h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Does Tolkien Show a corruption of a whole group, <<

Which group do you mean?

"so i need an education, so what."

Well, no-one knows everything. The more I know, the more I realise that I don't know. etc etc

There's nothing wrong with not being an expert on all things, but there is something wrong with claiming to be. Nothing annoys people quite like arrogance, and your posts have been full of claims about being infallable and having invented the "perfect" system without ever coming across anyone else's ideas. T

his is tantamount to claiming that you are a greater genius than has ever existed. For every thinker, inventor, and discover builds on the achievements of others, even if they end up refuting them and producing something very different. Isaac Newton is said to have said that "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". That sums it up.

Because you claim to be infallable and have perfect ideas, you shouldn't be surprised when people start demonstrating that your ideas are flawed and that there's things that you don't understand. Ignorance and arrogance is a poisonous mix - to be guilty of one is a character flaw, to be guilty of both is a disaster.

It's a shame, because there's been a lot written about things that you're interested in which will help sharpen your ideas.

"i can acept my science ideas being blown up im fine with that."

Just as well, really.

"as long as the distinction is recognised between what i am personaly capable of inventing. and the other mater, which is about society."

Well, yes, there is a distinction.

The area of science is, in general, predictable, repeatable, and quantifiable. Therefore, with some degree of education, one can reasonably exert control over it, within limits. I do every day as part of my job. You can't, due to your lack of education and unwillingness to get any.

The area of society - i.e. politics - is vastly more complex and unpredictable.

Why, then, given that you accept your shortcomings in the area of engineering invention, can you not see that your lack of any useful skills makes you even less likely to be able to come up with a non-fantasy based usable system of politics?

If a child who was no good at football and knew nothing about it wanted to be a football commentator, he'd get short shrift. But if he then turned round and tried to use that as an argument in favour of allowing him to present a show about political analysis, he'd simply be laughed at.

I'm laughing, Gigger. Can you guess why?

H.

<>

WWeeelllll.......

There is some dispute on this, Marxist thought generaly argues that there was a pre historic idyl of harmony, prior to the invention and therefore the appropriation of property.

Personally I tend towards thinking that Pre Roman civilisation was far more enlightened than is generaly realised, particularly within the 'local grouping' of a tribe or extended family, but that the Marxist view is some what Nieve. This leads to another interpretation of LOTR Given that JRRT was so professionaly involved with the Myths of the pre/contemparary/imediately post roman cultures of northern Europe,

Saruman, Sauron, The Orcs and Nazgul might easily be interpreted as the invading Roman Legions and the Hobbits, Elves, Dwarfs and Men are the Resisting Local Populations. The outcome represents Wish Fullfillment, I.e. Tolkien may have been writing down a fantasy of his about a world in which the Roman Empire had Been defeated.

I don't Buy that particular sub narrative myself although it is not an original of mine.

I tend to think that a harmonious political system is unlikely to be implemented because the only one that exists seems to be a natural law. IE Anarchy, which does not mean disorder, and without rules, but without Rulers. To my mind True Anarchy requires Enlightened Self Interest, because the lesson of continuing without enlightend self interest is that the Anarchy without it is a contradiction in terms.

One Criticism of Anarchy is that it is "Survival of the Fittest", I have never quite understood this, since that implies the imposition of rule either just or unjust on someone by some one, that becomes an Archy of some kind but not Anarchy.

Back to LOTR, I would not argue that it is an Anarchic Tract, it isn't, although aspects of it could be interpreted that way, but a very strong theme throughout is individual responsibility. This particularly relates to Frodo and the Ring he carries, but also for Sam and Gandalf and Aragorn ect, most of their struggles relate to individual responsibility in some way. One thing which defines the Orcs as a group is the lack of individual responsibility, they Serve either Sauron or Saruman, they do as they are told. (Again this was a clear Nazi Ideal and interestingly enough Catholic priests are required to take a vow of obedience to the church)

The perfect Political system is Anarchy and it already exists, it requires nothing more than personal responsiblity and as soon as the majority of people on the planet realise that this is the way forward, then all the other Archys will wither away.

Well at least I havent heard a better argument Yet, but I am open to suggestions.

I am essentially wondering if the Elves corrupted by Melkor into Orcs Represent a group, but I am at the moment seriously considering reading the Silmarillion again since I can't think of all the details I need to support my case. But that is the main theme in my mind.

pre the invention of invention we were a pack animal without real thought.
its only because the ice left us we ran out of hunting, so we had to farm.
with that came tools and the concept of private land.

the whole situation was really churned up by their religion.
for the transition from the moon to the sun, was as much spycological as geograpical.

just think we immediatly addapted our whole culture and way of thinking because of the weather.

I always used to think of the Orcs as more of an artificial creation rather than as a race of people. So it has been interesting to see the argument in this thread that they are a race of peoples.

~~

>>>
<>
WWeeelllll.......
There is some dispute on this, Marxist thought generaly argues that there was a pre historic idyl of harmony, prior to the invention and therefore the appropriation of property.
>>>

There has been some theorising about pre-patriarchal cultures, especially those before there were settlements above a certain size, and the possiblity that these communitites had a much greater degree of ...not sure if harmony is the right word, but something along those lines.

I'm not sure to what extent that could be seen as resulting from political organisation (it would depend on how wide a definition of politics we are working with).

<>

It's possible that it's not so much a matter of achieving this as it may be our natural state.

Most belief systems and even some political philosophies postulate the idea of a 'Golden Age', located at some obscure point in the past. But 'harmony' is indeed the problematic word. "General harmony on earth" sounds pretty awful to me - there's a big difference between the wish to abolish warfare, see basic human rights universally extended and accepted and so on and the utopian wish for 'general harmony'.

A number of millennarian sects in the middle ages, for example, used to take the following approach to the establishment of 'general harmony' in their wish to return to such a Golden Age - kill everyone who disagrees with you and then only the 'harmonious' ones will be left.

It's not just that 'general harmony' is unrealistic, it doesn't seem to reflect anything genuine about human nature at all, which is intrinsically rebellious, disputatious and above all diverse. The key thing is ensuring that rules of mutual respect and above all non-violence govern the disputes and variety. Anything else is just tosh.

Gigabane,

a Few questions:

1) where is the boundary between the Pack animal and the thinking animal in your estimation?

2) If farming came about as a result of the recession af the ice cap, then why is the earliest evidence of Farming so far discovered in Africa? (No the continents haven't moved that much.)

3) If we developed tools following the Ice Age (11,000 years ago I think) why have early tools (Also discovered in Africa) been dated to at least 1,000,000 bce.

4) Why have devotional objects more than 500,000 years old been discovered.(Fertility goddesses if memory serves)


I think it is entirely possible that the weather played an important role in the development of religion. But on a far more archaic and gradual scale than you suggest.

Trin Tragula hi....

Harmony is an interesting concept, I wonder if it depends on how you describe it.

I am not 100% certain but I think the term originated in music rather than became applied to music later. In music Harmony represents the absence of discord. However an interesting problem arrises, musically Harmonious music is in many ways boring. Interesting music uses the tension between harmony and discord to generate certain effects which for some reason humans associate with different feelings.

The major scale is supposed to be harmonious but if you want to express sadness, creating a tension by introduction of a minor third creates the effect you want.

I obviously I wont extent the metaphore too far but I think it highlights an important point that you raise, a balanced, effective and mature society would from my point of view be able to tolerate and manage conflict. Rather than attempting to eliminate it leading to repression and ultimately the explossion of the conflict in some way: or by giving it free reign, where it spirals out of control.


Interestingly I am no wondering if I am percieved on the threads I contribute to as too combative, as I have had a few argumentative discussions with people which have appeared to tail off, leaving me waiting for either a reply to a post which never comes, or wondering where the other half of the conversation went to.

Personally I am happy to engage with conflict providing we are able to manage it appropriately, as this is where I get new ideas from. The Topic of this thread for instance, where have all the strong advocates of the original premise, have they been convinced of the other point of view, of just got bored and wandered off.

Oh almost forgot GiGabane,

The dispute about wether land can be owned is much more recent than you appear to suppose.

It was until recently at least a tennet of indigeonous australians beliefs.

It was without doubt one of the major contributors to the dispute between Rome and Judaeism, the romans felt all of it was theirs, the Jews felt that it all belonged to god (And therefore no man).

The celts appear to have thought it all belonged to the animals, as did the indigeonous peoples of north america. ect ect. ect.

well i dont know the time fram myself but i refer to the very people who built the henge.
they are the ones who swithed from a moon religion in britain.
if other things are related before or after, then i dont know.

I'm not bored, and I haven't wandered off.

B

Sounds like you do need to read some history, Gigabane.

please could everyone who is iterested please move to the "need help naming a political system" thread as people are finding it hard to follow the whole picture.

Strontium Dog you talked earlier about Anarchy being the best political system, I assume by this you mean that everyone is out for themselves and therefore takes responsibility for their actions. This sounds fine in theory, but in practise people would naturally cluster into groups, either based around family lead by a patriarch/matriarch, or around natural leaders (those with strong personalities or the best sounding ideas). These groups would attract others and become larger and larger, with their leaders becoming more and more powerful. (i think this is the basis of Chaos Theory, but i'm not sure)

One leader would then meet another, they would then quarrel over differences in their belief and ideas and the two groups would then beat severn shades out each other. and we're back to the current system.

Your sounds fine in theory and i agree i wish people would take more responsibility for their words and actions, but it wouldn't work in practise due to flaws in human nature. (kinda like communism)

F19585?thread=452743
apparently i have been put here .

SD - easy there fella. I think you've been reading a little too much Graham Hancock.

<>

<> (Della)

Um, this is a bold-faced lie. In fact, back in January on the god thread Della accused both Jez and I of saying things about her that we had never said. Jez asked Della to either back up her accusations with the appropriate link that proved it or apologise. Della did neither. I didn't bother because I knew Della was making it all up and that she never apologises for the lies she tells about people.

It isn't an 'assertion' that Della often claims to be an oppressed Christian, it's an observation. Which many people on hootoo have also observed on many occasions.


az

I'm not following Gigabane to any amalgamated thread. How did he end up being the centre of this one, anyway?

No, don't answer that.