Quote:

Are there any Muslim inventions in the last 200 years? Has there been any Muslim scientific innovation in the last 200 years? Does the Muslim religion cause their culture to become backward?

As Jim Trott would say, no, no.... yes.



A society's concepts of metaphysic shape the way the members of that society organise themselves.
Some have free will at their centre, others have determinism of every moment as their starting point for thinking.

I always thought this occurred at the individual level Soren ie some individuals have free will at their centre, others have determinism of every moment as their starting point for thinking.

Quote:

# Mahmoud Hessaby, 20th century Iranian physicist # Ali Javan, 20th century Iranian physicist # Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, 20th century Indonesian aerospace engineer and president # Abdul Kalam, Indian aeronautical engineer and nuclear scientist # Abdus Salam, Pakistani theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner(1979) # Mehran Kardar, Iranian theoretical physicist # Cumrun Vafa, Iranian mathematical physicist # Nima Arkani-Hamed, American-born Iranian physicist # Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Egyptian-born German particle physicist # Munir Nayfeh Palestinian-American particle physicist # Riazuddin, Pakistani theoretical physicist # Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistani nuclear scientist # Ali Musharafa, Egyptian nuclear physicist # Sameera Moussa, Egyptian nuclear physicist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists#Physicists_and_engineers

Then there was  Ahmed H. Zewail, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1999

Your paradigm is shattered.

muso wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

Quote: # Mahmoud Hessaby, 20th century Iranian physicist # Ali Javan, 20th century Iranian physicist # Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, 20th century Indonesian aerospace engineer and president # Abdul Kalam, Indian aeronautical engineer and nuclear scientist # Abdus Salam, Pakistani theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner(1979) # Mehran Kardar, Iranian theoretical physicist # Cumrun Vafa, Iranian mathematical physicist # Nima Arkani-Hamed, American-born Iranian physicist # Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Egyptian-born German particle physicist # Munir Nayfeh Palestinian-American particle physicist # Riazuddin, Pakistani theoretical physicist # Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistani nuclear scientist # Ali Musharafa, Egyptian nuclear physicist # Sameera Moussa, Egyptian nuclear physicist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists#Physicists_and_engineers Then there was  Ahmed H. Zewail, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1999 Your paradigm is shattered.

There have been 840 nobel laureates in total.

Anyway, the question - and the paradigm it presupposes - is not whether there is training, or universtities, in every county. The question is - have Muslims  come up with anything new in the last 500 years?

And the supplementary question by me was - does their poverty of original thinking have anything to do with their deterministic metaphysics. The same goes for all other deterministic metaphysics, probably.

Googling Pakistani nuclear phyicists ( a scientific area with barely any contribution by Muslims) ain't thinking.

You're definitely onto something here. The ideas that underpin society definitely does have an impact on how people act and think within that society.
The West is ahead in innovation and technology because, I believe, of three reasons. 1. Rights granted to the invididual to be able to "think outside" the norm. This allows him to innovate, experiment, and observe without persecution. 2. There is in the West institutions that allows the creative individuals to be able to apply their skills in their preferred discipline. 3. Marketing and selling the innovations and technology produced.
It's worth noting that 2 and 3 can, and is, done in most countries. But there's something about the West that begets the 1st.
I would hypothesize that competition is the prerequisite for the 1st; that of allowing the egoist to compete against other egoists. The egoist wants to stamp his innovation on the world.

The USA is known for its radical individualism.

I could also use the example of the German philosophers of the 18th and 19th century. I would hypothesize that why there were so many brilliant thinkers from there was because they were competing against each other to stamp their view of the world over each other. Competition made them think harder.

War is another example of where competition brings out huge technological advances.

What explains the sudden decline in Chinese innovation around 400 years ago (from which they've just recovered even if still under Communism), having been a powerhouse of invention for thousands of years? What pillar of Chinese metaphysics collapsed or altered so radically that it caused sudden stagnation?

Soren wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 5:14pm:

muso wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 3:47pm: Quote: # Mahmoud Hessaby, 20th century Iranian physicist # Ali Javan, 20th century Iranian physicist # Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, 20th century Indonesian aerospace engineer and president # Abdul Kalam, Indian aeronautical engineer and nuclear scientist # Abdus Salam, Pakistani theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner(1979) # Mehran Kardar, Iranian theoretical physicist # Cumrun Vafa, Iranian mathematical physicist # Nima Arkani-Hamed, American-born Iranian physicist # Abdel Nasser Tawfik, Egyptian-born German particle physicist # Munir Nayfeh Palestinian-American particle physicist # Riazuddin, Pakistani theoretical physicist # Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistani nuclear scientist # Ali Musharafa, Egyptian nuclear physicist # Sameera Moussa, Egyptian nuclear physicist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists#Physicists_and_engineers Then there was  Ahmed H. Zewail, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1999 Your paradigm is shattered. There have been 840 nobel laureates in total. Anyway, the question - and the paradigm it presupposes - is not whether there is training, or universtities, in every county. The question is - have Muslims  come up with anything new in the last 500 years? And the supplementary question by me was - does their poverty of original thinking have anything to do with their deterministic metaphysics. The same goes for all other deterministic metaphysics, probably. Googling Pakistani nuclear phyicists ( a scientific area with barely any contribution by Muslims) ain't thinking.

Well it's true that most physicists and cosmologists are atheists, but what was your point? If you make a point about Muslims, are you contrasting with an atheistic background or what?

Generally Nobel Prize laureates in the hard sciences have come up with something original. Do you think they get it from contemplating their navels?  

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 8:05pm:

What explains the sudden decline in Chinese innovation around 400 years ago (from which they've just recovered even if still under Communism), having been a powerhouse of invention for thousands of years? What pillar of Chinese metaphysics collapsed or altered so radically that it caused sudden stagnation?

I don't know.

My bet is a shift in the way they saw themselves.
They politely declined the Portugese offer of 'knowledge exchange' saying they couldn't possible be taught anything new.

Soren wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:11pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 8:05pm: What explains the sudden decline in Chinese innovation around 400 years ago (from which they've just recovered even if still under Communism), having been a powerhouse of invention for thousands of years? What pillar of Chinese metaphysics collapsed or altered so radically that it caused sudden stagnation? I don't know. My bet is a shift in the way they saw themselves. They politely declined the Portugese offer of 'knowledge exchange' saying they couldn't possible be taught anything new.

As the English discovered when they first attempted trade with China in the 17th century when their Ambassador offered the Emperor the finest English crockery as a gift which turned out to be so inferior to the local product he inadvertently insulted the Emperor.

There might be a clue in there - 'insulted the emperor'.  I can't imagine a 17th century European monarch insulted by a gift. Haughty, even snooty, of course. But not insulted.

