Cartoons cause an uproar

Post questions or suggestions here.
avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:44 pm

Maybe, being raised in this hedonistic culture got David and Kevin questioning their own values
Except Kevin wasn't raised in Australia - he was raised in Guernsey till he was about 11 - an island in the English channel. Given that David has used Kevin's views as a springboard for his own, that doesn't give the influence of Australia much of a role in the genesis of their views.

From what I've seen, the Guernsey culture (especially in the 60s when Kevin grew up there) is EXTREMELY different to Australian culture. I'd have to say I respect it more also, as I do Austrian culture (thanks to Weininger).

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:14 pm

avidaloca,
Kevin wasn't raised in Australia - he was raised in Guernsey till he was about 11 - an island in the English channel. Given that David has used Kevin's views as a springboard for his own, that doesn't give the influence of Australia much of a role in the genesis of their views.
Yes Kevin would have been influenced by his early years in Guernsey. My point was that Australia, out of all the different cultures and countries of the world, has two of the greatest Philosophers we know of. Whether you are born here, or have migrated here from some other country, isn’t going to alter the fact that you will be influenced by the Australian culture and environment in some way. As to what degree Australia has influenced Kevin or David in their philosophical development is difficult to say – but there is no doubt they were influenced.

If Kevin had stayed in Guernsey, his philosophical development would have been slightly different, but anyone who has read his Poison for the Heart would be hard pressed imagining him as a flower grower, or real estate agent – both being acceptable jobs in Guernsey. He may not have met David in person, but they may have met up on the internet at some later stage. Without Kevin’s influence in those early years, David may have developed quite differently. He might have become a surveyor and married; but given the quality of his work here on this forum and elsewhere, it seems highly unlikely that he would have remained satisfied with such a life.
From what I've seen, the Guernsey culture (especially in the 60s when Kevin grew up there) is EXTREMELY different to Australian culture. I'd have to say I respect it more also, as I do Austrian culture (thanks to Weininger).
According to your discriminations above, you must truly admire and respect Australia much more than you do Guernsey and Austria - since Australia can claim as its sons two Philosophers equal to, and in some ways greater than, Weininger. But, I hasten to add, since Australian's in general don’t value Truth, they neither value or patronize David’s or Kevin’s contribution to the survival of Wisdom.

Sue

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:21 pm

sue hindmarsh,
As to what degree Australia has influenced Kevin or David in their philosophical development is difficult to say – but there is no doubt they were influenced.
Having been born in Australia and spent my whole life here except for a year abroad I have to say I don't see Kevin as an Australian.

I moved to Queensland from a different state when I was the same age that Kevin was when he emigrated to Australia, and I am essentially the same despite the change. The formative years set the stage for who you will be. Kevin possibly reviles being considered an Australian the same way I reject the notion of being a Queenslander.

If anything, the new environments influence you to exercise your home culture more than if you actually were at home, and studies of immigrants have shown that they stick to their ways more than those who still live there.

According to your discriminations above, you must truly admire and respect Australia much more than you do Guernsey and Austria - since Australia can claim as its sons two Philosophers equal to, and in some ways greater than, Weininger. But, I hasten to add, since Australian's in general don’t value Truth, they neither value or patronize David’s or Kevin’s contribution to the survival of Wisdom.
I guess I admire the way Australia has given them and me the freedom to explore aspects of ourselves that a very rigid economic-centred country like the US would not have. For a lot of years, you could live quite well in this country without working, which is how Kevin and David had the energy and time to make their books and websites, and how David still does. You can't do that in Germany for example - you're not given enough to live on. But that too is changing here.
Without Kevin’s influence in those early years, David may have developed quite differently. He might have become a surveyor and married; but given the quality of his work here on this forum and elsewhere, it seems highly unlikely that he would have remained satisfied with such a life.
I know David despised his early work in surveying as a chain man, before he even met Kevin. He used to pray for it to rain so he wouldn't have to turn up to work. It's all speculation but he might have been more aimless or disgruntled with life without Kevin's pointed ideas and concepts. It may have been that which David was looking for to find some meaning in life, a working life which even at age 17 he was tired of.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:49 pm

Get Real wrote: . . . how dare our leaders grant those sick fuckwits anything at all????
What you say is pefectly right, the only problem is that Western countries value democracy, which means that it values the opinions of large groups of people, no matter how stupid those people might be.

Even though the Muslims are not American (or Danish, etc) the fact that there are a large number of them in itself gives weight to their opinions - or at least, it does to those who value democracy.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:02 pm

What you say is pefectly right, the only problem is that Western countries value democracy, which means that it values the opinions of large groups of people, no matter how stupid those people might be.
Herd mentality. I think a big part of the problem is that men don't have the same roles they used to. Over the last five hundred years, men have been explorers, inventers, soldiers, composers and writers. Now they're politicians, sportsmen, astronauts, computer programmers. It lends credence to the idea that everyone is equal, because men no longer achieve anything very noble in the empirical world.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:05 pm

Get Real (and I have to laugh at the irony) wrote:
This is much more important and significant than many think, this is the beginning of the last world war,…
Why? Why is "this" the beginning of the last world war? Why isn’t, say, WW1 the beginning?

