Back in the Rim: language, censorship, religion, rationalism

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Another point which is disconected but of interest. This is the difficulty of being both zealous and chivalrous. ... Thus the best of mercenaries(not goons but high-class outfits)can be very chivalrous because they care not a whit about their employer beyond their paycheck.

Actually there are some very good reasons for a top flight merc unit to be chivalrous, or followed widely adopted rules of warfare. Because you want the other guy to be chivalrous to you as well. Especially in combat, there is a high degree of reciprocity involved in constructing the rules.

So we make deals like, "We won't use chemical or biological weapons, which can be extremely effective, but also dangerous to our own, ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DON'T" If you do, we will. You play by the rules, so will we.

So, if you find yourself surrounded and out numbered, you don't have to die. You can surrender and you will be treated well, chivalrously, by us. But, if you don't treat your prisoners of war chivalrously, we won't either. Which means the next time you are surrounded and out numbered, you will die.

Likewise zeal can make people vicious, because they really do care and think the "end justifys the means"(this is a cliche; I think it more accurate to say some ends could never justify any means, some ends justify some means, and no end justify all means-still a little bumper stickerish but better then before).

Somehow this never seemed right or made sense to me. We act because we want to change things. We want what we want to be, instead of what would be without our actions. So anything we do is essentially a means to some end.

Now whether it is our intended end or not, that is another question. And probably more relavant. I don't see any kind of justification going on, unless you are talking about what people think of the action.

Also zealous people are apt to be guided by emotion. Finnally a merely evil person will stop torturing people when he gets tired; twisted zeal will make him stay up torturing people.

How does that line go about save us from people who want to help us?

Actually I think the real problem with zealotry is the fact that it ends up demanding a breaking of the rules and going against the teachings of the parent ideology or philosophy (or religion). If you zealously tithed to your local charities or church, do you really think anyone would consider that a threat? If you zealously helped out the needy, or the poor, or zealously did good things for lots of people, you be hailed and praised. No one would ever call you a zealot.

This is I think the source of the accusation that religion is reponsible for the troubles of the world.

Okay, I know I never made this accusation. But since your response is in this particular thread and responding to my words, I would like to clarify this somewhat.

You are right in that Christianity is largely responsible for Western Civilization, and that includes the political theories of this planets lone superpower. There is something there that is working, far better than most of the alternatives that have been tried to date. And the good things that the church and people of faith have done gets little play compared to the evils that zealots do. That is life. A good person is not a threat, and we have to be wary of threats. We have to be more concern with that which will kill us than that which ain't going to.

What I have been arguing is not in any way, shape or form, an assault on religion. I have been trying to illustrate the practical effects that religious concepts such as morality, have on the development and more importantly, the success of a culture. Regardless of the source of the package of ideas encompassed by any religion, those ideas affect actions, and actions have consequences. Because of this, there is an evolutionary effect going on with regard to religion.

I could just as easily use the above argument to prove one particular package in closer agreement to reality than all others. And I am sure with a bit of thought on your part, you could use the same arguments to validate your own religious faith. (But then would it still be a faith?)

What this means is that some concepts are 'wrong' in that they don't work. They get their adherents killed off, and unable to live peacably with different cultures, different ideas, or different civilizations. It also means that some concepts are 'right', that they do lead to happier, healthier and longer lives for their adherents. And sometimes even those that aren't.

In religion, it is considered 'bad' to class religions and religious concepts in such a manner. It is questioning God. And in this respect they are right. But I have always been of the opinion that one should card God, that one should make sure that whatever or whoever you worship, is worthy of that effort, that it will improve your life and your chance at happiness. A god that provides rules and regulations that are contrary to how the world works, is going to make you miserable, and/or dead. That ain't good for you, nor him/her/it.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by robject:
The Vilani Shugilii might say:

The virtues we see, of ishkishar (cooperation), inkidar (stability), and kiirar (organization), are very similar to your concepts of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.

There is a bug in the system. Stagnation is stable, but very brittle. It keeps the society from developing the necessary skill set to overcome the sudden and unexpected changes. Organizations are fine when they achieve the results they were set up to achieve. When they don't, the organization can actually be a handicap when confronting a more chaotic force.

