You are viewing [info]chrisjoe's journal

Sun, Sep. 30th, 2007, 10:07 pm
Write up of a conversation (differences politics/religion, virtual gf leading to interesting conclus

Me and my friend Sye met up today and went for a long old walk.  This was nice, as it always is, and we got talking about rather deep things, as we tend to. One of these was about the difference between political dogmas on the way people live their lives and religious ones. In the west, there is certainly differences, although they clearly overlap (seems apparent in American politics). It would seem to me that some of the difference is in the reward structure – politicians sell their belief structure (and hence a life revolving around that) based on the very earthly, apparent rewards; NHS waiting lists will get shorter, our culture will be protected from the influence of immigrants, things like that. Whereas religion tends to sell it on a partial apparent rewards, but also eternal rewards – inner peace, and everlasting life, things like that.
This leads to very clear, external observables from politics, and if the politics doesn’t go along with that, most people seem to not follow it (for example, communism in the west is widely perceived as a failed system). Whereas the observables from religion are internal, and hence difficult to measure. And the final ones, the point of the whole thing, are unobservable by there nature. This would seem to allow the demands made by religion to me more arbitrary than politics – no-one can say having x, y or z factors got me into paradise after getting there, but after an amount of time, it can be said or not if the political factors got the results promised. Of course, it’s sometimes too late by that point, but still – limits the demands.
And as politics has to be understandable, if it is to convince people, it needs at least some sort of progression of ideas (not necessarily logical or sensible, but a progression) whereas religion seems to be able to say “God doesn’t want you to do it” and that’s enough.
We also talked about me interacting with my ex-“girlfriend”. I never met her. I never talked to her. In fact, our entire communication was via the questionable method of chat programmes. But the feelings I had were quite genuine, and I did (do) care about her. That sort of leads me to the conclusion that rather than actually having feelings for her, I had it to some sort of projection in my head – the inclination to anthropomorphize nearly anything we can. And that can, quite worryingly, be applied backwards – if my feelings for someone I only knew via the internet can be real, what about the feelings I feel for other people? It seems that the feelings we have must only be for whatever projection or construct we have in our mind.
Perhaps :P
Anyways, that’s all I can remember. And there we have it, the rarest of things, a semi-intelligent entry from me :D

Thu, Aug. 16th, 2007, 10:30 pm
What is the deal with Patriotism?

 

I suspect I'm being British here, but I really don't get the whole patriotism thing.  I get the impression that it's an important thing to be "a Patriot" in the US, that one should support one's country.  It seems that it's a big insult to call someone unpatriotic, and the people who aren't patriots are in some way bad.

I'm not a patriot in any sense of the word.  I like England, but I think it is mostly run by people who aren't very clever.  In fact, I'm really suspicious of politicians - they're people who chose a career whose main object is power.  Anything run by the state* seems utterly inefficient, & probably would be better run, and function far better, if it was privatized.  Not that I think things should be privatized - it's important that financial ability doesn't effect the ability to be educated and get health care, which is quite true here.  But I do think the systems are generally run in a rather poor, inefficient manner which does not give the average tax payer the best value for money.

I'm also suspicious of people who sign up for the military.  They've decided on a career whose main object, when it comes down to it, is to kill people, and be willing to have people kill them.  The former is more worrying.  Every over aspect of being in the army, they can forefil in civilian roles, except the capacity to hold big guns, of one form or another, and shoot other people with them.  I do think the army has an important role, as I think politicians do, but I'm completely uncertain about the people involved in it, especially given the dubious nature of the wars going on today.  I mean, if there was a clear cause, like in the World Wars, sure, I'd feel bad about it but I'd go for it.  But nowadays, with the increasingly slaughter-like battles for frankly dubious causes, often caused by mismanagement of a previous generation, that's not a moral position.  That's signing up for the job of shooting at people.

I don’t support England.  Apart from the obvious difficulty of defining “England”, if we’re making it about the people, honestly, most people are stupid and ignorant.  Really more so than necessary.  I think the world wouldn’t be much worse off without quite a large proportion of my countrymen.  I’m not saying they should be killed, but if the chavs all suddenly died off due to chav-related complications, I think we’d have difficulty finding people to staff the supermarkets, but that’d be about it.

I don’t actually think English society is fantastic.  There are aspects I like about it, being able to say what you think, the acceptability of having opinions that differ from the widely held ones, that as a country we have huge amounts of tolerance.  I like how people don’t feel the constant need to praise one another, that there is a feeling that doing well is in many ways it’s own reward and doesn’t always need to be pointed out.  But I also think that reality tv, microwave dinners, increasing obesity, the fall in numbers of people studying science, the increasing (and often needless, although sometimes valuable) health and safety legislation & litigation culture.

I don't particularly support the ideals of England.  I support the ideals of democracy, so I will support that, in concept, but I don’t think England is the best example of it (I personally like how the northern Europeans do it).  I like the ideal of all people given equal opportunities, but that’s not reflected in the make up of the UK.  I like the ideas of trial before jury, innocent until proven guilty, the inability to be held without charge, but increasingly those don’t apply here as much as the do in other places.

I’m not a patriot, and I guess I don’t understand patriotism, except in the sense of a very outdated, anachronistic sort of concept, that is better left to medieval kings fighting wars of a have dozen soldiers beating each other with sharp pieces of metal.  But then I have lived in numerous countries growing up, am quite liberal and England seemed to shed all patriotism (except in regards to football, oddly enough).

& that’s one thing I really like about England.  That not only is it okay to not be a patriot, but if someone stands up and says they are, they get looked at weirdly.  Unless it’s about the World Cup, but there’s always exceptions.

Mon, Aug. 6th, 2007, 05:31 pm
First

A couple of folks I know have moved over here to be more intelligent at the world.  & I might do, as well, if I decide what I can be intelligent about.