ciphergoth | Come on with the rain, there's a smile on my face

The scene with

spikeylady went incredibly fabulously; see her friends-only entry for details. We really did excel ourselves just as I'd hoped. Thanks to co-conspirators

ergotia,

lilithmagna and

kitty_goth - you all rocked very hard. I don't think I can do justice to just how fab

spikeylady was or is here. After the scene finished, we chilled for a long time, then did some other different scenes, slept, there was more play, then

purplerabbits came over

ergotia and

lilithmagna went off to meet

lilithmagna's Mum in the National Gallery and the four of us that remained went off to Camden to meet

lolliepopp and

djm4 for fantastic burgerful lunch at Ruby in the Dust, followed by shopping. Shopping in the glorious sunshine with such fabulous people after such an extraordinary evening was... was just the way all Sundays should be. Myself and

spikeylady bought matching Clockwork Orange T-shirts as a memento of the scene - how sad are we?

After shopping, we popped into the Dev for a swift half, then

spikeylady and I dashed off to St Pervertia for a swift last burst of play (she might otherwise be sitting comfortably for the journey home, which would never do) before dashing off to Euston to see her onto her train. *sigh* the whole seeing-people-onto-trains thing is most delightfully romantic, but there's a big downside - they aren't there afterwards...

Then I returned to the Dev, where

kitty_goth and

purplerabbits were still, and met

kjersti,

lproven,

duranorak,

dennyd, and were later joined by

trishpiglet and

babysimon after fortifying ourselves with Chinese fast food. Other LJers spotted:

vikinghugs, and I'm told

arkady was there but sadly I didn't meet her (though thinking about it, I did talk to someone who might have been her but didn't ask about LJ names)

purplerabbits is here now updating her LJ, we're probably going to watch "Clerks" and sit about drinking rather than trying to do anything more complex. She flies home tomorrow, but lunch with

ergotia first is on the cards.

I'm disturbed by the lack of internationalism on my friends page. I'd assumed that the sorts of people I might tend to meet would in general reject patriotism and nationalism as a close cousin of racism and other irrational forms of supporting one person you don't know over another, and support instead the idea that we were on the side of the whole of humanity, regardless of colour or nationality. It seems I was mistaken.

jwz gladdened my heart today by writing an LJ for no particular reason about one of the finest albums ever pressed into plastic and aluminium. I have come to you today to speak of Cop Shoot Cop's 1994 album "Release." This album is just such a boot to the head, that as your attorney, I must advise you to obtain and listen to it immediately. Those of you who like the journal, listen to the album. Those of you who like the album, check out the journal. If you're still not convinced, consider that in the club he owns, the cash machine is programmed with subversive messages. my favorite complaint was from the guy who was puzzled that the ATM says ``Destroy Capitalism'' but charges him a $3 service fee. Irony is hard, let's go shopping!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

lapis-lazuli.livejournal.com

*sigh* the whole seeing-people-onto-trains thing is most romantic, but there's a big downside - they aren't there afterwards...

Yeah... I've noticed that same problem with the seeing-people-onto-planes thing.

*sigh*

From:

dennyd.livejournal.com

*wavicles* Was nice to see you briefly, shame I had to keep moving. Still, at least I've seen the inside of the Dev now... very, erm, yes. :)

Clerks is an excellent film. Must buy a new copy (and not loan it to anyone).

From:

djm4

I don't think I'm particularly nationalistic, but in as much as I am so, I don't see it in terms of supporting one person I don't know over another, but in terms of a nation being a level of cultural grouping whose ideals I can feel a certain ... resonance with. Mind you, I can feel that about the EU at times, so I suspect it's more that I don't feel that there is a coherent global view for me to ally myself with.

I think this may be a 'face-to-face in the pub' topic, though, and certainly not one I'm awake enough to expound on now.

From:

tisiphone.livejournal.com

OK, I have to say, hacking one's ATM to display subversive messages is... cool!