The Chinese were probably full of themselves, self-satisfied and so soon sclerotic. Same with the Muslim Porte, really. After their conquests and expansion, all smug and above it all.

Both are massive lesson for all with ears, of course.

Insulted, snooty, haughty... Whatever the sentiment, there was no trade with the English after that episode, until the English forced the Chinese to trade at gunpoint.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 10:57pm:

Insulted, snooty, haughty... Whatever the sentiment, there was no trade with the English after that episode, until the English forced the Chinese to trade at gunpoint.

I rest my case. The British had the confidence and they had every reason to be confident between the 16th and 20th centuries. Objectively speaking. We live in a world invented by Europe in that period and the Brits, Germans and French made an overwhelming contribuition.

Soren wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 11:16pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 19th, 2011 at 10:57pm: Insulted, snooty, haughty... Whatever the sentiment, there was no trade with the English after that episode, until the English forced the Chinese to trade at gunpoint. I rest my case. The British had the confidence and they had every reason to be confident between the 16th and 20th centuries. Objectively speaking. We live in a world invented by Europe in that period and the Brits, Germans and French made an overwhelming contribuition.

Undoubtedly true, (don't forget the Spanish and Portuguese!) but was it their metaphysics that drove their success or an arrogant confidence born of their sheer audacity leading to a wild success that shaped their metaphysics? (i.e. The metaphysics they just made up as they went along to account for it all).

Would the American colonists have been so audacious as to challenge a superpower, if in the first place they weren't on average, richer, healthier, stronger and taller than their English counterparts? I mean was it really self-evident that all men were created equal or was it simply part of a battle cry that no one really believed (invented out of the blue by rich landowners to cajole the ordinary colonists into fighting for their cause - keeping the wealth for themselves as opposed to handing any of it over to Britain)?

Would George Washington have committed an act of treason in the first place if he had not been passed over for promotion in the army by the British?

A sign outside the Chinese space centre in Jin Quan in Qansu provinence which reads in English -  "Without haste, without fear, we will conquer the world".

Confucian metaphysics or the arrogance of confidence?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:09am:

A sign outside the Chinese space centre in Jin Quan in Qansu provinence which reads in English -  "Without haste, without fear, we will conquer the world". Confucian metaphysics or the arrogance of confidence?

How the West became so dominant
James Forsyth 3:46pm
Niall Ferguson has a zippy essay in The Times today previewing his forthcoming TV series and book on why the West became so dominant over the past 600 years. He argues that there are six features of the Western system that gave it its edge:

“1. Competition: a decentralisation of political and economic life, which created the launch pad for both nation states and capitalism.
2. Science: a way of understanding and ultimately changing the natural world, which gave the West (among other things) a major military advantage over the Rest.
3. Property rights: the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government.
4. Medicine: a branch of science that allowed a major improvement in health and life expectancy, beginning in Western societies, but also in their colonies.
5. The consumer society: a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, and without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable.
6. The work ethic: a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from (among other sources) Protestant Christianity, which provides the glue for the dynamic and potentially unstable society created by apps 1 to 5”


Ferguson makes the valid point that the extent to which the rest of the world is catching up with the West is largely determined by the extent to which it has adopted, or adapted, these approaches. One of the most fascinating aspects of the rise of China is whether it can succeed without adopting the whole-package or whether a failure to do so will make the whole enterprise inherently unstable.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6714948/howthe-west-became-so-dominant.thtml

There's an intersting text by Max Weber called The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism whereby he sets out to explain that the origins of capitalism (and thereby many of the West's advances) lies in the psychological minset of hard work and rigorous self-discipline.

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 11:32am:

One of the most fascinating aspects of the rise of China is whether it can succeed without adopting the whole-package or whether a failure to do so will make the whole enterprise inherently unstable.

Ironic for anyone to imagine that for China to merely return to its 4000 year old social, cultural and scientific world dominance  (as opposed to aspiring to its novelty), it must adopt attitudes that are not Chinese.

Communism (at least the way the pragmatic Chinese have taken to adapting it or devolving it) does not seem to hinder the reclaiming of their place in the hierarchy of civilisation.

Could anyone accuse the Chinese of not being an innately industrious people, with a particular talent for innovation, an unyielding respect for the acquisition of knowledge and a born love of commerce (once limited to its borders, now extended to the world)? Which of the attributes needed to drive a civilisation powerhouse are not found quintessentially in the Chinese character?

Surely they haven't absorbed these traits from the west as much as rediscovered them in themselves.

Maybe its those things that have bedevilled the west, such as religious dogmatism, brutal militarism and political chauvinism, the Chinese need to avoid. Maybe the west offers a cautionary tale in that respect.

Perhaps it could be said that Marxism-Leninism (borrowed from the west) is the only fly in the Chinese ointment that truly constrains the culture from its modern rise being even more spectacular than it already is.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 7:20pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 11:32am: One of the most fascinating aspects of the rise of China is whether it can succeed without adopting the whole-package or whether a failure to do so will make the whole enterprise inherently unstable. Ironic for anyone to imagine that for China to merely return to its 4000 year old social, cultural and scientific world dominance  (as opposed to aspiring to its novelty), it must adopt attitudes that are not Chinese.

It is not at all ironic, if only because China never dominated the world. Not even Asia and throughout its history it had serious difficulties even with dominating China itself.



Killer 'apps': the ideas that propelled the west to world domination
1.Competition: In the 15th century, China was the most advanced civilisation in the world, while Europe was a backwater. But then things changed and by the late 18th century Adam Smith could observe that China had been "long stationary". What happened? Ferguson argues that Europe's fragmented political structure led to competition and encouraged Europeans to seek opportunities in distant lands. The increasingly insular China, by contrast, stagnated.

2. Science: The 16th and 17th centuries were the age of science, with an extraordinary number of breakthroughs occurring. This revolution was, Ferguson writes, "by any scientific measure, wholly European". In the Muslim world, clericism curtailed the spread of knowledge, while in Europe, aided by the printing press, the scope of scholarship dramatically widened. Ultimately, breakthroughs in science led to improvements in weaponry, further cementing the west's advantage.

3. Property: Why did the empire established by the English in north America in the 17th century ultimately prove so much more successful than that established by the Spanish in south America a century earlier? It was, Ferguson contends, because the English settlers brought with them a particular conception of widely distributed property rights and democracy, inherited from John Locke. This proved a far better recipe for success than the Spanish model of concentrated wealth and authoritarianism.

4. Modern science: According to Ferguson, modern medicine was the west's "most remarkable killer application". Western medical advances in the 19th and 20th centuries increased life expectancies across the world, including in the colonies. The French in particular, largely thanks to a lofty conception of their imperial mission, brought significant improvements to public health in western Africa, developing effective vaccinations for diseases such as smallpox and yellow fever.