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:27 pm

ksolway wrote:
Get Real wrote: . . . how dare our leaders grant those sick fuckwits anything at all????
What you say is pefectly right, the only problem is that Western countries value democracy, which means that it values the opinions of large groups of people, no matter how stupid those people might be.

Even though the Muslims are not American (or Danish, etc) the fact that there are a large number of them in itself gives weight to their opinions - or at least, it does to those who value democracy.
You know, I reckon if I hang around here for a while, I'll be able to say things as succinctly as you do in four lines instead of several paragraphs!

All I have to say to what you have written above is: exactly.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:38 am

sue hindmarsh wrote: How does not having time and freedom help the budding philosopher?
Ultimately it really doesn't matter. Or in your own words, even time and freedom "are neither; good or bad, closer to, or further away from Reality than anything else in the universe. They could be useful tools in awakening the mind to an understanding of Reality; but then, it's hard to imagine a budding philosopher finding any of them inspiring for very long."
For men to have the chance to use their minds in the pursuit of wisdom, they need to create for themselves a freer lifestyle (...) Lolling around all day, sleeping, eating, doing a bit of writing, going for a walk, reading a little, watching the waves roll in onto the beach – definitely no work, no family, and no girlfriends – just the man alone with his thoughts. That is the environment for a Philosopher.
Of course that seems like a beautiful and wise lifestyle. It might give the senses the rest they need in an over-excited over-stimulated increasingly artificial 'fake' civilisation. One sort of puts oneself in a state of quarantine from the dis-eased.
Diebert, what sort of environment do you consider beneficial to the development of a Philosopher?
The environment influences just his person. For many Western thinkers there's a phase sooner or later which looks like the one you described above. The question is if your philosopher wants to move on to discover new lands, higher peaks and expose deeper lows. Becoming free even from the prerequisites of environment. But what often seems to happen is that they get stuck on their island, thinking they've already overcome all that matters.

The road to perfect enlightenment is long and winding, and not many dare to turn all the pages or sail all seven seas. This is not meant to be poetry but it's something to think about when you walk on the beach next time: is there another sea to cross? It's so tempting to remain in a lull and call it the end of development! How many promising sages haven't given in to this siren song over the ages?
Sue wrote:
Diebert wrote:As soon as someone starts to waken up to the truth, his old reality will always seem like a prison and oppressing his true nature.
What “truth” is one awakening to?
The one that will expose the prisons in every culture or lifestyle. And how it really doesn't matter for Truth - which will always find its way.
Sue wrote:
Diebert wrote:And of course: freedom is ultimately subjective for any individual or the culture that's producing him.
Yes subjective, but also universally understood to mean; not restricted, not controlled, not limited. So, your point about it being “subjective” is - what?
No, freedom shouldn't be understood as being uncontrolled and unlimited in some 'universal' way. This sounds like some typical Western pseudo-religious idealistic dogma. For example, if one would believe in certain restrictions, laws and control that would be doing something beneficial, then freedom would mean the ability to implement or uphold laws and restrictions, as to promote the 'good' that is believed in. Another example: a child feels most 'free' (secure, grounded, calm) when there are clear rules in the household. Remove the rules and you end up with a nervous, attention seeking, neurotic child. Not a 'free' one.
This forum is a good example of how freedom assists the spread of Wisdom. People from many countries use this forum to share ideas and perhaps learn something.
Maybe it looks like that to you. The majority doesn't seem seriously interested to me, or even capable of grasping much. Starting an underground philosophy club in Moscow during Stalin's reign could have been way more effective, who knows? People always tend to praise their current way of doing things as the best thing since sliced bread, without any shred of objective measurement available.
At this point in time, Australia seems to be a breeding ground for Philosophers – the best examples being Kevin Solway and David Quinn. Australia is surely an odd place for philosophy to blossom, because the people here generally "don't give a shit" about; politics and history, trends and fashions, technology and science, philosophy and religion – some of them are fanatical about sport, but at bottom - the greatest passion Aussie's share is having fun.
Exactly. Not sure if a couple of thinkers on twenty million can be called a 'breeding' ground though. And they are there despite the reigning culture of 'having fun', I'd say, and not because of it. And so it's with any culture, seemingly free or oppressed. They swim against the stream of their time.
Do you think a budding philosopher, say living in today’s China, is going to be just ignored by his community when he starts questioning their values and traditions? I don’t think so – it would be more likely that that community will lock him up, or make him change his point of view.
He'll be fine! At least he will have true commitment, he will know it's about live and death, not a hobby or a way to hide from reality. And his masculinity will be developed because courage and cunning are needed to make sure he won't get locked up. Though I believe locking away was more likely fifty years ago and even then I don't think mindful philosophers with weird ideas would be punished in that culture. Just stay out of political fights. In Western countries most political activists receive some serious form of character assassination, or will be just murdered all the same if ones platform gets noticeable or too powerful.
Did you know that this forum is banned in China? Why do you think they have done this – do you think they are just afraid of nihilism – or do you think it goes deeper than that?
I have no idea. Can you tell me how you know this, any friends in China or are you going by search engine indexes?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:55 am

David Quinn wrote: I have difficulties reading that material too, as I find it very enervating. Would you be able to make a compilation of the wisest bits of their material and post it onto the forum? I think many of us would find that interesting.
That seems like a worthwhile challenge. Sure thing.
[Nihilism] is a problem that every philosopher has to face has at some point, and, provided that he successfully passes through this nihilistic black cloud and remains completely rational, it will burn away all of his extraneous beliefs. So it is a very important phase of development.
Yes, everything is taken away after which all returns.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:05 am

It's so tempting to remain in a lull and call it the end of development!
I think that's the difference between good philosophy and bad. The good philosophy always opens up avenues beyond itself, and never claims the total glory. The weakest philosophy claims full victory and declares none more need be done.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:17 am

Under this criteria, the sage is the weakest philosopher of all, while the most shallow and pedantic of academics is the greatest.

-

kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kjones » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:54 am

Diebert wrote:
This is not meant to be poetry but it's something to think about when you walk on the beach next time: is there another sea to cross? It's so tempting to remain in a lull and call it the end of development! How many promising sages haven't given in to this siren song over the ages?
S few days ago, you mentioned that systematic enlightenment was prone to becoming used by the ego to reinforce itself. Is there some point where one must stop looking for seas to cross? Do you think that going all the way, and becoming fully enlightened, means that whatever has been conducive to philosophy needs to be abandoned?

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:36 pm

DavidQuinn,

I think that's the difference between good philosophy and bad. The good philosophy always opens up avenues beyond itself, and never claims the total glory. The weakest philosophy claims full victory and declares none more need be done.

Under this criteria, the sage is the weakest philosopher of all, while the most shallow and pedantic of academics is the greatest.
This also means that you are way better than Weininger, because you say you understand everything, while he pointed to things he hadn't yet thought of, or didn't perhaps fully grasp.

Get Real
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:51 pm

Post by Get Real » Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:04 pm

Get Real wrote:
. . . how dare our leaders grant those sick fuckwits anything at all????


What you say is pefectly right, the only problem is that Western countries value democracy, which means that it values the opinions of large groups of people, no matter how stupid those people might be.

Even though the Muslims are not American (or Danish, etc) the fact that there are a large number of them in itself gives weight to their opinions - or at least, it does to those who value democracy.
_________________
Kevin Solway
Sure, but the sick fuckwits are but a small portion of the faith, so in keeping with your point they again ought to be discounted.

Are there people here on this forum who believe personal freedoms such as the posting of controversial cartoons ought to be outlawed? If so then just 'be a man' and say so. Get off the fence, already!

I applaud Italian leader(s) who had balls enough to get t-shirts printed up with those cartoons onn them. Howtago, paisano! That's the way it's done, that's what the world needs now, far
more than 'love, sweet love', as the pitiful song goes.
VIVA ITALIA!

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:24 pm

The way I look at it is it exposes the inherent weakness of Islam that it can't stand up to this. It just makes them look fragile. If they really believed in their faith they wouldn't be at all flustered.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:17 pm

avidaloca,
a: I think that's the difference between good philosophy and bad. The good philosophy always opens up avenues beyond itself, and never claims the total glory. The weakest philosophy claims full victory and declares none more need be done.

DQ: Under this criteria, the sage is the weakest philosopher of all, while the most shallow and pedantic of academics is the greatest.

a: This also means that you are way better than Weininger, because you say you understand everything, while he pointed to things he hadn't yet thought of, or didn't perhaps fully grasp.
You make it sound as though I am committing blasphemy. My philosophical understanding and wisdom is certainly a lot deeper than Weininger's. But it's a case of comparing myself to a kid, so it probably doesn't mean all that much.

One day, you're going to have to come out from behind Weininger's coat-tails and step into the light of truth itself. That's if you want your judgments on things to have any real meaning.

-

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:13 pm

The problem is we approach Weininger and other philosophers differently.

You see him as someone to take a little from and throw out the rest because he doesn't meet your high standards. He is a "kid" who is only part way there, while you are at the zenith.

I see his and others ideas as containing truth that I can learn from without judging where he fits in a hierarchy. I also read it in the original language he wrote it in, whereas you read it in English which is a very poor substitute for a work of that intricacy and depth.

You take only what you want to take and forget the rest. I look at everything there and take as much as I can.

Given that Kevin was in this mid-20s when he wrote Posion for the Heart, he was also a kid, but that doesn't stop you praising that book higher than or equal to any other.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:39 pm

GR wrote:
Are there people here on this forum who believe personal freedoms such as the posting of controversial cartoons ought to be outlawed?


Outlawed? What for? Frankly, if the human race wants to blow itself up instead of become wise, I don't give a damn.

Wisdom is not something that can be legislated into existence.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing some depth from you. And I don't mean a deeper crank on your cock, either. Care to attempt a demonstration by answering my last question, or -- by chance -- did you find it irrelevant?
Between Suicides

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:56 pm

Get Real wrote:Sure, but the sick fuckwits are but a small portion of the faith, so in keeping with your point they again ought to be discounted.
I'm not so sure about that, since "mainstream Islam", which is itself very fundamentalist, appears to be submissive to fully fundamentalist, extremist Islam. That is, "mainstream Islam" has no answer to extremist Islam, and so has no choice but to go along with it. If an extremist Muslim says "Anyone who upsets Muslims must be killed", then the mainstream Muslim thinks, "I can't argue with that, and if I did, my life would be in danger."

Cat Stevens was a mainstream Muslim, and he didn't argue against the death penalty that was issued to Salmon Rushdie.

So it's not just a few hundred thousand people we are talking about here, but I suspect it's hundreds of millions.

At the moment the extremist Islamists are trying to be particularly outrageous and ridiculous, to try and draw the West into a fight. If it doesn't work they'll try something equally ridiculous.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:24 am

kjones wrote: A few days ago, you mentioned that systematic enlightenment was prone to becoming used by the ego to reinforce itself. Is there some point where one must stop looking for seas to cross? Do you think that going all the way, and becoming fully enlightened, means that whatever has been conducive to philosophy needs to be abandoned?
A systematic approach might indeed create the impression that all seas are alike, defined the same way. But abandoning the journey (giving up the crossing) is in itself a new journey, a step, a 'sea' that is now crossed. The nature of the journey changes but that doesn't mean the end of progression when seen from the now changed perspective on progress.

The only rational conclusion one can draw from the concepts of enlightenment and 'perfect enlightenment' is that as long as one has not reached the 'perfected' end yet, one is still in some form of progress. And that means perspectives still can radically shift without necessarily invalidating anything major that went before. Understanding then expands or encompasses more than before. The nature of the understanding itself might change. The only way to be sure how it exactly ends is to be at the very end and I've seen no one here claiming such.

There is a good possibility such claim would be contradictionary in itself anyway.

Get Real
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:51 pm

Post by Get Real » Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:36 am

Looking from here, looking from the west, all we are certain about is that the extremists are determined to outlaw things like those cartoons. The mainline 'slim reps i've seen on tv have not suggested this at all. They are not stupid enough to support such an extreme restriction of freedom of expression, as it would bite them in the ass as well sooner or later. All we see from here is the outrageous demands of a small percentage of people, and thats why the idea is getting so little serious consideration-- only sufficient to keep things from getting too out of hand.

Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:30 am

It certainly does appear that the demonstrations are on-going because the desired effect is not happening. It appears that the protesters want certain dignitaries to do or say something they have not yet done or said. It's interesting too, that there's no mention of this on the news. They simply keep on reporting the latest demon without analysis or speculation.
Will it happen? Will they get what they want? Any guesses?
Is what they want well understood?

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:46 pm

Below chimp level again.

The protests and violence are going on because the people are inflamed. Royally pissed off. Mad as hell. Ready to kill. Killing and being killed.

I wrote this before and I will write it again. Freedom of the press is a western concept. However, I have not seen many political cartoons in western press derogatorily depicting Jesus Christ. I cannot think of any at all in the mainstream press.

Personally, I don't give a shit how Jesus is depicted anywhere. But just imagine the riotous effect of a derogatory cartoon -- say, Jesus with his penis hanging out -- would go over in most Christian countries.

I think the current problem is one of misunderstanding of cultural differences. Misunderstanding of the impact of cultural differences.

On the bright side, I reckon it may be a good thing to lay everything out on the table and deal with it.

Might be a good thing to publish more derogatory cartoons of Mohammad.

Just to clear the air -- the nuclear air.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:48 pm

Anybody remember "Son O' God" comix?

I seriously doubt that sort of depiction of Christ would be well tolerated in the US in 2006.

Faizi

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:49 pm

Let's bring back the "Piss Christ" sculpture with a crucifix with Jesus on the cross sitting at the bottom of a glass of urine. And Last Temptation of Christ where Jesus lusts after a prostitute. Nobody minded them when they came out.

Post Reply