From:

altamira16.livejournal.com

Place-ism. I think there is some important connection in thoughts to where you spend your formative years. There are ideas that can only be expressed in the mother tongue, and there is the uniqueness of where you grew up, the people you knew, and what it is like. I have a friend right now who keeps going to Brazil, and he says that now that the US is at war, he is leaving for Brazil. Someone else said she was leaving for Canada. I feel like this is the easy way out, and where ever you are, it will somehow be imperfect, and you have to do something to make it what it should be or what you want it to be. At the same time, I think that if you have legitimate reasons for being elsewhere, then be elsewhere. But don't choose a place over another just to escape. Choose it because that is where you want to be.

Personally, I don't like the work-ethic or the megacorporations of the US, especially the New England portion of the US. It seems like there, your work is your life, and you are not quite alive unless you are going somewhere or doing something. I am not talking about things like the social calender that you have (which makes my head spin) but more like 1)Go to work. 2) Go to gym after work. 3) Go home. 4)Eat. 5) Sleep. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

From:

lizw.livejournal.com

I'm disturbed by the lack of internationalism on my friends page. I'd assumed that the sorts of people I might tend to meet would in general reject patriotism and nationalism as a close cousin of racism and other irrational forms of supporting one person you don't know over another, and support instead the idea that we were on the side of the whole of humanity, regardless of colour or nationality.

I don't see patriotism and internationalism as an either/or proposition; that's one of the reasons I'm a member of the SNP. I also find that phrases such as "on the side of the whole of humanity" are pretty meaningless to me in practical terms. They negate the whole concept of sides, and it seems plain to me that sometimes there are sides to be taken.

I suspect this is probably a case of axiom lock, though, because I'm becoming increasingly aware of how all of this ties into my religion, which is pretty fundamental to me. The concept of choosing a side is theologically important in Asatru.

(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that these things are important to me because my religion says so - I'm saying that Asatru is the right religion for me because these things are important to me, and when I start seeing connections between random conversations and my religion, it's a good indicator that I'm in territory that's pretty central to who I am).

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

How does your religion feel about babies dying in Bagdhad? Did they choose to be on the wrong side?

From:

keirf.livejournal.com

Argument by emotive language and fallacy of extension?

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

Once someone plays the religion card, I see no reason to abstain from emotive language - they have strayed way beyond the rational discourse pen. Fallacy of extension - if I understand you correctly, this wwill depend on what this religion has to say on reincarnation? If not, then please elucidate.

From:

keirf.livejournal.com

By "fallacy of extension" I meant your implied "you believe in choosing sides, therefore you think that it's fair that babies are dying in Baghdad" - attacking an exaggerated version of your opponents position. A few posts down you use the ad hominem technique - the "if you're so naive as to believe that then you're not worth arguing with". These things don't really lead to a rational debate.

But then you are right that mentioning one believes in ancient Norse gods doesn't generally further rational debate either.

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

I dont think it is an exaggerated version. As fo the allegedly ad hominem point, it is not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual asserting a proposition. I dont believe that the propsition "honourable war is possible" is verifiably true or false - therefore it is a matter of opinion and the naivety of the person asserting the opinion is relevant.

From:

lizw.livejournal.com

I was making a general point, not a specific one about this war.

However, since you ask, my religion says that war, like anything else, should be waged honourably. That would mean avoiding civilian casualties wherever possible.

And if you think I'm bringing up my religion as a "card", then you misjudge me. I am not playing a game, trying to win an argument, or claiming that anyone should pay more attention to my views because they happen to coincide with the teachings of my religion. I am just explaining something about myself and how I view the concepts that

ciphergoth mentioned, no more and no less. You may also not have taken on board this statement: I'm saying that Asatru is the right religion for me because these things are important to me, not the other way around.

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

Well, if you really are naive enough to believe in the concept of an honourable war there is clearly no point in my discussing war related issues with you any longer.