5. Consumption: The west's dominance of the rest of the world was not only achieved by force; it was also, as Ferguson shows, achieved through the market. The industrial revolution in 18th and 19th century Britain created a model of consumerist society that has proved irresistible, as shown, for example, by the way that the western style of dressing has swept the globe. Yet there's a paradox: how was it that an economic system designed to offer infinite choice has ended up homogenising humanity?

6. Work ethic: As Max Weber noted a century ago, Protestantism was a form of Christianity that encouraged hard work (and just as importantly, Ferguson adds, reading and saving). It isn't a coincidence, he says, that the decline of religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming the "idlers of the world" (while the more religious US has remained hard-working). Interestingly, Ferguson also argues that China's embrace of hard work is partly because of the spread there of Protestantism.

Niall Ferguson's Civilization begins on 6 March on Channel 4
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/20/niall-ferguson-interview-civilization

soren

aikmann4 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 12:53pm:

soren

wha'?

ziggy

Huh?

hello

Hello, I must be going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvz8y_DUSY

Soren wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 7:20pm: Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 11:32am: One of the most fascinating aspects of the rise of China is whether it can succeed without adopting the whole-package or whether a failure to do so will make the whole enterprise inherently unstable. Ironic for anyone to imagine that for China to merely return to its 4000 year old social, cultural and scientific world dominance  (as opposed to aspiring to its novelty), it must adopt attitudes that are not Chinese. It is not at all ironic, if only because China never dominated the world. Not even Asia and throughout its history it had serious difficulties even with dominating China itself.

No, it merely dominated global trade which, in the proto-capitalist era of "gunship diplomacy", was not the same thing as dominating the world.

It is now though.

Soren wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

Interestingly, Ferguson also argues that China's embrace of hard work is partly because of the spread there of Protestantism.

Damn  ;D ;D ;D

That Protestantism must have really taken hold in Japan too - and in Bangalore, India.

Absolute unmitigated revisionist rot.

Soren wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

6. Work ethic: As Max Weber noted a century ago, Protestantism was a form of Christianity that encouraged hard work (and just as importantly, Ferguson adds, reading and saving). It isn't a coincidence, he says, that the decline of religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming the "idlers of the world" (while the more religious US has remained hard-working).

Strange that here in Australia, where religiosity has also been in sharp decline for decades, the nation has gone from being the 'land of the long weekend' to one of the homes of the world's hardest working people.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 11:29pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 11:01am: Interestingly, Ferguson also argues that China's embrace of hard work is partly because of the spread there of Protestantism. Damn  ;D ;D ;D That Protestantism must have really taken hold in Japan too - and in Bangalore, India. Absolute unmitigated revisionist rot.

My dear Mr Musician, for a scientist you rarely think straight. It's a worry. These 6 'killer apps' are modernese for what Ferguson thinks as necessary conditions for the dominance of the west. They are not, individually, sufficient. Not the same thing, necessary and sugfficient. (See short explanation for 'scientist' here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

;)

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 11:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 7:20pm: Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 11:32am: One of the most fascinating aspects of the rise of China is whether it can succeed without adopting the whole-package or whether a failure to do so will make the whole enterprise inherently unstable. Ironic for anyone to imagine that for China to merely return to its 4000 year old social, cultural and scientific world dominance  (as opposed to aspiring to its novelty), it must adopt attitudes that are not Chinese. It is not at all ironic, if only because China never dominated the world. Not even Asia and throughout its history it had serious difficulties even with dominating China itself. No, it merely dominated global trade which, in the proto-capitalist era of "gunship diplomacy", was not the same thing as dominating the world. It is now though.

When did China dominate world trade?

Soren wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 8:19am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 3:52pm: Soren wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 11:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 7:20pm: Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 11:32am: One of the most fascinating aspects of the rise of China is whether it can succeed without adopting the whole-package or whether a failure to do so will make the whole enterprise inherently unstable. Ironic for anyone to imagine that for China to merely return to its 4000 year old social, cultural and scientific world dominance  (as opposed to aspiring to its novelty), it must adopt attitudes that are not Chinese. It is not at all ironic, if only because China never dominated the world. Not even Asia and throughout its history it had serious difficulties even with dominating China itself. No, it merely dominated global trade which, in the proto-capitalist era of "gunship diplomacy", was not the same thing as dominating the world. It is now though. When did China dominate world trade?

You haven't heard of Marco Polo?

A favourite site, old boy:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10976

The rise of the West over the last 500 years, while important, can be seen as a blip.

Soren wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 8:19am:

When did China dominate world trade?

Soren,

According to Angus Maddison, China and India have dominated the world economy for most of the last 2000 years. At the peak of the Roman Empire, the Roman GDP was eclipsed by a factor of 6 by that of China.

The Romans were overrun by Germanic hordes and their GDP collapsed around the beginning of the 5th Century AD. The same thing happened in  India in the 18th Century and China in the 19th Century, although the tactics were slightly different - they used opium in the case of China.

See short explanation for philosopher here:
http://www.economist.com/node/16834943

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GDP-History.gif

So GDP is world trade now?

Luxembourg and Qatar are dominating world trade!! Who knew?? (Only scientists...)

Soren wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:39pm:

So GDP is world trade now? Luxembourg and Qatar are dominating world trade!! Who knew?? (Only scientists...)

Not GDP per capita. Nominal  or total GDP.  ::)

Karnal wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 4:54pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 8:19am: Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 3:52pm: Soren wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 11:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 7:20pm: Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 11:32am: One of the most fascinating aspects of the rise of China is whether it can succeed without adopting the whole-package or whether a failure to do so will make the whole enterprise inherently unstable. Ironic for anyone to imagine that for China to merely return to its 4000 year old social, cultural and scientific world dominance  (as opposed to aspiring to its novelty), it must adopt attitudes that are not Chinese. It is not at all ironic, if only because China never dominated the world. Not even Asia and throughout its history it had serious difficulties even with dominating China itself. No, it merely dominated global trade which, in the proto-capitalist era of "gunship diplomacy", was not the same thing as dominating the world. It is now though. When did China dominate world trade? You haven't heard of Marco Polo? A favourite site, old boy: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10976 The rise of the West over the last 500 years, while important, can be seen as a blip.

My remarks today will address four aspects of the topic of China and international trade, what we might call "Chairman Dan's Four Theses".

smacking brilliant. Griswald had four theses - China therefore dominated world trade.

Silk Road, Marco Polo, rise of the Ottomans, Silk Road blocked, circumnavigation of Africa, Colombus, Dutch East India Co, British East India Co, industrial revolution, England the workshop of the world, American industrial domination - it ALL points to China dominating wordl trade. They were not aware of it, poor sods, but they DID!! Dim sims all round!


Being the cheapest source of labour is not enough.

Soren wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

- it ALL points to China dominating wordl trade. They were not aware of it, poor sods, but they DID!! Dim sims all round! Being the cheapest source of labour is not enough.