Cooperating in one's own death is not a smart move.

Look. Death is stable. Life is not a stable state of existence. And people live, they change. If a state or culture is unable to adapt to those changes, it dies out. Desires for stability can work for a while, but if the whole universe is changing and you fight each and every piece of that change, never question whether their is a benefit to this or that particular change, but oppose it none the less, you got a real problem.

And when you consider the rebellion, I think that proves my point.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Drakon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
The Vilani Shugilii might say:

The virtues we see, of ishkishar (cooperation), inkidar (stability), and kiirar (organization), are very similar to your concepts of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.

There is a bug in the system. Stagnation is stable, but very brittle. It keeps the society from developing the necessary skill set to overcome the sudden and unexpected changes. Organizations are fine when they achieve the results they were set up to achieve. When they don't, the organization can actually be a handicap when confronting a more chaotic force.
</font>[/QUOTE]And that is exactly how the Vilani are protrayed. Stable to the point of brittleness. And not only the Rebellion, but the Interstellar Wars between the Ziru Sirka and the Terran Confed.

 

[Straybow]

Zeal is when you see only your goal or ideal.
Fanaticism is when you see only your own zeal.

Zeal is good or bad depending on the goal or ideal. Fanaticism is a perversion, never good, though on rare occasions harmlessly petty.

 

[Drakon]

Robject: Really? LOL. I had not read up on it that much. Too much of a wannabe gear head and wanting to build my own TU.

For a game, the empire has to be brittle, or else all the stories go away. Stability is also pretty dull. Adventure is about overcoming obstacles, challenges. Civilization does try to reduce these a lot.

 

[jatay3]

For a game, the empire has to be brittle, or else all the stories go away. Stability is also pretty dull. Adventure is about overcoming obstacles, challenges. Civilization does try to reduce these a lot.


Actually the empire only has to have wild frontiers, and intrigue ridden palaces. Brittleness is a possibility but not necessary.

 

[jatay3]

A god that provides rules and regulations that are contrary to how the world works, is going to make you miserable, a


Yes and no. My God makes laws that are pretty obviously contridictory to the way the world works(but not contridictory to the way the world should work). But I am not miserable. However He also is willing to forgive our weakness as long as we get up and try again. What makes people miserable is unwillingness to forgive themselves-and yes I do no what that is like.
Also many rules are manmade, not God made and have only the vagueest resembelance to God's actual commands. Every once in a while a Christian will fall into the trap of asceticism-thinking that because God's commands are sometimes painful to obey, therefore doing things that are painful to do must be virtueous in itself. I am not forbidden to watch movies, for instance; just forbidden to recklessly risk temptation, or knowingly offend others(I.E I accept the concept of Just War, so I can watch war movies or read Hornblower-but not at a Quaker's house). I am not forbidden to enjoy Traveller, just forbidden to make it obvious near someone who is offended by RPG's(D&D was once a fashionable thing to condemn-I don't know the game and presume that much of the condemnation came largly from isolated cases, for that is how these things start-and Traveller might have "guilt by association" in their eyes. In St. Paul's day(no I haven't changed denominations-"St." is just a convenient identifier)the issue was the cheap meat sold from sacrificial animals at pagan temples. Read Galatians and I Corinthians and make applications.
You don't have to be miserable to be a Christian. You just have to try. And when you fail you "try,try, again". And above all you ask for help.

 

[jatay3]

You don't have to be miserable to be a Christian. You just have to try. And when you fail you "try,try, again". And above all you ask for help.

The key point is that you "ask for help" from God and Christ. No one can be good own his own; he can only be good with Christ. And being "good" by earthly standards doesn't cut it-if you try to swim the Atlantic and drown two miles away from the oppisite coast you have still drowned. Only by Christ.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I'm perfectly capable of being good without any supernatural assistance.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
A god that provides rules and regulations that are contrary to how the world works, is going to make you miserable,

Yes and no. My God makes laws that are pretty obviously contridictory to the way the world works(but not contridictory to the way the world should work). But I am not miserable.

Okay a few bugs in this so far. First off the word "should". When you talk about "shoulds" you are comparing a situation to some standard. Those standards are generated by the brain, and hence not real world things. Their reality is very different than the reality of say, rocks, trees, and such.

I want to use the word "imaginary" because I think of it in more a mathematical sense. But then I end up having to explain that even imaginary things can affect the real world. If you think you are a 'dragon trapped in a human body' this will be a different persepctive on situations you find yourself in, especially when dealing with other people (sophants). Which in turn will affect how you act toward them. So in a very real sense, even an imaginary thing is real, has real affects. The difference is that for an imaginary thing to have any affect on its environment, it has to go through a mind first.

Like I said, I use the term imaginary in a more mathematical sense. Imaginary numbers do not combine with real numbers in the same manner that real numbers combine with themselves. But they are an important and a very real concept in mathematics.

Just because your standards are imaginary does not make them wrong, because right and wrong do not apply the same way between real things and imaginary things. The definition is different.

The second problem is that you state that you are not miserable. And because you are posting, I feel safe in assuming that you are still alive. Life and death are objective facts of existence, while misery and happiness are more subjective. So, if those concepts are keeping you alive, and aiding and abetting your happiness, in a very real objective sense, that is what they are supposed to do, must do, in order for those concepts to continue.

Therefore, if you are alive and happy, as a result of your actions that in turn result from your belief structure, then that belief structure is working. In that sense it is "true" as much as truth can be associated with imaginary entities such as ideas and concepts and other mental products.

However He also is willing to forgive our weakness as long as we get up and try again. What makes people miserable is unwillingness to forgive themselves-and yes I do no what that is like.

This is a strength of the Christian world view that I think is one of the reasons why it is successful on this planet. The concept of forgiveness. Without that, you get a "in for a penny, in for a pound" kind of mindset operating and that can produce all sorts of badness.

Also many rules are manmade, not God made and have only the vagueest resembelance to God's actual commands.

Again, this is problematic. Whether the rules are man-made or God made, is irrelavant. They only operate via the minds of humans (so far). Without that willing adoption by those human minds, those rules would not get followed at all. The resulting consequences would be different, and probably detrimental to those minds, those humans.

You don't have to be miserable to be a Christian. You just have to try. And when you fail you "try,try, again". And above all you ask for help.

This can be an effective tactic at living and being happy. If you are miesrable as a result of your faith, or an attempt to follow the rules, then those rules are just not working and hence false. You are doing something wrong, that is contrary to the way the universe, or you, function.

You point to several disagreements with other Christian sects, and how you are basically forbidden from causing offense to them. You don't want to offend them or upset them, because God says not to. If you did not offend them for any other reason, would it make any difference in your relationship with them? I don't think so. You would still do the same things you are doing now.

2 additional points. D&D was roundly condemned by several Christian groups because it was thought to lead to devil worship or at least an interest in the occult. In Christian mythology, the devil is the bad guy, so anything that attracts or has the potential to attract followers to the dark side, is considered bad.

But I find it interesting to note that even the offical Church of Satan has something resembling the Golden Rule in it. Its members are commanded to obey the law, and to treat fellow parishoners in their sect, as they want to be treated themselves. The only functional difference I can find between this concept and the Christian one, is that the Christian one is not limited to only fellow Christians. While in Satanism, (at least to my limited research) it applies to only fellow Satanists. I find this interesting.

Another point: Earlier you complained (mildly) of my use of the term relevant to a lot of things in this discussion. You don't like it, and perhaps that may be a valid argument. But I don't think so. Not everything is as tightly connected as some want to believe. My efforts on this newsgroup have nothing to do with say, the price of tea in China. And if you ever want to figure it all out, you need to sift through the data, the huge mountain of information and see what is, and what is not actually connected.

I don't consider the mythology of a particular religion, (and I know a lot of folks quake at the use of the term mythology) its origin story, its extra-reality speculations on an afterlife or such, to be that relavant to its moral code. If the Golden Rule were specifically the result of Christ's death and resurection, then why did it show up in Confucius' Analetics several hundred years earlier? I see this as something more fundamental.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
A god that provides rules and regulations that are contrary to how the world works, is going to make you miserable,

Yes and no. My God makes laws that are pretty obviously contridictory to the way the world works(but not contridictory to the way the world should work). But I am not miserable.

Okay a few bugs in this so far. First off the word "should". When you talk about "shoulds" you are comparing a situation to some standard. Those standards are generated by the brain, and hence not real world things. Their reality is very different than the reality of say, rocks, trees, and such.

I want to use the word "imaginary" because I think of it in more a mathematical sense. But then I end up having to explain that even imaginary things can affect the real world. If you think you are a 'dragon trapped in a human body' this will be a different persepctive on situations you find yourself in, especially when dealing with other people (sophants). Which in turn will affect how you act toward them. So in a very real sense, even an imaginary thing is real, has real affects. The difference is that for an imaginary thing to have any affect on its environment, it has to go through a mind first.

Like I said, I use the term imaginary in a more mathematical sense. Imaginary numbers do not combine with real numbers in the same manner that real numbers combine with themselves. But they are an important and a very real concept in mathematics.

Just because your standards are imaginary does not make them wrong, because right and wrong do not apply the same way between real things and imaginary things. The definition is different.

The second problem is that you state that you are not miserable. And because you are posting, I feel safe in assuming that you are still alive. Life and death are objective facts of existence, while misery and happiness are more subjective. So, if those concepts are keeping you alive, and aiding and abetting your happiness, in a very real objective sense, that is what they are supposed to do, must do, in order for those concepts to continue.

Therefore, if you are alive and happy, as a result of your actions that in turn result from your belief structure, then that belief structure is working. In that sense it is "true" as much as truth can be associated with imaginary entities such as ideas and concepts and other mental products.

However He also is willing to forgive our weakness as long as we get up and try again. What makes people miserable is unwillingness to forgive themselves-and yes I do no what that is like.

This is a strength of the Christian world view that I think is one of the reasons why it is successful on this planet. The concept of forgiveness. Without that, you get a "in for a penny, in for a pound" kind of mindset operating and that can produce all sorts of badness.

Also many rules are manmade, not God made and have only the vagueest resembelance to God's actual commands.

Again, this is problematic. Whether the rules are man-made or God made, is irrelavant. They only operate via the minds of humans (so far). Without that willing adoption by those human minds, those rules would not get followed at all. The resulting consequences would be different, and probably detrimental to those minds, those humans.

You don't have to be miserable to be a Christian. You just have to try. And when you fail you "try,try, again". And above all you ask for help.

This can be an effective tactic at living and being happy. If you are miesrable as a result of your faith, or an attempt to follow the rules, then those rules are just not working and hence false. You are doing something wrong, that is contrary to the way the universe, or you, function.

You point to several disagreements with other Christian sects, and how you are basically forbidden from causing offense to them. You don't want to offend them or upset them, because God says not to. If you did not offend them for any other reason, would it make any difference in your relationship with them? I don't think so. You would still do the same things you are doing now.

2 additional points. D&D was roundly condemned by several Christian groups because it was thought to lead to devil worship or at least an interest in the occult. In Christian mythology, the devil is the bad guy, so anything that attracts or has the potential to attract followers to the dark side, is considered bad.

But I find it interesting to note that even the offical Church of Satan has something resembling the Golden Rule in it. Its members are commanded to obey the law, and to treat fellow parishoners in their sect, as they want to be treated themselves. The only functional difference I can find between this concept and the Christian one, is that the Christian one is not limited to only fellow Christians. While in Satanism, (at least to my limited research) it applies to only fellow Satanists. I find this interesting.

Another point: Earlier you complained (mildly) of my use of the term relevant to a lot of things in this discussion. You don't like it, and perhaps that may be a valid argument. But I don't think so. Not everything is as tightly connected as some want to believe. My efforts on this newsgroup have nothing to do with say, the price of tea in China. And if you ever want to figure it all out, you need to sift through the data, the huge mountain of information and see what is, and what is not actually connected.

I don't consider the mythology of a particular religion, (and I know a lot of folks quake at the use of the term mythology) its origin story, its extra-reality speculations on an afterlife or such, to be that relavant to its moral code. If the Golden Rule were specifically the result of Christ's death and resurection, then why did it show up in Confucius' Analetics several hundred years earlier? I see this as something more fundamental.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
I'm perfectly capable of being good without any supernatural assistance.

I would say "Amen" but that might be a bit unintentionally humorous.

Supernatural is something that bugs me. The word. If it is outside the "natural" realm then I fail to see how it is relevant to my actions, or thoughts inside this realm.

But what the word is really describing is things that have been posited to exist, and affect reality, but do so in a manner we don't understand.

Therefore, jump drive can be seen as "supernatural" and at present it is completely consistent with Clarke's law. That any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magick, or the supernatural.

 

[jatay3]

But what the word is really describing is things that have been posited to exist, and affect reality, but do so in a manner we don't understand.

Therefore, jump drive can be seen as "supernatural" and at present it is completely consistent with Clarke's law. That any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magick, or the supernatural.

--------------------
"supernatural" is certainly not shorthand for "I'm to ignorant to understand". Supernatural means "coming from outside of nature". The only way you can be sure of the impossibility of supernatural intervention is to be sure of the impossibility of the supernatural or to be a Deist. In either case you have no more evidence behind you than someone who believes in the possibility.
Jump drive is not "supernatural", it is merely another form of technology. How do we know this? Because Traveller canon seems to make that fairly clear; or in other words because we said so. Traveller is our own creation and we ought to know it. We don't know,in that sense, that Nature is God's creation. But we don't know that it isn't either.

 

[Straybow]

Supernatural is something that bugs me. The word. If it is outside the "natural" realm then I fail to see how it is relevant to my actions, or thoughts inside this realm.

Because it is sovereign over the natural realm, and exacts supernatural consequences upon natural free-will agents at various points during and after mortal life.

That, in itself, is insufficient motive to "convert." My only point is to explain the relevance to the natural man.

 

[Drakon]

But havign sovereignty over the natural realm makes it part of that realm. There is no clear distinction between what is natural and what is not, except by arbitrary dictate which amounts to nothing more than "Well I don't understand it, therefore it must be 'outside of nature'"

I am not saying any such realm exist. I am saying that the label for it bugs me, that the label for such a realm is inaccurate. And effectively boils down to "I don't understand it"

 

[Straybow]

If you are MWM, you create Traveller, and you have sovereignty over the milieu. You are not a part of the game or milieu.

(Like all analogies it is a bad one except for the one point being made.)

 

[robject]

Good example 'Bow. Marc is beyond or above the Traveller Universe, very like our definition of super-natural or above/beyond nature. In the same way, we too are super-natural to Traveller. Unless we reveal ourselves to some Traveller character (which is of course not possible, I'm just talking here), they will never know who we are.

And Marc wisely leaves religion for the referee to worry over. This is a game, a sub-creation, a vehicle for creativity, and a social ritual.

 

[Drakon]

I disagree. A lot of Marc's ideas, his viewpoint is reflected in his game. The late 70's belief that General Relativity precluded faster than light travel through normal space led to the use of the jump drive, as a work around.

More importantly, Traveller is an "imaginary" work. The game while played with dice and paper, really takes place in our skulls. And is the product of another skull, just like ours.

 

[Straybow]

No, Marc can change his viewpoint on any subject at any time. Traveller doesn't change unless he wills to change it, apart from himself. Any changes made to Traveller apart from him (eg, actions of characters) can't by themselves alter the thought patterns in his brain. He can accept or reject such a change by his will. Neither action necessarily changes Marc.

 

[robject]

Drakon, you should read what Tolkien wrote about 'sub-creations'; he was a literature professor, so he writes from a much different perspective than I'm used to. It's probably well known in other circles, but it was all pretty eye-opening to me.

The book "The Tolkien Reader" is paperback, and likely available at used bookstores everywhere for cheap.