From:

lizw.livejournal.com

*shrug* Maybe I'm naive, maybe we have different definitions of honour. We already seem to have different definitions of rationality, and probably of patriotism, internationalism and support, too, so one more wouldn't surprise me. Either way, I'm certainly happy to leave the discussion there.

I think we basically have axiomatically different worldviews, and the rest probably flows from that. The way I've chosen my friends (i.e. based mostly on acceptance of bi, poly and BDSM rather than any of my other choices) seems to have brought me lots of friends (and indeed some partners) whose worldviews are radically different from mine, so I'm kind of used to it - occasionally I feel a bit like a Martian, but mostly I just enjoy the diversity.

From:

juudes.livejournal.com

I don't see patriotism and internationalism as an either/or proposition... they negate the whole concept of sides, and it seems plain to me that sometimes there are sides to be taken.

The problem comes when people take those sides purely on the basis of what nationality/race/religion they are. Patriotism for me means 'my country right or wrong', and that it abhorrent to me. I think this war is wrong, so how can I possibly support 'our' troops? (Note that different people give different meanings to the word 'support'.)

From:

lizw.livejournal.com

Yeah, patriotism and support both mean something different to me than they do to you.

From:

ex-meta.livejournal.com

'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober'

-- G.K. Chesterton

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

I agree that one often has to take sides. More often than it first appears, in fact. But each side is a very complex set of people and not something as simple as a religion or a country.

For example, by making a certain decision one day at work, I may choose to take the side of "people who use whatever power they have as ethically as possible an who do not seek power for its own sake" over "people who always look to maximise their power over others and often act unethically to do so". This is what a side is like. Not "Scotland" or "Muslims". To me having to choose simplistic sides is manipulation from an elite.

The problem with my approach is that it's hard to distinguish the people on "your side" so you find them in the first place and then know if they're still on your side. No such problem with choosing a side like "Scotland", which I guess is why many people do.

Pavlos

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

One should be capable of taking a position. I dont think that is the same as choosing a side.

From:

booklectica

I'd assumed that the sorts of people I might tend to meet would in general reject patriotism and nationalism as a close cousin of racism and other irrational forms of supporting one person you don't know over another, and support instead the idea that we were on the side of the whole of humanity, regardless of colour or nationality.

Couple of thoughts I had:
- I imagine most people who are nationalist would see it as equivalent to supporting a family member over a stranger, not supporting one stranger over another.
- I wouldn't put patriotism in the same box as racism. You can wish a family member well and support them without necessarily hating the family next door.
- While I agree that the worldview you describe is a good one and I agree with it, it strikes me as difficult to maintain all the time in practice. Irrelevant and irrational emotions tend to sweep in, especially in wartime. Whether or not that's a good thing depends on who you ask...

(Kitten icon included as magical protection against this being the start of a flame war.)

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

So when the soldiers come for the family next door, what do you do?

From:

booklectica

Defend them. The problem comes when the soldiers are, at the same time, trying to take away your father or your daughter and you have to choose who to defend...

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

Which is why the entire concept of the nuclear family is easily utilised as a mechanism of social control, in the same way as the concept of nation is. Divide and conquer. Paul and I discussed some of the disgusting rubbish about this war we have seen on lj from some surprising sources the other day, and I recall reaching the conclusion that it was not actually so surprising, given that the mechanisms of social control used by the State are all pretty much designed to prevent riot, particularly in war time.

From:

booklectica

Hmm, interesting points.

I agree that the nuclear family shouldn't be promoted as the ideal, but I think that's separate from, say, feeling instinctively protective of one's parents or children. As you commented in a post of mine, when you have kids you get irrationally angry when anyone criticises them - maybe some people feel the same way about their country. (And a lot of people definitely feel the same way about religion.)

I don't get that myself, but then I get irrationally angry when people say things like 'bisexuality doesn't exist' or 'poly doesn't work' ... though of course there is a difference between feeling something and acting on it, and I don't go round killing people who are biphobic.

I suppose all I'm trying to say is that I think people naturally feel more protective and supportive of people/ideas they're close to than those they're not, and they'll often act on that feeling rather than on logic.

Er, this all makes sense in my head, by the way. I'm not sure it does when written down...

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

Yes, it makes sense, but I think the key words in what you say are "irrationally angry". Rationally we are all members of the same tribe ie that tribe which inhabits Planet Earth, and therefore our loyalty should be directed there, to evaluating actions and beliefs wrt
how they effect the tribeand indeed the planet rather than how will that effect my daughter/sister/church/nation/football team/other unit from which I derive a spurious concept of identity. I am neither an old hippy or an environmentalist in the strict sense, by the way :). I am a post Marxist/Leninist and I am passionate about how we share global resources.

From:

booklectica

Rationally we are all members of the same tribe ie that tribe which inhabits Planet Earth, and therefore our loyalty should be directed there

It *should* be, absolutely. But is it emotionally possible to be equally as concerned for a stranger as you would be for a lover or a brother? - or to put it back into a war context, to be as upset about a city across the world getting bombed as you would be if London was bombed? (I don't mean you personally, by the way, in fact this is largely addressed to myself.)

One of those standard hypothetical questions: If Paul was going to be killed and you could save him by giving permission for a complete stranger to be killed instead, what would you do?

From:

keirf.livejournal.com

Shunt the responsibility off to someone else?

What if it was a choice between yourself being killed or a total stranger? I'd definitely choose for me to survive over someone I've never met. Is that selfish?

From:

booklectica

I think it's normal. :) But then I'd choose the survival of a partner/friend/relative over that of a stranger, too.

Of course, a separate but also interesting issue is when the choice is between *you* and a loved one... I've always wondered what I do in that situation. Luckily I'll probably never have to make that choice.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

Assuming the complete stranger was selected randomly amongst all people, I'd immediately say yes. Not out of a sense of loyalty but because I've met a lot of people and Paul is exceptionally good. Sorry, harsh answer for a harsh question.

Pavlos

From:

booklectica

It's the same answer I'd give. It may be selfish, because I'd partly be making that decision on the basis that Paul's death would be upsetting to me (not to mention the trouble I'd be in when everyone else found out I'd let him be killed!). But there you go, and I do believe most people would make the same choice.

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

Oh, good grief, of course I would choose Paul, but just because actions *seem* "natural" and/or "instinctive" does not mean they are ethically correct.

From:

booklectica

I didn't argue that they were. I just think they have to be taken into account.

I personally believe that such actions are genuinely natural and instinctive for any reasonable definition of those words. Do you believe in the concept of instinct, and if so, why don't you believe the friend-over-stranger reaction is instinctive?

PS. This is the longest war-related thread I've seen where nobody's insulted anyone. I think we should get some kind of award. :)

From:

ergotia.livejournal.com

I believe in instinct, although finding a satisfactory definition of the concept is extraordinarily difficult. I believe in it mostly from experience of maternal instinct - when your child is in danger, you really do act without thinking of the consequences to yourself. and that makes evolutionary sense of course. However I am deeply suspicious of the concept of "natural" when it is applied to our species, for example when it is used to justify eg rape, or indeed war. Birth control and abortion are not "natural", at least not in the way we practise them in the west in the twenty - first century. Bisexuality is not "natural", or so I have been told many times by people who wanted me to stop :) The nature/nurture debate is nowhere near resolved, and in that particular debate the concept of "natural" has been mightily abused in attempts to justify injustice, poverty, oppression, sexism, racism and discrimination against sexual minorities.

Is the friend over stranger reaction instinctive? Probably, but as I said already, that does not make it justifiable. If you were drowning alongside a stranger, I would try to save you. I would prefer, however, to pay sufficient taxes to provide a good coastguard service so I never had to make that choice, even though I might instinctively prefer to spend the money on my kids if it was not going there. So socialism may not be instinctive, but so what?