Oh they knew it. The even called themselves the Centre Kingdom
(Zhongguo) (中国)

By the way, Angus Maddison was a British economist. He was Emeritus Professor at the Faculty of Economics at the University of Groningen (RUG). He was pretty well respected as an economist, and generally in matters of world trade, economics trumps metaphysics big time.

You think that Marco Polo had any significance? Well perhaps he helped open up the Chinese Economy from a European perspective, but compared to other trade within Asia, trade with Europe was minor in the scheme of things.

Exactly. But guess who most of the trade was with -

Those dreaded Musselmen!

Ah yes, free trade promotes liberty, democracy, a rule of law - a system of mutual trust such as credit.

But not when it's with the dastardly barbarians.

What did the civilizers bring to the Middle Kingdom? What did their noble superiors swap for all that porcelain, silk, furniture and other luxury manufactured goods?

Raw opium.

Now that's progress.

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:55pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 9:49pm: - it ALL points to China dominating wordl trade. They were not aware of it, poor sods, but they DID!! Dim sims all round! Being the cheapest source of labour is not enough. Oh they knew it. The even called themselves the Centre Kingdom (Zhongguo) (中国) By the way, Angus Maddison was a British economist. He was Emeritus Professor at the Faculty of Economics at the University of Groningen (RUG). He was pretty well respected as an economist, and generally in matters of world trade, economics trumps metaphysics big time. You think that Marco Polo had any significance? Well perhaps he helped open up the Chinese Economy from a European perspective, but compared to other trade within Asia, trade with Europe was minor in the scheme of things.

Economists - what bugger do THEY know? (to speak Latin for a moment).

As to China's trade within Asia compared to its trade with Europe - if that's the indicator of its dominnce of world trade, I ask you: what does it have to show for it? 700 million poor peasants. The rest of Asia? The only significant Asian economic power is the one that actually burnt China to the ground 70 or o years ago.

The Chinese were too smug (ie stupid) to benfit from trade with anyone. The only hope for the Chinese is if they give up being so bloody Chinese - 'we've been around 5000 years'. Big deal. The aboriginese have been around ten times as long and look at them. They dominate the world digging stick trade. That not nothing.

Quote:

China had been anything but self-contained for most of recorded history… China got big by being aggressive in conquest, adventurous in colonization and open to the self-adscription of outsiders.

Civilisations - Filipe Fernandez-Armesto

Hmm... Maybe its the west that did a little borrowing from China!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 10:58pm:

Quote: China had been anything but self-contained for most of recorded history… China got big by being aggressive in conquest, adventurous in colonization and open to the self-adscription of outsiders. Civilisations - Filipe Fernandez-Armesto Hmm... Maybe its the west that did a little borrowing from China!

Military aggression is sadly common to all civilisations.

The reason that China didn't trade with Europe in the early days was due to the fact that Europe didn't amount to much until their demographic explosion of the late 18th and 19th century. Before that, Europe was negligible in terms of any world influence.

Soren, You talk about peasants as though China had the monopoly. Most of England for example were illiterate well into the 19th century.  

Soren wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Silk Road, Marco Polo, rise of the Ottomans, Silk Road blocked, circumnavigation of Africa, Colombus, Dutch East India Co, British East India Co, industrial revolution, England the workshop of the world, American industrial domination - it ALL points to China dominating wordl trade.

and God was Church of England :)

Somehow, Alf Garnett always springs to mind when I'm discussing culture with you. You may not remember him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKy4RHf5tQ&feature=related

muso wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 6:39am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 10:58pm: Quote: China had been anything but self-contained for most of recorded history… China got big by being aggressive in conquest, adventurous in colonization and open to the self-adscription of outsiders. Civilisations - Filipe Fernandez-Armesto Hmm... Maybe its the west that did a little borrowing from China! Military aggression is sadly common to all civilisations.

True. This self-congratulatory revisionism of western history, sounds more like a eulogy for the dead and dying delivered in anger, than constructive critical advice to rising cultures. More like part of the process of British internalising of its empire, (as continental Europeans have already done),  now that it has passed, than optimism regarding its post-imperial future... Although, admittedly, it would take considerable time for a culture to come to terms with the fact that its greatest history will likely never be surpassed. China, it seems, is more fortunate in that respect, in that its greatest historical era is probably yet to be written and lived.

China has a lot of cash because:
1 its labour is cheap
2 its currency's valued artificially low
3. its domestic market i insignifiocvant considering its population (ie the majority of kit people can't aford even chinese goods).


This is not sustainable and so will not lead to world domination.

There is nothing 'Chinese' about China's surplus, except the peculiar social repression they employ. In other words, China is not a model for any country to emulate, unless they are equally poor and repressiv. That is not a recipe for long term dominance.

Yes - wouldn't it be nice?

Sadly though, pegged yuan or no yuan, China's domestic economy is predicted to overtake the US in dollar-terms by 2030.

And if the lower cost of living in China is factored in, it has ALREADY taken over the US as the largest domestic market in the world.

Human rights, freedom of the press, democracy: these are not things that - historically, anyway - have factored into global dominance, economic or otherwise. On that front (whoever would have thought?), the Arabs are now leading the way.

The Chinese tried the same in Tienamin Square and look what happened to them.

Democracy is still a ghost in China that refuses to go away. But is it necessary for global economic and military supremacy?

There is a lot about China's supremacy and work ethic that is historically Chinese. It's their culture, old boy. Confucianism has nothing to do with metaphysics, but it does show that ethics, in whatever form they take, shape economies in the long-term.

Chicago School economists might say something different, but the rise of China completely disproves their economic modelling. What the bugger do economists know?

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:18am:

What the bugger do economists know?

Nothing, mate. If you want to know about economics, just read a bit of Nietsche.

- much the same with Climate. If you want to know about climatology, just employ a statistician. He'll figure it all out on his adding machine - or better still, ask my taxi driver.

Ignorance is the new knowledge. Mark my words.  :P

muso wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:18am: What the bugger do economists know? Nothing, mate. If you want to know about economics, just read a bit of Nietsche. - much the same with Climate. If you want to know about climatology, just employ a statistician. He'll figure it all out on his adding machine - or better still, ask my taxi driver. Ignorance is the new knowledge. Mark my words.  :P

Many of the problems we've had over the last few years have been caused, not merely by economists, but by a particular breed of economics known, through their respective agencies in the World Bank, IMF and US Treasury, as the Washington Consensus.

This is the "consensus" that caused the Asian financial crisis and severe monetary problems in countries like Argentina.

They also actively kept the financial market deregulated and allowed the Global Financial Crisis to happen.

They failed to heed the words of their very own grandfather, Milton Friedman, who appeared to learn from subsequent events and was a bit more pragmatic than people give him credit for.

At its core, economics is about values: how much people want things and what they will do to get them.

China paid a huge price for its last Stalinist-style crushing of democratic dissent in 1989 and not just in its loss of world standing. Many of China's most brilliant minds voted (if they could) with their feet, to the west. Many are now returning and the Chinese government is welcoming them and planning incentives to maintain that homecoming.

They still struggle with the yoke of a communist central government (as witnessed by the central government's obsession with internet censorship) and state control - the western political disease that infected China - but that is slowly subsiding. They are a pragmatic people (with an aversion to political chaos) and its unlikely that a Tunisia / Egypt / Libya democratic revolution will happen there. The disease of communism will need to atrophy over time driven by economic affluence born of merit over privilege.

Communism suits China's autocratic character. It's not a disease for them but the modern expression of what China has always been: centralised autocracy.

Soren wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:40pm:

Communism suits China's autocratic character. It's not a disease for them but the modern expression of what China has always been: centralised autocracy.

It would surprise you if you could live in China for a while and listen to ordinary conversations. Nobody likes the current autocracy. Things will have to change. Whenever you get a rich middle class, change happens. Hopefully it will be a gradual process of change.  

Soren wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:40pm:

Communism suits China's autocratic character. It's not a disease for them but the modern expression of what China has always been: centralised autocracy.

Regional Chinese governments are routinely and openly criticised by locals, so the culture of peaceful political dissent is growing there. Criticism of the central government is still taboo but as more Chinese become educated and affluent - when it becomes clear to the Chinese that autocratic centralisation is the final barrier to the greatest of "heaven's" gifts - lasting prosperity - When autocracy is seen only as the Chinese modern equivalent of self-defeating aristocratic chauvinism - that too will erode. Erode... not collapse... maybe into a political landscape resembling Taiwan.

When the need is great, everything can change.

It doesn't work quite like that - prosperity/middle class leading to freedom.

It always starts with a group/class that is already free and has a stake in society, through taxation and social institutions. Western liberal societies started with the aristocracy enforcing its freedom from arbitrary royal rule.

Nevertheless, a rich and free class is no guarantee for anything. A lot of people having a lot of money does not alter the way they relate to each other and the broader, lower classes around them. WHat is necessary is a fundamental (metaphysical) view that they are all equal at the most elemantaly level, even if not in their possessions. This is the fundamental metaphysical view that allow for the expansion of the political franchise from the aristocracy to the lesser nobility, the propertied commons (burgeoisie), the unpropertied commons (workers) and finally women. It is not in the economic interest of the already enfranchised to extend the franchise. It happens only when powerful moral (ie metaphysical) arguments are presented, often backed up be the force of arms. Ultimately, however, the moral argument must be compelling for a sustained expansion of the franchise.

But not every culture rests on the fundations of ultimate equality of all its members. There are societies where inequality is the foundation, where the entire moral code starts out with inequality. In such societies revolutions lead to changed management but not greater freedom for all. That's basically what has been happning pretty much everywhere to the east and south of the Bosphorus.

Soren wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:40pm:

Communism suits China's autocratic character. It's not a disease for them but the modern expression of what China has always been: centralised autocracy.

Yes - they used to say the same about the Germans.

To an extent, you're right, but you neglect the other (crucial) aspect of past Chinese administration: the Mandarins.

These officials were chosen by merit (exams), and had enormous power, particularly as provincial governers.

Today, most aspects of trade, industry, health, social policy, and legal and administrative power in China are still organised at the provincial level.

China has never been the centralized power you seem to believe, and perhaps this was its strength. The sheer size of China made centralization impossible.

However, aspects of Chinese development were centralized. Kafka writes a great essay on the building of the Great Wall, and the determined centralised planning that was required over centuries to train generations of architects.

Malcolm Turnbull made a very interesting point on Q&A last night: the very reason China lost its trade hegemony was that it turned inward. Like the warring Western powers of the time, it banned trade with foreigners.

In other words, it played the reactionary, racist, One Nation card.

Your analysis that China has ALWAYS been this way is not correct. China BECAME this way through a reactionary belief in its own superiority - the very thing many members of this board believe about the West.

In a time of Western economic decline.

So, which comes first - the decline, or the belief in one's own cultural superiority?

I think, Soren, you have posed this question most succinctly - intentionally or otherwise.

I took the kids to see the entombed warriors at the Gallery. It occured to me that China is the place for the mammoth undertaking that in the end adds up to world historical folly: the Great Wall, the 9000 terracotta warriors, the cultural revolution. Borges characterises the mindset interestingly by describing 'a certain Chinese Encyclopedia,' the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into:

those that belong to the Emperor,
embalmed ones,
those that are trained,
suckling pigs,
mermaids,
fabulous ones,
stray dogs,
those included in the present classification,
those that tremble as if they were mad,
innumerable ones,
those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
others,
those that have just broken a flower vase,
those that from a long way off look like flies. "

Complete, refined and fabulous, yet odd and useless. (Or its use is not obviou to the Chinese, to be more historically accurate...)

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 8:00am:

It doesn't work quite like that - prosperity/middle class leading to freedom.

Or so you'd think... Until the underclasses learn to read and write, then aspire.

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 10:38am:

Kafka writes a great essay on the building of the Great Wall, and the determined centralised planning that was required over centuries to train generations of architects.

An ode to filial angst.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 9:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 10:38am: Kafka writes a great essay on the building of the Great Wall, and the determined centralised planning that was required over centuries to train generations of architects. An ode to filial angst.

Sorry, Helian, what does filial angst mean?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 9:19pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 8:00am: It doesn't work quite like that - prosperity/middle class leading to freedom. Or so you'd think... Until the underclasses learn to read and write, then aspire.

Well, they can aspire all they like but aspiring for prosperity is not the same as aspiring for freedom because the two are not interchangable.

Karnal wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2011 at 9:32am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 9:41pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 10:38am: Kafka writes a great essay on the building of the Great Wall, and the determined centralised planning that was required over centuries to train generations of architects. An ode to filial angst. Sorry, Helian, what does filial angst mean?

Just referring to Kafka's obsession with trying to please his father rendered as the metaphor of Chinese peasants trying to please the Emperor.

Soren wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2011 at 9:33am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 9:19pm: Soren wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 8:00am: It doesn't work quite like that - prosperity/middle class leading to freedom. Or so you'd think... Until the underclasses learn to read and write, then aspire. Well, they can aspire all they like but aspiring for prosperity is not the same as aspiring for freedom because the two are not interchangable.

Yet both (aspirations to prosperity and political freedom) owe their realisation to having the personal wherewithal to do so... and nothing empowers like eduction.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 7:32am:

Soren wrote on Mar 2nd, 2011 at 9:33am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 9:19pm: Soren wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 8:00am: It doesn't work quite like that - prosperity/middle class leading to freedom. Or so you'd think... Until the underclasses learn to read and write, then aspire. Well, they can aspire all they like but aspiring for prosperity is not the same as aspiring for freedom because the two are not interchangable. Yet both (aspirations to prosperity and political freedom) owe their realisation to having the personal wherewithal to do so... and nothing empowers like education.

Education is probably THE human enterprise that is most obviously rooted in metaphysics (the way the world is understood). It can never be (and never even pretends to be) value-neutral - which is another way of saying it is not metaphysics-neutral.
The idea of human enpowerment, for example, comes out of a particular understanding of the human person, an understanding that is by no means shared by the human race across time and throughout the world. There is no 'empowerment' among animists, for example. For them the world is just not that kind of a place.

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 6:18pm:

I took the kids to see the entombed warriors at the Gallery. It occured to me that China is the place for the mammoth undertaking that in the end adds up to world historical folly: the Great Wall, the 9000 terracotta warriors, the cultural revolution. Borges characterises the mindset interestingly by describing 'a certain Chinese Encyclopedia,' the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into: those that belong to the Emperor, embalmed ones, those that are trained, suckling pigs, mermaids, fabulous ones, stray dogs, those included in the present classification, those that tremble as if they were mad, innumerable ones, those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, others, those that have just broken a flower vase, those that from a long way off look like flies. " Complete, refined and fabulous, yet odd and useless. (Or its use is not obviou to the Chinese, to be more historically accurate...)

Very reminiscent of De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (Martianus Capella), but of course that was a real work as opposed to a fictitious one.

Soren wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 9:12am:

There is no 'empowerment' among animists, for example. For them the world is just not that kind of a place.

You haven't heard of Hmong women's groups or Shan freedom fighters?

No. How does their metaphysics influence their concepts of oppression/liberation/self-determination/freedom?

Soren wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 7:54pm:

No. How does their metaphysics influence their concepts of oppression/liberation/self-determination/freedom?

Not sure about their metaphysics - I'd say that US foreign policy has a lot to do with it.

Indeed.

All the national liberation/empowerment/resistance movements around the world derive their intellectual foundations from European political and social doctrines. They in turn grew out of a way of comprehending the world that is incompatible with Hmong, African, Amazonian or Aboriginal or what-have-you ways of comprehending the world.
We all live in the same physical world. But not in the same world as will and representation.

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

Indeed. All the national liberation/empowerment/resistance movements around the world derive their intellectual foundations from European political and social doctrines. They in turn grew out of a way of comprehending the world that is incompatible with Hmong, African, Amazonian or Aboriginal or what-have-you ways of comprehending the world. We all live in the same physical world. But not in the same world as will and representation.

You're right. But surely you don't think resistance and "liberation" comes only from the West.

What about Aboriginal resistance movements in the early colony, particularly around the Hawkesbury River?

There was no "black power" movement happening then.

I think fighting for the control of territory and resources is common to all societies.  To say that the working class is destined to lead the world is not.

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

I think fighting for the control of territory and resources is common to all societies.  To say that the working class is destined to lead the world is not.

Very true. No one assumes that the proletariat will take over the bourgeoisie anymore. No one believes in a proletariat anymore. The economy has changed.

Fukayama's Hegelian thesis was, in some ways, right. The "telos" of Western reason is - so far - liberal democracy - not an early Marxian utopia. Marx, of course, saw this coming in Capital, where he veered towards social democracy over the state taking over the entire means of production.

And, in his later years, he definately changed his stance on a proletarian telos, and a resulting end to all class struggle. In this sense, Marx influenced the English Fabians and European social democrats, where capitalism would be tempered, not uprooted.

However, the influence of Mao should not be underestimated, particularly in places like India and Nepal today. For Mao, the agrarian classes in pre-industrial societies are the ones who shape history, and this belief probably comes closest to having influenced freedom movements throughout Asia, particularly in the 1960s and 70s. The fundamentalist extreme of this ideology can be seen during the days of the Khmer Rouge.

Like Islamic militants today, most of these movements saw their enemy as American, or Western, imperialism. Vietnam followed the Soviet route, but cast this off as it transitioned to capitalism - the reverse of the communist take on history, where capitalism must come before socialism, which preceeds communism.

In the 1960s, the Soviet model was seen as a beacon for the developing world. The Soviets had transitioned from an agrarian, feudal economy to a powerful industrial economy in the space of 50 years.

The Soviet model became unhinged with the new communications technologies of the 1970s, and came into competition with manufactured goods from East Asia, especially Japan. In a "metaphysical" sense, a form of consumerism took hold in post-war developed societies that spread across the globe.

The Soviets could not compete. The Chinese changed tack. The GATT "quad" countries; Canada, Japan, the US and European Community, achieved economic supremacy. The Soviets dwindled and eventually collapsed. China, however, quietly developed.

Today, the bourgeoisie still run the world. And all over the post-colonial world, societies who have developed to a certain point, want a form of liberal, social, or at the very least, representative democracy.

Hegel, it seems, was right.

The west in general, and the English speaking countries in particular, arrived at the idea of a reasonable society. Reasonable means, as I understand it, a proportinate accommodation of mind and heart. We don't mean 'be rational'. We say 'be reasonable'. We mean listen to your heart but, having listened and taken heed,  let your mind guide you. A mind that has been schooled, trained - cultivated.  Some in the west- the French and the Germans in particular - have confused reasonableness with rationality. They have become sophists, arguing away reasonableness in the name of facsist or  communists rationality.

I dare say that ALL third world national liberation movements, hijacked as they are by tribal despots, cut the cloth for their emoperor's clothes from the Franco-German line of rational explanation away of the need to be reasonable.

Hegel is a very interesting thinker but he is simply too German to be right. Goethe, to my mind, is the ideal German because he is not at all German. He is English.

Soren wrote on Mar 5^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

The west in general, and the English speaking countries in particular, arrived at the idea of a reasonable society. Reasonable means, as I understand it, a proportinate accommodation of mind and heart. We don't mean 'be rational'. We say 'be reasonable'. We mean listen to your heart but, having listened and taken heed,  let your mind guide you. A mind that has been schooled, trained - cultivated.  Some in the west- the French and the Germans in particular - have confused reasonableness with rationality. They have become sophists, arguing away reasonableness in the name of facsist or  communists rationality. I dare say that ALL third world national liberation movements, hijacked as they are by tribal despots, cut the cloth for their emoperor's clothes from the Franco-German line of rational explanation away of the need to be reasonable. Hegel is a very interesting thinker but he is simply too German to be right. Goethe, to my mind, is the ideal German because he is not at all German. He is English.

In the colonies, we English societies didn't start out reasonable. We swapped glass beads for land, gave out blankets laced with smallpox and lived on rum, sodomy and the lash.

The English were hardly a civilizing force outside their own country, and even in their own country, their solution to the growing poverty caused by the industrial revolution was forced transportation to colonies like Australia: seven to fourteen year sentences for crimes such as petty theft.

We captured slaves in Africa, sent them to the Americas to pick cotton, and sent the cotton to England where it was turned into Manchester for the world to buy.

Of course, we had many civilized English people like Wilberforce, who argued for an end to slavery, but it wasn't easy by any means. The English in the Confederate states in America rebelled against reason and fought a civil war. They lost.

And the machines won.

We swapped opium for luxury goods in China, and when the Chinese didn't like it, we made them take our opium by force, getting Hong Kong in the bargain.

We played very clever politics with the crowned heads of Europe, and managed to take hold of the global economy. For a while there, half the globe was coloured pink - the sun really didn't set on the British Empire. Our navy was tasked with keeping security, and our army had to keep the riff-raff in line. To keep a colony the size of India under control, for example, was no small feat. We trained local troops and created tinpot despots. When they eventually kicked us out, the despots took over. Our man in Uganda - Idi Amin - learned everything he knew from the English.

Was the British Empire really a reasonable society - a proportionate accommodation of mind and heart? Were we really any better than the Germans or the French?

It's a nice idea, but when you listen to other stories, you witness the dark side of our history. In this country, for example, how could a state-managed project like breeding out the blacks be considered reasonable? How is such social engineering any different from German rationalism, or French scientific socialism?

Did we inherit eugenics from the Germans? No, it filtered down from Charles Darwin and into the theories of Francis Galton. Eugenics, captured and practiced so ingeniously by the Germans, was an English invention - just one of the many gifts we gave to the world.

The Brits also invented concentration camps in South Africa.

Did you ever read George Orwell's "Burmese Days" ? A real eye opener. The British brought nothing but thuggery and corruption.

Nothing very reasonable about that.

Karnal wrote on Mar 7^th, 2011 at 9:11pm:

The English were hardly a civilizing force outside their own country, and even in their own country, their solution to the growing poverty caused by the industrial revolution was forced transportation to colonies like Australia: seven to fourteen year sentences for crimes such as petty theft. We captured slaves in Africa, sent them to the Americas to pick cotton, and sent the cotton to England where it was turned into Manchester for the world to buy.

Probably was no coincidence that British sanctioned slavery ended so soon after the loss of the American colonies and a new kind of bonded servitude (convicts) grew with the need for slaves in the new colony of Australia.

I wonder how many ex-slave traders and overseers were deployed in the management of convict transportation?

Britain was a slave-using nation until well into the 19th century.

Burmese Days :) I remember reading that when I was about 21.

You can read it online here:

http://www.george-orwell.org/Burmese_Days/index.html


A short extract:


Quote:

Oh, hell! I'd snivel psalms to oblige the padre, but I can't stick the way these damned native Christians come shoving into our church. A pack of Madrassi servants and Karen school-teachers. And then those two yellow-bellies, Francis and Samuel--they call themselves Christians too. Last time the padre was here they had the nerve to come up and sit on the front pews with the white men. Someone ought to speak to the padre about that. What bloody fools we were ever to let those missionaries loose in this country! Teaching bazaar sweepers they're as good as we are. "Please, sir, me Christian same like master." Damned cheek.'

I've met people like that in Africa. Interminably alcoholic, morally corrupt and hypocritical as they come. A proportinate accommodation of mind and heart .

Metaphysics 101 ................ hmmm.

Explain how the metaphysics of British society strongly influenced the shape of Burmese society in the early 20th Century. Back up your answers with citations.

Study Guide : Burmese Days - George Orwell.

Quote:

"The article to which U Po Kyin turned was of a rather different stamp from the rest. It ran: "'In these happy times, when we poor blacks are being uplifted by the mighty western civilization, with its manifold blessings such as the cinematograph, machine-guns, syphilis, etc., what subject could be more inspiring than the private lives of our European benefactors? We think therefore that it may interest our readers to hear something of events in the up-country district of Kyauktada. And especially of Mr. Macgregor, honoured Deputy Commissioner of said district....

Burmese Days is a great read, like every single book Orwell wrote. It explains how he turned from a cop in Burma into a communist, and then an anarchist in the Spanish Civil War (Homage To Catalonia), and then a tramp in Down and out in Paris and London.

Orwell is an excellent example of the English at their best - and one of the best writers in the English language. But he never sang Land of Hope and Glory. Like Marx and Engals' The Conditions of the English Working Class, Orwell showed how the British Empire really worked.

Yes, yes, yes, the Western, especially the Britannic  system of organizing politics, society and culture are the worst possible except for all the others that are tried from time to time. This is true, even if an Englishman said it (and a non-Marxist Englishman at that).

I am amused by how the knockers of that heritage have retained, through some deft transference,  the Judeo-Christian  notion of original sin: they have shifted their guilt from their passé  Adamite inheritance to their Britannic one.  But the reflex rending of the clothes, the ready denunciation, the unshakable conviction in the sin of their forebears is all there, present and correct.

muso wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 1:50pm:

Back up your answers with citations.

But suddenly, as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage. The steamer toiled along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy. The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us--who could tell? We were cut off from the comprehension of our surroundings; we glided past like phantoms, wondering and secretly appalled, as sane men would be before an enthusiastic outbreak in a madhouse. We could not understand, because we were too far and could not remember, because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign--and no memories.
"The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there--there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were-- No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it--this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled, and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity--like yours--the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you-- you so remote from the night of first ages--could comprehend. And why not? The mind of man is capable of anything--because everything is in it, all the past as well as all the future. What was there after all? Joy, fear, sorrow, devotion, valor, rage--who can tell? --but truth--truth stripped of its cloak of time. Let the fool gape and shudder--the man knows, and can look on without a wink. But he must at least be as much of a man as these on the shore. He must meet that truth with his own true stuff--with his own inborn strength. Principles? Principles won't do. Acquisitions, clothes, pretty rags--rags that would fly off at the first good shake. No; you want a deliberate belief. An appeal to me in this fiendish row--is there? Very well; I hear; I admit, but I have a voice too, and for good or evil mine is the speech that cannot be silenced. Of course, a fool, what with sheer fright and fine sentiments, is always safe.

muso wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 1:50pm:

A proportinate accommodation of mind and heart . Metaphysics 101 ................ hmmm.

That's right. I imagine it depends on what proportions one uses.

cont. -
Who's that grunting? You wonder I didn't go ashore for a howl and a dance? Well, no--I didn't. Fine sentiments, you say? Fine sentiments, be hanged! I had no time. I had to mess about with white-lead and strips of woolen blanket helping to put bandages on those leaky steam-pipes--I tell you. I had to watch the steering, and circumvent those snags, and get the tin-pot along by hook or by crook. There was surface-truth enough in these things to save a wiser man. And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me, and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind-legs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam-gauge and at the water-gauge with an evident effort of intrepidity--and he had filed teeth too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns, and three ornamental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have been clapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he was hard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge. He was useful because he had been instructed; and what he knew was this--that should the water in that transparent thing disappear, the evil spirit inside the boiler would get angry through the greatness of his thirst, and take a terrible vengeance. So he sweated and fired up and watched the glass fear- fully (with an impromptu charm, made of rags, tied to his arm, and a piece of polished bone, as big as a watch, stuck flatways through his lower lip), while the wooded banks slipped past us slowly, the short noise was left behind, the interminable miles of silence--and we crept on, towards Kurtz. But the snags were thick, the water was treacherous and shallow, the boiler seemed indeed to have a sulky devil in it, and thus neither that fire man nor I had any time to peer into our creepy thoughts.

I think you would have fitted right in during the time of the British Empire.

muso wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 9:38am:

I think you would have fitted right in during the time of the British Empire.

Thank you, I think so, too.

Soren wrote on Mar 5^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

Hegel is a very interesting thinker but he is simply too German to be right.

Speaking of being toooo German:

Mother forced by timetable to leave toddler on German train
German railway officials refused to heed a mother's pleas to halt an express with her two-year-old aboard alone – because the train had to run on time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8364641/Mother-forced-by-timetable-to-leave-toddler-on-German-train.html#


Germany is still living with Hitler's legacy.... Or is it Mussolini's?

It is amusing, of course, but there is also something recognisably German in that story. No 'muddling through' for the Krauts, no concessions for the particulars of a situation.
It can't be the potatos and beer - the English and the Irish have no officious, heel-clicking instincts even though they also live on beer and chips. What is is?

If language is the house of being, then perhaps it's the German language. It is a lot easier to sound harsh in German, in a way that is not easy or even possible in other languages.

Very true. But what about the Musselmen?

Yallah yallah yallah.

It is violence that shapes society

....or is it love???

one or the other

Soren wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:04pm: Hegel is a very interesting thinker but he is simply too German to be right. Speaking of being toooo German: Mother forced by timetable to leave toddler on German train German railway officials refused to heed a mother's pleas to halt an express with her two-year-old aboard alone – because the train had to run on time. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8364641/Mother-forced-by-timetable-to-leave-toddler-on-German-train.html# Germany is still living with Hitler's legacy.... Or is it Mussolini's?

I think it is Kaiser Wilhelm's legacy... And you'd be describing northern Germans more than southern Germans and Austrians.


Soren wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

It is amusing, of course, but there is also something recognisably German in that story. No 'muddling through' for the Krauts, no concessions for the particulars of a situation. It can't be the potatos and beer - the English and the Irish have no officious, heel-clicking instincts even though they also live on beer and chips. What is is?

With at least one exception, of course, with Cromwell's New Model Army... And what he did with it in Ireland.

Soren wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 9:12pm:

Yes, yes, yes, the Western, especially the Britannic  system of organizing politics, society and culture are the worst possible except for all the others that are tried from time to time. This is true, even if an Englishman said it (and a non-Marxist Englishman at that). I am amused by how the knockers of that heritage have retained, through some deft transference,  the Judeo-Christian  notion of original sin: they have shifted their guilt from their passé  Adamite inheritance to their Britannic one.  But the reflex rending of the clothes, the ready denunciation, the unshakable conviction in the sin of their forebears is all there, present and correct.

Not me, I'm a Paki. Our system is much better than the Britainnik one. We have raki, sodomy and the rattan. We also have nuclear bomb, but we only use against that bastard India.

Oh, and we love the Englishman. Very nice tea and good cricket! Like Australia, we are all a parts of the Britannik Commonwealth. We are all brothers and sister together, my friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhXpmozpbE&feature=related

on topic

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 9:33pm:

It is violence that shapes society ....or is it love??? one or the other

Did you want a philosopher's answer to that? Er.... castration anxiety  yes that's it.  It's all driven by minimising fear.  :P

Karnal wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 2:12am:

Soren wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 9:12pm: Yes, yes, yes, the Western, especially the Britannic  system of organizing politics, society and culture are the worst possible except for all the others that are tried from time to time. This is true, even if an Englishman said it (and a non-Marxist Englishman at that). I am amused by how the knockers of that heritage have retained, through some deft transference,  the Judeo-Christian  notion of original sin: they have shifted their guilt from their passé  Adamite inheritance to their Britannic one.  But the reflex rending of the clothes, the ready denunciation, the unshakable conviction in the sin of their forebears is all there, present and correct. Not me, I'm a Paki. Our system is much better than the Britainnik one. We have raki, sodomy and the rattan. We also have nuclear bomb, but we only use against that bastard India. Oh, and we love the Englishman. Very nice tea and good cricket! Like Australia, we are all a parts of the Britannik Commonwealth. We are all brothers and sister together, my friend.

You Muslim buggers are still stuck in the dark ages of the enslavement of mind and spirit. You treat anyone turning his mind or heart away from Islam as a slave to be hunted down and killed.  Just because you can hold a tea cup or cricket bat does not mean you are not savages.  Your metaphysic explains your contempt for each other. Tea and cricket is a cover up knowingly deployed.

Soren wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 8:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 2:12am: Soren wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 9:12pm: Yes, yes, yes, the Western, especially the Britannic  system of organizing politics, society and culture are the worst possible except for all the others that are tried from time to time. This is true, even if an Englishman said it (and a non-Marxist Englishman at that). I am amused by how the knockers of that heritage have retained, through some deft transference,  the Judeo-Christian  notion of original sin: they have shifted their guilt from their passé  Adamite inheritance to their Britannic one.  But the reflex rending of the clothes, the ready denunciation, the unshakable conviction in the sin of their forebears is all there, present and correct. Not me, I'm a Paki. Our system is much better than the Britainnik one. We have raki, sodomy and the rattan. We also have nuclear bomb, but we only use against that bastard India. Oh, and we love the Englishman. Very nice tea and good cricket! Like Australia, we are all a parts of the Britannik Commonwealth. We are all brothers and sister together, my friend. You Muslim buggers are still stuck in the dark ages of the enslavement of mind and spirit. You treat anyone turning his mind or heart away from Islam as a slave to be hunted down and killed.  Just because you can hold a tea cup or cricket bat does not mean you are not savages.  Your metaphysic explains your contempt for each other. Tea and cricket is a cover up knowingly deployed.

In summary what you are saying is that the Corporate Slave Tyranny (CST) operating in the USA is based on the Quran?

muso wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 3:23pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 9th, 2011 at 9:33pm: It is violence that shapes society ....or is it love??? one or the other Did you want a philosopher's answer to that? