of kids who start out inherently bad are miniscule. The People you're talking about were made.
Yes, made by life. It seems immaterial whether it is nature or nurture's fault, the end result is the same- we have to ensure that our offspring have a reasonable sense of reality if we want them to provide for our old age. The chap who has moral scruples about doing in the competition or even his superfluous sons in law (this is the roman à clef bit- guess who) will not remain alpha male for long, and hence will not breed prolifically. Luckily, the ordinary business of getting through life does this for us and we only have to occupy ourselves with the easy things like arithmatic and the dates of the kings of England.
Just because a lot of stupid people have been so woefully let down by their parents and educators that they believe their only hope of success is through adopting the 'bad' ways you point to as inherent in human nature, doesn't mean you're right.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it means precisely that. It has happened since the dawn of time, it's happening right now and it seems very improbable that it will not go on happening in the future.
Now for the nature argument:
What changed my mind was an introduction to current research in the field of neuroscience. You see, recent break throughs in understanding have taught us that the brain is developing in ways we never quite appreciated. It's commonly accepted that by the age of 18 - 20 you've stopped developing. This is partly true, as your body certainly will have by this time, but your brain doesn't finish growing til you hit about 24 - 26. Only at this point do your frontal lobes finish developing - and this is the key bit. This part of your brain is responsible for suppressing/managing those base 'animal' emotions/thoughts that you regard as proving your point that our situation is incurable.
I begin to suspect that someone has been looking in the photo gallery and by cunning detective work has realised that I am not quite the withered old fart that I pretend to be, and is having at dig at the nietzschean fervour of callow youth :lol . And my riposte goes thusly:
a) Please note that I have not praised or condemned any kind of behaviour- neither rampant bestiality nor civilised utopian thinking. As Inspector Clouseau says, it's all part of the rich tapestry.
b) So we've just discovered that people's brains keep growing a few years longer than we thought, a fact which turns them from beings which must own at once to tail and claws into enlightened philosophical types. The key word is discovered- we can reasonably assume that this is not a new phenomenon- you may have rearranged the equation, but the answer is still the same. I can't back myself up with up-to-the minute neuroscience, but I do have seven thousand years of old evidence to show that we seem to be stuck in somewhat of a rut.
Secondly, the "successes" of this world (yes, it's those alpha males again) seem to show rather more teenage qualities than adult ones, a fact that would indicate that while it is the enlightened fronal lobe that helps us live in society, it is the "baser" insticts that help us survive at all. Someone with a strong desire for sex and power (fulfilled within the constraints of society, of course, getting labeled a deviant will undo all your good work) will reproduce themselves more, thus these characteristics are the ones that will be passed on, thus we will not change.
And if we will not change we'd better get used to things.
QED, innit? :D
PS. Thanks, yes Smallville was good the first episode was the one which has Lex being fitted up for murder (for only... oh, about the fifteenth time) and the second was one about some virus or something, which wasn't so good. Oh well, the thought of this fascinating discussion kept me going through the duller bits.
Oh yes, and I meant to say, I have been known to read original economic texts, but it's not something I'm proud of, you know. I tend to replace the jacket with that of the latest de Sade, one must keep ones end up in society after all. :lol
Fredfredson
05-21-2005, 10:39 PM
Good discussion gang.
Sneaky hiding in the polls section, keeps the riffraff out and all.:yay
F
:pooter
Right. On with Project: The Salvation of Neko! ;)
It seems immaterial whether it is nature or nurture's fault, the end result is the same
Sorry but no. One (nature) implies that it cannot be changed without changing man into something so totally different as to be almost unrecognisable. The other (nurture) merely implies that, although it may well be a bit tricky to turn things around, it won't involve any fundamental change to our 'nature'. On that basis alone, the end results are hugely different. Their immediate consequences may well be the same but that's a whole other kettle of fish!
The chap who has moral scruples about doing in the competition or even his superfluous sons in law (this is the roman à clef bit- guess who) will not remain alpha male for long, and hence will not breed prolifically. Luckily, the ordinary business of getting through life does this for us and we only have to occupy ourselves with the easy things like arithmatic and the dates of the kings of England.
Again, you claim that this phenomena is akin to gravity; I say it's just an accurate description of our sub-conscious' attempt to deal with this issue in previous years. This is the very kind of society that people are having an increasingly hard time dealing with. To simply claim that there's bugger all we can do about it ranks up alongside previous claims that man would never find an answer to the Plague, Smallpox etc etc etc [the example needn't be health related, the point is this is no worse a problem than previous threats of imminent doom - it only seems that way because we haven't solved it yet].
Mankind has been climbing insurmountable obstacles and acheiving the impossible for its entire existence. To assume that, as society gradually solved its problems one by one, each obstacle would become easier/simpler flies in the face of everything life teaches us...of course the hardest problems would be left to the end! On an aside though, to suddenly declare that this really is one we won't solve leaves you in a tricky situation.
To accept yout conclusion would mean accepting that your life was a complete waste of time. Anything you do is pointless. Mankind is doomed, so give up.
But then what? Do you carry on in defiance of your doom? A bizarrely optimistic pattern of behavious...unless you put it down to sheer, pointless bloodymindedness! Or do you just put yourself out of your misery? Either way, anything you do won't mean a dam thing to anyone other than you. Society, with all the gifts it has given you, would instantly become a meaningless concept. The best we'd acheive is a return to barbaric tribalism.
But the nightmare of circularity that this line of argument could easily lead to brings me to my real point here: you see, I don't really see much point in our having a discussion to pursue some kind of universal truth in the traditional philosophical manner. I have to rely on an impassioned plea :D , to try and persuade you that to give up on my view would do nothing more than proove right all the insane ramblings of the mindless doom merchants who would have you belive that mankind is a complete waste of time.
Now, I know how tempting it is to believe them at times but when you really think about it for a bit it's kind of hard not to look at what man has acheived without going 'Wow'. Furthermore, when we talk of mankind being pointless we're saying that the most blatantly successful life form, life's greatest acheivement, is a waste of effort. Not even I'm arrogant enough to make that claim!
So, to some up, I'm right ( ;) ), if only because to accept your view is a waste of my time. It's not going to give me any answers and is therefore utterly pointless.
I begin to suspect that someone has been looking in the photo gallery and by cunning detective work has realised that I am not quite the withered old fart that I pretend to be, and is having at dig at the nietzschean fervour of callow youth
Ah, you suspect...or assume...and assumption will make an ass out of you and me, as the saying goes!
Honestly hadn't given it a moment's thought my friend. And I'd bet a lot of money that you've taken me to be far older than I actually am...I'd be interested to know (PM with a guess if you get bored! I promies I won't be offended :D ).
As for the riposte though...
So we've just discovered that people's brains keep growing a few years longer than we thought, a fact which turns them from beings which must own at once to tail and claws into enlightened philosophical types. The key word is discovered- we can reasonably assume that this is not a new phenomenon- you may have rearranged the equation, but the answer is still the same. I can't back myself up with up-to-the minute neuroscience, but I do have seven thousand years of old evidence to show that we seem to be stuck in somewhat of a rut.
You'd probably be right in claiming that these developments in the human brain haven't been recent - in fact, the studies which led to these discoveries involved analysing particular syndromes/phenomena which had been reported for years. However, this doesn't make the second half of your claim vaid.
For one thing (just to get it out of the way) I'm sorry to say that "seven thousand years of old evidence" counts for nothing. It's little more than a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
Moving on, the very way the brain develops is based on far more than just its initial 'starting position', as defined by your DNA. Indeed, it involves a serious amount of re-wiring and re-structuring (learning) before it hits cruising altitude. But the starting position is vital and, if this does change, its effects will take many more years to finally settle into place.
More importantly though I would also have to draw your attention at this point to a trend shown by nature that is beginning to be given some serious consideration within scientific circles (although possible more for its usefulness as a concept at this stage rather than a powerful belief in its universal truth).
It highlights that the development of life, as soon as interraction with other organisms came into play, can be seen to show a pattern of progression as where once everything was the same we suddenly had the introduction of the predator/prey relationship; followed by the introduction of the parasite/host relationship; and finally the introduction of the mutualistic relationship.
Why is this important? Well, inside everyone of your cells you will find something called mitochondria (apologies to anyone who knows this - I'm keeping it simple because I haven't got all night and I'd never claim to be an expert!). This mitochondria is central to your existence in that it is responsible for producing the energy that keeps you alive through aerobic respiration. The American bacteriologist Lynn Margulius successfully argued over a good many years that almost all the biochemistry that keeps you and I ticking over is carried out by what were once free-living bacteria, and more recently she has convinced the scientific community that these mitochondria I mentioned were once free-living bacteria themselves. In other words, previously parasitic bacteria (or predatory - there's retty much bugger all difference at this level) gradually became less and less harmful to the prey/host, until it began to positively effect the very life form it used to harm to get by. i.e. life developed a way for mutualistic relationships to work as it ensured a double hitter if you like - for once, someone didn't have to come off the worse for wear!
In effect, mutualistic relationships are the foundations on which you and I are made possible. So to say we'll never be able to work it out is, for me, to refute your very own nature!
For a better discussion of some of these issues may I recommend 'Unweaving the Rainbow' by Richard Dawkins (or Marguliu's own work if you're feeling particularly brave!). For the neuroscience got to www.bbc.co.uk go to the Radio 4 ages and check out the Reith Lecture 2003 link.
They're both far better at it than I am. :)
the "successes" of this world (yes, it's those alpha males again) seem to show rather more teenage qualities than adult ones, a fact that would indicate that while it is the enlightened fronal lobe that helps us live in society, it is the "baser" insticts that help us survive at all. Someone with a strong desire for sex and power (fulfilled within the constraints of society, of course, getting labeled a deviant will undo all your good work) will reproduce themselves more, thus these characteristics are the ones that will be passed on, thus we will not change
On the teenage/adult qualities issue I'm right with you!
However, I would argue that the alpha male is becoming an increasingly hounded individual. Sure he still has his moments, but his founding principles are being erroded each passing day. More than this though, the animalistic nature of man is gradually being worn down.
Sure it's been a hell of a battle and has cost us dearly along the way (the holocaust was too recent to say anything else). But there's one thing the Abu Graib/Guantanamo uproar has proven; that we're actually a lot nicer than we used to be. Sure a couple of techniques that are endorsed are, when you actually go through them rather than just read the description in a book, quite dam nasty; but they're nowhere near the level of some of the examples history has to offer us.
Things do, can and indeed are always changing. Each generation has a slightly different outloook than the last.
But we're getting down to the 'hard yards' now. This is where our resolve will be severely tested - mankind's death warrant (if it is to ever be needed) will only be signed off by man himself - even if it's through some natural event, we knew one would hapen eventually so we shouldn't have wasted so much time worrying about people with strange skin/beliefs etc.
When you talk about the development/evolution of the mind as we have been though, the physical development we touched on with the growth of the frontal lobes is only part of the deal. The key area is the mental environment in which this new twist in life's tale is allowed to develop and, as such, we are most certainly capable of tipping the balance.
The proof that mutualsitic relationships are possible is written in every single one of your cells!
When you say you'll never be able to alter your beliefs I say you've been doing it all life anyway so why not actually make a conscious effort with it for a change?
Right, what have I missed now... :dunno
Thanks Fred,
Do you think we should move it?
It's been nice getting the chance to go back and forth without some mindless halfwit throwing itheir ha'penny's worth and trying to disrail a productive conversation with your typical "Oh, it's all a waste of time!" BS!!
Having said that the more different views I can get the better as far as I'm concerned.
If you're trying to find something you triangulate to give yourself a better chance so I don't see why anyone would discount the value of another reasoned opinion when you;re trying to find the 'truth' as it were!
CockySOB
05-22-2005, 12:01 AM
Good discussion. I've been down with the flu for the last couple of days, and am only now recouperating sufficiently to use words of mroe than a couple of syllables.... I'll join the discussion shortly.
Please don't tell me you'll be joinging Neko...my brain's beginning to hurt!
;)
Jump right in, you never know your entrance could be the key to us actually getting somewhere!
Sorry to hear about the flu mate, I always find vodka helps. If it doesn't kill the bug it certainly takes your mind off things for a bit!
And rest assured, there is nothing that I should like better than to be saved and wander the world in happy optimism- this is so evidently a bowler's wicket that you should be laughing... Erm...
Sorry but no. One (nature) implies that it cannot be changed without changing man into something so totally different as to be almost unrecognisable. The other (nurture) merely implies that, although it may well be a bit tricky to turn things around, it won't involve any fundamental change to our 'nature'. On that basis alone, the end results are hugely different. Their immediate consequences may well be the same but that's a whole other kettle of fish!
But if it is nature, both ours and that of the world that influences nurture (and we must assume so, since peoples' DNA doesn't change based on the way they are brought up), then it remains unchangeable. Of course, with a concerted effort by the entire human race to raise their kids to be nice, change would occur, however the people of whom the effort is required have been designed to perpetuate their own state, so this will not happen.
Again, you claim that this phenomena is akin to gravity; I say it's just an accurate description of our sub-conscious' attempt to deal with this issue in previous years. This is the very kind of society that people are having an increasingly hard time dealing with. To simply claim that there's bugger all we can do about it ranks up alongside previous claims that man would never find an answer to the Plague, Smallpox etc etc etc [the example needn't be health related, the point is this is no worse a problem than previous threats of imminent doom - it only seems that way because we haven't solved it yet].
Oh, no it's far more tricky than gravity, or, for that matter, smallpox (There is a difference between the two? Both are faits de nature and we have found ways of getting around them both), since here the fault, dear brutus, lies in ourselves. Having no concerted wish to "solve" this problem (if it comes to that I don't even acknowledge that it is a problem), we will not achieve it- besides, can you seriously imagine, for example, a US government "Making People Nice Agency"- depending on whether there was anything good on tv that night they would either be laughed out of town or guillotined. People have no great wish to be improved.
To accept yout conclusion would mean accepting that your life was a complete waste of time. Anything you do is pointless. Mankind is doomed, so give up.
But then what? Do you carry on in defiance of your doom? A bizarrely optimistic pattern of behavious...unless you put it down to sheer, pointless bloodymindedness! Or do you just put yourself out of your misery? Either way, anything you do won't mean a dam thing to anyone other than you. Society, with all the gifts it has given you, would instantly become a meaningless concept. The best we'd acheive is a return to barbaric tribalism.
There's a lovely response to this in a Terry Pratchett book somewhere, but I think I've left my copy in Rennes, so I can't quote it (Digs might be able to, I know he's a fan), so you'll just have to make do with my lesser eloquence:
On the contrary, because I accept life as it is, I waste less time wishing for something that could never happen- just because I'm a pessimist doesn't mean I'm depressive. Buddha said "leave the world of dust", Lao Tsu said "join the dust of the world", which is easier and more fun (plus you don't have to sit on mountains banging gongs unless you really want to). If I had some philosophical dream or ideology, then yes the prospect of it never being achieved would be quite grim, however, I don't, so society and life and so forth are all good things, moreover, in each instant they are perfect, Platonic ideals- obviously since they are all that exist and given the past are the best that can exist (I'm talking complex iterative processes here, not panglossian dreams). But bollocks to the philosophy (as Marcus Aurelius probably never said), Achilles had the right idea: wine, women and a place in history- what more could an inhabitant of this fleeting world wish for? I have a whole world to play with an no distractions, surely I would be very silly indeed to be miserable about it.
For one thing (just to get it out of the way) I'm sorry to say that "seven thousand years of old evidence" counts for nothing. It's little more than a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
But if human physical evolution has stopped, or even slowed down sufficiently as to be negligeable, then this, presumably, is what we can look forward to. I may be being obtuse, but as for symbiotic relationships, even with our own mitochondria, I can't see where the importance is- each creature is doing what seems best for its survival. I could say the same about the social contract, and a nasty cynical piece of work it is too.
However, I would argue that the alpha male is becoming an increasingly hounded individual. Sure he still has his moments, but his founding principles are being erroded each passing day. More than this though, the animalistic nature of man is gradually being worn down.
Sure it's been a hell of a battle and has cost us dearly along the way (the holocaust was too recent to say anything else). But there's one thing the Abu Graib/Guantanamo uproar has proven; that we're actually a lot nicer than we used to be. Sure a couple of techniques that are endorsed are, when you actually go through them rather than just read the description in a book, quite dam nasty; but they're nowhere near the level of some of the examples history has to offer us.
Yes, we are going through a particularly decadent period of history, either it will come crashing down and reduce us to the dark ages, or it will eat itself- think of the 'gladiatorial combats' we see one tv and at the cinema today- violence will always resurface. It's the quantity theory of insanity again- so the americans are nicer, the Sudanese, to name but one are a lot nastier. Each age has its charity and its massacres, and in general, proportionality is maintained (though if you're working year by year you'll need a Christie Malry-style 'balance carried forward' column).
When you say you'll never be able to alter youtr beliefs I say you've been doing it all life anyway so why not actually make a conscious effort with it for a change?
Because I can't make myself believe something that I find unconvincing. :D
Now, for my question: appart from tinkering with the mechanics of democracy (and boy could i tell you some stories- when it comes to that the French have quite a wide experience: five republics, two empires and a brace of monarchies- each as corrupt as the last), how would you ensure that seven thousand years of habit and tradition were undone to create a brave new world?
OK. This may not be a complete reply in one post but I'll see how much I can get through for now.
But if it is nature, both ours and that of the world that influences nurture (and we must assume so, since peoples' DNA doesn't change based on the way they are brought up), then it remains unchangeable. Of course, with a concerted effort by the entire human race to raise their kids to be nice, change would occur, however the people of whom the effort is required have been designed to perpetuate their own state, so this will not happen.
To a point you are exactly right. However, what we have discovered is that the nature (which you rightly pointed out was unchangeable in any conscious and therefore useful sense) has nurtured us to the point where it is actually looking increasingly evident that it is incredibly changeable! Personally I don't think we'll actually have to go quite this far to solve our problems, but the fact that we could, if push came to shove, is coming closer to reality with every passing day.
As for the "concerted effort to...raise their kids to be nice", well I'd argue that there was already a concerted effort. I've never met a parent who didn't want this. I've met loads who were crap at acheiving it and ended up failing miserably, but I hold that this is down to poor education rather than lack of ambition in this department!
And by education I am talking about a more 'what it means to be you' mode of thought, rather akin to that of many of the Eastern schools of thought you are so obviously on more than nodding terms with! I don't mean a failure to teach people how to be parents; rather a failure to help people understand what it means to be them, as that (in my experience) is the key defining attribute of the successful parents I've met: they have an excellent understand of how they work which, consciously or not, helps them make the kind of Parenting decisions you'd usually expect only the trained expert to make. We have been so hellbent on raising Doctorrs, Lawyers, Scientists etc etc that we've somewhat taken our eye off the ball a bit when it comes to that little matter of raising humans!
You're right about the people we need to be reaching having been "designed to perpetuate their own state" though. However, this 'design' you refer to only covers their actions and the surface thoughts, whilst leaving them with the same basic desires that you and I have already agreed we share (a general sense of "just let me be me" if you wil allow me to reduce it to that). The very fact that their actions and surface thoughts (beliefs would probably have been a better way of putting it) are now failing to deliver their desires is causing the rising frustration that we all recognise in almost every event we witness or are involved in.
However, I see this very source of the anger and distrust we're all trying to resolve as the chink in the armour. Whilst leading to feelings of frustration and anger, this failure is also engendering the belief that something is wrong. I'd hope you'd give me this point at least! More and more people are at least agreeing that 'something' needs to be done.
This realisation that a problem exists means they are now, unlike at other times when (as you rightly point out) people's desires are sufficiently satisfied by the status quo, open to suggestion as to how to change their current situation.
The rise of fanaticism discussed elsewhere (Spyder's hole for one) is a clear sign that the public are open to suggestion. They're only going for the 'tried, tested and failed' options because they're not aware of any alternatives and are listening to people convinced that they're actually very different from those previous 'failed' versions you could mention.
This is why I remain here in my warm fluffy ball of optimism :D - yes, you did read that right, I'm optimistic because there are more fanatics out there! Bring on the nutters! :yay It's nature telling us that the time of change is upon us!
The chance is there, we just need to grab it by the balls. The key issue is going to be in the presentation - and it is here that I think we will get the least possible assistance from the likes of Smith, Marx, Proudhon, Rousseau or any of the other buggers who've had a go in the past!
You say that it's all pointless because we're not capable of coming up with a viable alternative (a gross generalisation but I hope you'll let it go ;) ). I maintain that the viable alternatives are already out there - we simply need to reassess a few of our previously held convictions for us to finally start 'seeing the woods for the trees' if you will. I am (almost) convinced that we do not need any particular advances in skills or new organisations to get what we want; we just need a bit of re-structuring. But I think this may have to go into a new post. My ideas are in their infancy in this area but I'm (fairly) confident that they'll stand up - if only because rather than try to come up with a single solution I have been more intent on creating a framework in which we could better utilise the talents and resources at our proposal.
I honestly believe it can be done. But I'm not convinced that this time around it'll be acheivable by one man in the style of Smith et al. A continuation of my belief that the harder we try to make one particular person responsible for something the harder it'll be for us to find the right person for the job! Man on his own is becoming an increasingly meaningless concept. No-one, anywhere in the world, who has had an degree of success can truely claim to have 'done it on their own' (OK, bring on the one or two excptions that ALWAYS pop into existence when these claims are made!).
This is why only the truely ambitious are looking to instill a sense of mutualism in Society!! ;)
Anyway, as I said, a new post I think.
Moving on though...
it's far more tricky than gravity, or, for that matter, smallpox (There is a difference between the two? Both are faits de nature and we have found ways of getting around them both), since here the fault, dear brutus, lies in ourselves. Having no concerted wish to "solve" this problem (if it comes to that I don't even acknowledge that it is a problem), we will not achieve it- besides, can you seriously imagine, for example, a US government "Making People Nice Agency"- depending on whether there was anything good on tv that night they would either be laughed out of town or guillotined. People have no great wish to be improved.
I don't want to dwell on this too much as I think it's something neither of us is particularly interested in pursuing and I've already babbled enough about whether there's a problem or not and, if so, whether we can solve it or not. But I'd just like to make my position on a couple of things a bit clearer.
My 'philosophy' would never look to make someone 'be' something in the proactive way implied by your nightmare suggestion of the 'Making People Nice Agency'. I believe that our drive to make people be things (the very drive which has got us here and therefore deserves so much praise) has become out of date. The intentions are correct, the application needs a bit of work. We need to 'let people be X' a bit more 'than make people be X'. I know it'll be hard, and I know how laughable it sounds (believe me!), but I fail to see what other option we have.
Whether you see it as a problem that we can solve (me) or just the way things are (you Neko), we should at least be able to agree that more and more people are looking for a change. Now, we can either sit back and let the winds of fate take us where they will (trust to mob intelligence if you like) or we can stop bickering about who's to blame for what (as you and I have so gloriously managed to acheive!! ;) ) and look at how we can solve some of the things that are bugging people so dam much!
If you can at least agree that there's a point in trying to take control of your immediate destiny and just see if it would be possible to solve these problems then we can get somewhere. You see I don't really want to convince you that it can be done, I'd be happy to just convince you that it was worth giving a shot, if only to cover all bases! If I can do that, then together we can convince the next person and so on and so on. I still hold that whenever you reach an insurmountable obstacle someone, somewhere will have the mental 'equipment' to get you over it. We just need to pool resources...which isn't too far away from what we're taught to do anyway.
Moving on though.
Terry Pratchett! I knew I liked you (currently surrounded by his entire published works...pretty much)!
This, as I said, is the bit that really becomes a pointless philosophical merry-go-round that, for all the hours of enjoyment it can bring, will never really get us anywhere (usually Terry's point exactly!). And to be honest I only really wrote the section you quoted from my earlier post to see how you'd respond!
We can take it further if you want but I don't think it'll do us any good.
if human physical evolution has stopped, or even slowed down sufficiently as to be negligeable, then this, presumably, is what we can look forward to.
See above - maybe we've reached the stage when life's going to release Evolution MrkII? Only this one will have less support software as standard!
with our own mitochondria, I can't see where the importance is- each creature is doing what seems best for its survival.
Best for its own survival. That's all I have to say. My pessimism comes out in that I believe our current set up is definitely doomed. How we survive is up for debate, driven largely by your particular interpretation of 'survive'. I state that mutualism offers the only available alternative - we've never tried it so it's got to be worth a go at least!
If you're still unconvinced on any of my points then I diagnose severe lack of confidence in your social self ( ;) ), with the only possible cure being obscene quantities of banned substances! That'll be my only chance of bending your head into shape!
As for your final question. Although I've glossed over bits of my response above I think it calls for a separate post...what do you think?
I've put a fair bit of my heart on my sleeve here so please be gentle with me people! The key factor to remember is that I have been aiming to set up a framework conducive to finding the soltuion we all dream of rather than simply jumping straight in and tackle the problem face to face, manno a manno like any good-natured but ultimately doomed alpha male would ;)
Hi Cocky, sorry, I only just saw that flu thing. Get well soon- doctor Neko reccomends a hi-ball glass full of equal parts whisky and orange juice (well... maybe not all that equal...) with a spoonful of honey stirred in. This is also a brilliant cure for being able to walk in a straight line.
Now, my point isn't to tear your ideas apart, Moo, and I am very sorry if my argument seems agressive- something which wasn't the intention at all. Indeed, one of my points is that you can have your ideas and I'll have mine and then we're both happy, espcially since both sets of philosophies are entirely compatible with human nature, so, I'll try and comrpomise a bit more (which is what I usually do in fact, it's yonks since I had a proper agrument).
As for the "concerted effort to...raise their kids to be nice", well I'd argue that there was already a concerted effort. I've never met a parent who didn't want this. I've met loads who were crap at acheiving it and ended up failing miserably, but I hold that this is down to poor education rather than lack of ambition in this department!
Quite probably. In my case it is due to both, but I've seen "nice" families at work, so I get your point. However, their varying levels of failure seems to show that something needs changing... And so on and so forth- we've done the change thing.
However, I see this very source of the anger and distrust we're all trying to resolve as the chink in the armour. Whilst leading to feelings of frustration and anger, this failure is also engendering the belief that something is wrong. I'd hope you'd give me this point at least! More and more people are at least agreeing that 'something' needs to be done.
This realisation that a problem exists means they are now, unlike at other times when (as you rightly point out) people's desires are sufficiently satisfied by the status quo, open to suggestion as to how to change their current situation.
Welcome to the new world order- just like all the old world orders...
In fact, this is an entirely valid point- de Tocqueville highlights it as one of the main dangers of a secular, materialist, individualist, egalitarian state; people have no belief, no relationships with others except those based on "cold self interest" (as some deluded proto-nazi put it- I wish I could remember the bugger's name), and, since all opinions are equal, each version of the truth is equally (in)valid. And with this comes a tendancy towards fascism, with the state replacing the king or the local barons or whatever it was, since people need something to be inferior to.
However, the whole totalitarian thing is sooo last-century, today instead we have post-national economic citizenship and groups within the state, but that's getting off track. Perhaps things will change- but they'll change in order to stay the same, after all, everyone thought that Athenian democracy and the French revolution and the rise of communism would change everything- in fact only the setting changed, the actors remained the same. So yes, maybe we will have a revolution (though personally I think we're too complacent at the moment), but it's not like we've never had one before.
Man on his own is becoming an increasingly meaningless concept. No-one, anywhere in the world, who has had an degree of success can truely claim to have 'done it on their own' (OK, bring on the one or two excptions that ALWAYS pop into existence when these claims are made!).
Yes of course, supposing that optimistically we allow for 50% virtue and 50% fortune, obviously there's no one who has made it on their own. But... they all like to pretend that they did, and only the msot naturally subservient of people are willing to let their own personal achievements go unacknowledged as part of a team effort.
Whether you see it as a problem that we can solve (me) or just the way things are (you Neko), we should at least be able to agree that more and more people are looking for a change. Now, we can either sit back and let the winds of fate take us where they will (trust to mob intelligence if you like) or we can stop bickering about who's to blame for what (as you and I have so gloriously managed to acheive!! ) and look at how we can solve some of the things that are bugging people so dam much!
If you can at least agree that there's a point in trying to take control of your immediate destiny and just see if it would be possible to solve these problems then we can get somewhere. You see I don't really want to convince you that it can be done, I'd be happy to just convince you that it was worth giving a shot, if only to cover all bases.
Yes why not give it a go- it's what we do, after all. I can't believe that we'll ever reach our goals though. People take control of their immediate destiny every day, but it is decidely rarer for the collective to selflessly decide to do so.
:cheers
Good day again Neko...thank God this posts been left alone by the likes of some people we could mention (certain posts relating sex and smoking... :rollin ). God knows what would have happened...
Anyway, I'm afraid I don't have time for a full breakdown of my reaction to all your points - which is probably a good thing is they will probably only lead us even deeper into circularity.
de Tocqueville highlights it as one of the main dangers of a secular, materialist, individualist, egalitarian state; people have no belief, no relationships with others except those based on "cold self interest" (as some deluded proto-nazi put it- I wish I could remember the bugger's name), and, since all opinions are equal, each version of the truth is equally (in)valid. And with this comes a tendancy towards fascism, with the state replacing the king or the local barons or whatever it was, since people need something to be inferior to.
This is exactly why I didn't bother studying philosphy at Uni. Arguments like this make my blood boil so badly I'd have had a heart attack barely half way through my first term!
I can see all the apparent logic etc etc, but I see it as logic clouded by their own lack of understanding and failure. He knew he was good but couldn't work out how to do any better so he decided to explain why no-one else would either - pure arrogance and very little reason.
People act on what they know (even their beliefs are based on a degree of knowledge). What we know is changing drastically. Whilst we carry on with our current system and rules I'd agee that our chances of improvement are slim to fuck all, but if we can manage to instigate a few changes in education at least then we might be able to get thing's moving.
How we can persuade people to do a few key things differently is what we should be concentrating on. We don't need to persuade people that its worth trying these things to acheive the utopia they've been condidtioned to believe is an impossibility. All we need to do is persaude them that trying a few things is in their own, selfish interest!
I believe that the issues of whether man is inherently selfish or mutualistic is actually irrelevant. I am confident that the current environment is one in which certain changes to society can easily e marketted to apeal to the selfish whilst ensuring that mutualism will develop. Only the stupid (as you yourself seemed to support) believe that they'll get all they want on their own - if you and I can both reach this conclusion from such apparantly different starting points then why do seem to think that we are incapable of helping others reach this same conclusion? Seems a touch arrogant to me and I don't take you as suffering from that affliction too badly!
only the msot naturally subservient of people are willing to let their own personal achievements go unacknowledged as part of a team effort
I don't call them necessarily subservient (although there are a great many who would fall in that category). There are just as many who have simply recognised pride and vanity for the animalistic and ultimately self-damaging emotions they truely are (the whole recent frontal lobe development issue). In the past they have been driven by subservience (beautifully hammered into man's consciousness by the likes of good old Paul and his Roman buddies), bit the modern twist in this ever repeating scenario is that this subserviency has being replaced by genuine mutualism. With a bit of conscious effort we can ensure that the scales are tipped in our favour.
People take control of their immediate destiny every day, but it is decidely rarer for the collective to selflessly decide to do so.
Very tue.
But I say we don't need to get some 'collective' consciousness to selfessly decide to do X. I think we'd have a lot more success if we blended my optimism with your pessimism and tried to see if we couldn't get people to agree to what would help them for purelyt selfish reasons.
I'm REALLY confident that this could be incredibly fruitful...if only we could get people to give it a shot.
Geezer38
05-22-2005, 07:16 PM
Please keep in mind that the US is not the only country with stinky party politics.
Here in Canada, we have four major national political parties at the moment and, at the moment, we have the best possible government; a minority government. The Libral party has the most elected MP's but can only survive by cooperating with the NDP party in passing legislation, so in effect, they provide a government of the people rather than a government ruled by party discipline. The Bloq (Quebec) and the Conservatives have also formed a coalition, but don't quite have enough votes to defeat the government. That's good, because they form a very effective opposition.
As I see it, in our country, the greatest obstacle to doing the peoples business is Party discipline. Government is run by the party for the party and I think that is essentially what is going on in the States too.
Cheers Geezer,
I'm actually UK based (and I think Neko's roaming the wild hinterland of France) so it's nice to hear of the Canadian example - I've tried keeping up with it a bit but it doesn't get too much coverage over here!
You hit the nail on the head with the Party discipline issue. I think that really is the ebating heart that drives me hatred of the system !!
However, what would you say you would be left with if Party discipline was to vanish?
toolman846
05-22-2005, 11:25 PM
"Sneaky hiding in the polls section, keeps the riffraff out and all"
Well, see - I found it ANYWAY! :bleh
"I tend to replace the jacket with that of the latest de Sade, one must keep ones end up in society after all."
I always kind of liked the old "Sado and Masoch" cartoons, myself.
Hey Tool :wave
Nothing intentional I assure you!
What started as a simple poll seems to have run away from us somewhat!
Geezer38
05-23-2005, 03:50 AM
However, what would you say you would be left with if Party discipline was to vanish?
I don't think that's even a possibility because human nature being what it is, tends to organize groups into cliques and appoint a leader and set goals, and on and on......
What I really like about our present situation is that any one group is powerless to advance their agendas unless they can muster enough support from some other group. In effect, the only agendas that become law are those the voters back home support. I also like the idea that it's pretty hard to steal from the cookie jar whenever a another bunch of theives with the same goal are watching your every move. Kinda keeps them on their toes and out of my cookie jar.
Here in Canada, we have four major national political parties at the moment and, at the moment, we have the best possible government; a minority government. The Libral party has the most elected MP's but can only survive by cooperating with the NDP party in passing legislation, so in effect, they provide a government of the people rather than a government ruled by party discipline.
And Canadians in general like this situation? What sensible people you are, to be sure. The French hate their equivalent- a president from one party and a parliamentary majority from another (cohabitation), which, as well as being wonderful fun to watch (as you can imagine- members of one of the old Chirac majorities once seriously considered turning off the utilities to the Elyséé Palace to force Mitterrand out), means that the two lots have to collaborate. Which is why it is so detested (so much that the electoral system has been re-jiggered to assure that it happens as little as possible), since it robs either side of real power, which you may think is a good thing, but that's because you haven't got a secret, shameful absolutism fetish. While everyone goes on about parliamentarism and the separation of powers and contrôles on government, what they really want is someone in charge who knows how to be, as they say in the personal ads, "assertive"- they just love it! Confusing as it may be to foreigners, non usually does mean oui.
But anyway:
This is exactly why I didn't bother studying philosphy at Uni. Arguments like this make my blood boil so badly I'd have had a heart attack barely half way through my first term!
I can see all the apparent logic etc etc, but I see it as logic clouded by their own lack of understanding and failure. He knew he was good but couldn't work out how to do any better so he decided to explain why no-one else would either - pure arrogance and very little reason.
If it comes to that Rousseau irritates me a bit- the most useful thing he ever said was that "if there was a people of gods they would rule themselves democratically, but this method is not suitable for humans", and even then he didn't mean it in the way I do- but I can still see the use of some of the things he said about sovereignty. I wouldn't say that my blood is boiling though- the serene upside of having no ideology, one supposes.
Actually, tis' a strange thing, but de Toqueville's predictions have had an alarming tendancy to come out right- the huge war based on slavery, Russia and America becoming the superpowers of the twentieth century, and in Germany, Italy, and very nearly France (the ligues and the affaire Stavisky), fascism taking control following the creation of the above-mentioned conditions (financial penury following the Wall Street crash not helping very much either).
How we can persuade people to do a few key things differently is what we should be concentrating on. We don't need to persuade people that its worth trying these things to acheive the utopia they've been condidtioned to believe is an impossibility. All we need to do is persaude them that trying a few things is in their own, selfish interest!
I'm REALLY confident that this could be incredibly fruitful...if only we could get people to give it a shot.
"If only your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle, and if it comes to that if only your uncle had wheels he'd be a tea-trolley."
This is where you say we can change, and I say but we won't so the net result is the same, and you say but we can, and I say but we won't. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.
Only the stupid (as you yourself seemed to support) believe that they'll get all they want on their own - if you and I can both reach this conclusion from such apparantly different starting points then why do seem to think that we are incapable of helping others reach this same conclusion? Seems a touch arrogant to me and I don't take you as suffering from that affliction too badly!
No, for I am a bear of very little brain, but I know others of even littler brain. Anyway, my 50/50 statement can be interpreted one of two ways:
1. That it is 50% your own effort and 50% that of other people that makes you successful, and I am merely calling them virtue and fortune because I am an old fashioned type and when everyone else grew up and moved on to the industrial revolution I hung around in the middle ages waiting to see if anything else interesting would happen.
or
2. That I did, in fact, mean virtue and fortune. Virtue being one's own capabilities and fortune everything beyond one's control- including the actions, helpful or harmful, of others.
In fact, 2, was my intended meaning. This interpretation implies that you are alone and teamwork is only useful when it can extend the domain over which you rather than Fortuna is in charge, ie. when it allows you to control, to a reasonable extent, the team.
(Edited for quotes/italics)
Hi Jim, nice to see you here.
:wave
Care to offer a fresh perspective... anyone?
gurutoo
05-23-2005, 12:45 PM
Governments and party systems are only part of the problem.
There's simply too many people people on this planet, how they choose to govern themselves is almost moot...
tis' a strange thing, but de Toqueville's predictions have had an alarming tendancy to come out right
I never said the guy wasn't smart. He was intelligent enough to see the potential dangers which faced mankind but I hold the view that part of the problem is that we see this slide into hell as inevitable simply because someone life de Toqueville recognised the key dangers before they actually occured. Just because something's predictable doesn't make it inevitable. I think you need to bear this in mind a little bit more Neko, if you don't mind me saying so! :D
Perhaps we should agree to disagree
Maybe we don't have to just yet. I'm still not convince I'm explaining myself correctly...
I'm not saying we have to change man's nature at all. Not a single one of mankind's desires have to be altered - it's only our understanding of them that needs a bit of work. And even then, I believe that a bit of 'reverse engineering' can help us at least start on the road to recovery, if not provide the full recovery itself.
I believe that it is possible to take our understanding of mankind's base, selfish motives (the ones you say we'll never be able to do anything about) and exploit them to get people to make a few changes to the mundane, day-to-day aspects of their lives which would allow us to gradually stage-manage' a social 'evolution' - thereby offering a vast improvement on the old methods of revolution.
I'm never going to argue that it'll be easy; and I'll never claim to be holding all the cards. But I do believe that it can be done and I'm hellbent on at least getting the ball started. It's the only way I can justify the verbal abuse I hurl at whichever politician and/or journailist happens to be on the TV that night!
So you see, I don't really disagree with you that we'll be able to somehow force through the necessary changes in the hands-on, 'drag the bastards along with us' kind of way we did before.
However, in the modern climate I'm a firm believer that it is possible to breakdown the required changes to a sifficiently basic level that they could presented to the general public in a way that bases their value on the very base, selfish motives you say we can't change.
If we talk of 'head-on' confrontations we don't stand a hope in hell. We just need to find a 'back door'. I think this presents the only viable option.
2. That I did, in fact, mean virtue and fortune. Virtue being one's own capabilities and fortune everything beyond one's control- including the actions, helpful or harmful, of others.
In fact, 2, was my intended meaning. This interpretation implies that you are alone and teamwork is only useful when it can extend the domain over which you rather than Fortuna is in charge, ie. when it allows you to control, to a reasonable extent, the team.
OK, I think I see where you're coming from now.
But I maintain that modern society is beginning to get a bit sick and tired of that fortune element. We've beaten everything else into submission and now we're turniong our attention to Lady Luck.
In this we are being forced to accept that the only way to get a head start with on th Lady is to team up.
We're having difficulties coming to terms with this, but I say the teething troubles are coming to an end. IT only seems as if we're doomed because we're in the final few 'hard yards', as I believe our American friends would put it! :)
A point in response to Geezer though:
uman nature being what it is, tends to organize groups into cliques and appoint a leader and set goals, and on and on......
This would take us back to an earlier point I was trying to make. You;re describing the way things have been throughout recorded history. However, despite its consitent influence, there has also been a noticeable down-grading of this tendancy. I hold that things are coming to a head on this issue. There may be vast number of people still searching for that special leader to guide them to nirvana, but the harder we search the more we are having to face up to the fact that they don't exist.
After a few thousand years of searching, I think we're getting close to the point where people would agree that the definitions of 'leader' neeed to change. I do believe that the basic desires of both the left and the right can be reconciled in this way - some would say this would amount to no more than shifting the goal posts and scoff at such a suggestion. I would counter that all I am actually suggesting is that perhaps we should at least turn around and face the goal for a change!
And to Gurur:
Governments and party systems are only part of the problem.
There's simply too many people people on this planet, how they choose to govern themselves is almost moot...
Switch off the pessimism for a scond and try rebooting your reasoning software ;) !
I know where you're coming from mate but I would hold you up on one point. An increase in population doesn't render your choice of governmental system a moot point; quite the opposite, it makes it all the more important. Society has always evolved to meet the needs of a growing society. It's just failed to keep up a bit in recent years!
Don't get too disheartened by what are really justthe warning signs in place to help you realise a change is needed :D
I never said the guy wasn't smart. He was intelligent enough to see the potential dangers which faced mankind but I hold the view that part of the problem is that we see this slide into hell as inevitable simply because someone life de Toqueville recognised the key dangers before they actually occured. Just because something's predictable doesn't make it inevitable. I think you need to bear this in mind a little bit more Neko, if you don't mind me saying so!
Very magnanimous of you ( ;) ), however, as bookies know, if something's predictable, the strong probability is that it's inevitable.
I believe that it is possible to take our understanding of mankind's base, selfish motives (the ones you say we'll never be able to do anything about) and exploit them to get people to make a few changes to the mundane, day-to-day aspects of their lives which would allow us to gradually stage-manage' a social 'evolution' - thereby offering a vast improvement on the old methods of revolution.
Have you seen The Faculty? It has a happy ending, right..?
So supposing that some altruistic, forward-thinking politicians actually get into power and want to do this, not for their own benefit, but for other people's (though I still say that this is so unlikely as to be impossible). How do they do it? Some people are bound to see through their propaganda, and social engineering is a dirty word. People don't want to be improved. And what happens to those of "the people" who are, for whatever reason, against this plan? I mean, they're standing in the way of progress so perhaps we'd better lock them up just a little to keep them out of harm's way, and perhaps thump them from time to time to make sure that they have something to remember you by, and if they happen to die in custody, then... well, there's just nothing that you can do to help some people, eh?
In this we are being forced to accept that the only way to get a head start with on th Lady is to team up.
See my statements above on teamwork.
contracycle
05-23-2005, 02:59 PM
Chumbawamba said:
Democracy Street, Britain's longest running soap, with the added illusion of audience participation. Our act tonight, on the left, capitalism that's right, on the right, capitalism is it, in the middle, probably the best capitalism in the world. Remember it's your choice, your five seconds worth of action that counts. I mean that most sincerely voters. Sit tight, keep quiet, 'till the next time. The next time being one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five days away. Well if freedom is the choice between greed and practically the same emotion, then I'll take the one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five days. Never mind the ballots, here's to the rest of your life.
Basically Neko, it comes down to whether you want to use your intelligence to spot problems or come up with potential solutions.
As to the predictable/inevitable isssue...please, bookies operate in a slightly different way than that which we were discussing so don't start lowering your standards after you''d been doing so well for so long!!
supposing that some altruistic, forward-thinking politicians actually get into power and want to do this, not for their own benefit, but for other people's (though I still say that this is so unlikely as to be impossible). How do they do it? Some people are bound to see through their propaganda, and social engineering is a dirty word. People don't want to be improved. And what happens to those of "the people" who are, for whatever reason, against this plan? I mean, they're standing in the way of progress so perhaps we'd better lock them up just a little to keep them out of harm's way, and perhaps thump them from time to time to make sure that they have something to remember you by, and if they happen to die in custody, then... well, there's just nothing that you can do to help some people, eh?
Again - find problems or find solutions. But, I stil hold that this doesn;t make it impossible, ust difficult. But, if you planned it right, by the time the first few changes were in place, succesfully pushed through thanks to their appeal to our selfish side and the fact that we do still live in a democracy, the rest would simply come down to forward momentum.
People believe that certain things can't be done...until someonw comes along and shows them otherwise.
We've managed it with everything else we can do it with this. We just have to stop wasting so much time and effort endlessly comparing lists of potential/actual problems and start trying to resolve them in a more cohesive, unified manner.
Basically it all it comes down to is whether you;ve evolved enogh to see this is or not yet!!!! ;) ;) ;)
:cheers
So, where too next...
So, where too next...
The highway to nowhere apparently.
Basically Neko, it comes down to whether you want to use your intelligence to spot problems or come up with potential solutions.
A: Wouldn't it be fun to bungee-jump off this bridge?
B: But we're not trained, we're not insured and that rope is made of knotted pieces of string. Also, I'm a hundred and fifteen years old and you're in an iron lung.
A: Oh, stop looking for problems.
:dunno
I say I'm pointing out that the data are entirely uncompatible with the result desired, you say I'm looking for problems. That's fine by me- you can do the jump if you want to or, indeed, if you're able to, I'll stay here on the bridge.
:cheers
That's fair nough Neko.
I just can't see how you can claim such surety when the alternative I'm trying to suggest hasn't actually been tried. Sure you have a lot of evidence but it all deals with an aproach to the problem that is entirely oposed to what I am suggesting.
All I'm suggesting is that it is worth following the example of professional golfer who has noticed a slight problem with his swing. He won't ignore it, rather he'll take himself off and pull his swing apart bit by bit and analyse each individual aspect before making and necessary adjustments and reassembling it. OK, so it's a little bit of a stretch to likening a golf swing to social theory but what can I say, I'm just crap with a golf club!
I would never expect you to suddenly come back to me and say 'I admit I'm wrong' from anything I could say on this Board, I was simply hoping to persuade you of the benefit to be gained from carrying out this kind of analysis - just to make sure you haven't missed anything!
You don't have to necessarily jump yourself, but you could at least look after my stuff for me until I get back and maybe grab a video camera to record my attempt!
:cheers
You've seen the conditions and you still think you're going to be back? ;)
Cool :yay
Sure, why not, go ahead, I'll stand back and even cheer from the sidelines for almost any social restructuring you can name as long as it doesn't start with "beat Neko to death with a coffee table" or something.
I still maintain that if it hasn't already been tried it's probably not going to work, but you shouldn't listen to me- I'm just an old reactionary.
That's all I'll need!
As long as you'll agree to a fun mental exercise the results will do the rest for me. :D
That's where my optimism comes from - I'm just insanely arrogant!! ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.