Looking at your earlier comments in this thread, I would be lying if I said that on a gut level I would be as upset over the bombing of a foreign city as I would be over the bombing of London, but again, so what? I dont think it follows that I need to "get behind our boys", wear a red poppy or indulge in sentimental jingoism. On this point, would you be more upset over the bombing of Washington DC than over the bombing of Bagdhad, and if so why? Would that be "natural"?

I am genuinely interested in your views and have no intention of insulting you over this, by the way :)

From:

sbisson.livejournal.com

Not quite. We're all members of a near infinite number of intersecting tribes.

Humanity can never be homogenous - that's part of the beauty of existence. And that's why we shouldn't be nationalistic - we're hardwired to function on a much smaller scale, and the resulting intertwingledness (I love that word, thanks to Ted Nelson!) of all things should free us from the structures small minds want to put us in...

From:

lizw.livejournal.com

Rationally we are all members of the same tribe ie that tribe which inhabits Planet Earth, and therefore our loyalty should be directed there, to evaluating actions and beliefs wrt
how they effect the tribeand indeed the planet rather than how will that effect my daughter/sister/church/nation/football team/other unit from which I derive a spurious concept of identity.

I don't consider it rational to say that people's primary allegiance should be to an entity which is so large and diverse. It isn't workable, and if it isn't workable, I consider that a pretty good indication that something has gone wrong with the reasoning.

I see allegiance as a network of obligation, beginning with those to whom I have made express commitments. Moving further out from the centre, there is a series of implied obligations that come from social and other connections. Somewhere on the edges are those who have no other connection with me beyond sharing a planet. By that point, it's almost meaningless to me to speak of obligation. I may well choose to help them if I'm in a position to do so after meeting my other obligations, but I don't consider myself obliged to do so. That is a workable, liveable system, and I consider it perfectly rational.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

Well, then I'll just say that I have nothing in common with you! No offense, but if push came to shove I would ignore you and go and save the other Greeks. Nothing that you say or do can change this.

Well, no, actually this is not how I feel. But I am trying to point out the problem with choosing a side based on something like geography.

Pavlos

From:

lizw.livejournal.com

No offense, but if push came to shove I would ignore you and go and save the other Greeks. Nothing that you say or do can change this.

Well, no, actually this is not how I feel.

Not something I would take offence at even if you did feel that way. But just to avoid falling into straw man territory later, let me just note that by the time I'm actually in a practical position to save someone's life, they're already going to have more in common with me than just being on the planet just by virtue of being in the same place at the same time, and I wouldn't decide who to save based on nationality. I don't know if I'd be capable of rational thought at all in such a situation, but if I were and didn't have specific commitments to one of the individuals involved, I hope I'd help the person who appeared to me to be in most need out of those I had the actual capacity to help.

I am trying to point out the problem with choosing a side based on something like geography.

Yes, and I agree with you up to a point, but then patriotism isn't really about geography to me, nor is it about the basis on which I make decisions like the above.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

I have a new first child (about a month old). I deeply resent the fact that this stranger has arrived and expects, or rather society expects me to give him, unconditional loyalty in preference to other people I have carefully selected and known for years. Eh? Why?

I find families very antisocial things for this reason. They give the bigger income earners (usually men) an excuse to step over others to advance their career, for the good of their family, while simultaneously giving them a nucleus of unconditional support. Very dangerous.

Or I see in others (and even fleetingly catch in myself!) a biologically-driven attitude of "if you harm my child I will destroy you". This is really not good for society in general.

Pavlos

PS. My cat is harder than yours :-)

From:

booklectica

I have a new first child (about a month old). I deeply resent the fact that this stranger has arrived and expects, or rather society expects me to give him, unconditional loyalty in preference to other people I have carefully selected and known for years. Eh? Why?

*shrug* That's the way your instincts are supposed to work. And as you say later, from a biological point of view it makes perfect sense. And a huge majority of people *do* give that loyalty instinctively. I don't think it's that bad for society as long as it's backed by a rational approach to life - people need their parents to be loyal to them, IMO.

PS. My cat is harder than yours :-)

Probably. Wimsey is a big softie who will roll over and purr for complete strangers. :)

From:

ruis.livejournal.com

I have a new first child (about a month old). I deeply resent the fact that this stranger has arrived and expects, or rather society expects me to give him, unconditional loyalty in preference to other people I have carefully selected and known for years. Eh? Why?

There is an assumption that a child needs the loyalty and protection of adults so that it can safely reach an age where it is old enough to function independantly; this role fairly obviously falls to its family. Intelectual constructs aren't meant to be able to superseed our biological wiring.

There is also the case that if you give the child the support it needs it may then turn out to be the type of person you would have selected for.

From:

keirf.livejournal.com

Yet again I've typed in a long post about war and nationalism, patriotism and internationalism, only to delete it. There's so much conflicting information, and there are so many moral (and not so moral) takes on the war from both 'sides', that whenever I try to put down how I feel about the current world situation it just breaks down into incoherence.

As a result I end up saying nothing, and it is a frustrated nothing.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

Eh? Why? I see many eloquent statements one could make. You don't have to "solve" the issue, just express one viewpoint. If your views are then destroyed in the debate, you've gained something.

Pavlos

From:

keirf.livejournal.com

I too see many eloquent statements one could make. But when I try to make an eloquent statements these days it just seems to come out all wrong and clumbsy. So I don't.

From:

sbisson.livejournal.com

I have to admit that I rarely think about things in terms of nationalism or internationalism.

I firmly believe that the natural order of organisation for human beings is of the order of 250 or so (I have a feeling that electronically-mediated virtual communities have the ability to be larger, thanks to the technological suppoprt they offer) - anything else breaks down due to failures in communication. As such I tend to regard the state (or the State, if you prefer) as an aberation that will eventually whither and die...

May be it's because I grew up on a small island, and was able to see its three or four distinct societies functioning quite happily in the framework of a limited government. Or maybe, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist utopian who wants to live in the Culture. Or even, with my consulting hat on, I've seen so many dysfunctional large organisations. Evil comes when we try to build structures that force people into large groupings...

The key to human survival is open, free communications, and the ability to allow self organisation at a village level - whether it's a virtual village like a LJ community, or a group of co-workers collaborating on a project.

It takes a village because we are villagers, no matter where we are or what we're doing. My personal village is geographically very diverse - which I guess means that I am international - but I have also seen its shape and structure change so many times over my life, that I have no idea where it will take me tomorrow.

I'm not sure if that answers your question. However, it does try to encapsulate my personal beliefs.

From:

pavlos.livejournal.com

A lot about community is not to do with size but with barriers to entering and leaving. So a small island may be a good community not because it's the right size but because people can expect to keep meeting each other for years to come. Later, when economics change so that people don't expect to live their lives on the island, it may become a terrible community.

One thing about size is that above a certain size there is going to be anonymity, and then the structure of social interactions changes totally.

Pavlos

From:

sbisson.livejournal.com

It's actually a matter of perceptual hardwiring.

We're not actually "designed" to handle more than a close group of 25 and a wider circle of 250.

From:

juudes.livejournal.com

We're not actually "designed" to handle more than a close group of 25 and a wider circle of 250.

I understand your point - I too saw The Life of Mammals - but this begs the question: are we "designed" to kill a bunch of people by firing missiles at them and thus never seeing the results of our actions?

From:

sbisson.livejournal.com

No. Or perhaps yes.

Hard questions...

Certainly the spear was an early hominid tool, and it can be argued that there is a straight line of descent from spear to missile, so perhaps it's a little bit of Lamarck at work, alongside Darwin...

The wrong is the mindset that says that it is good when ordered by a superior. That's the evil that comes with the invention of the state.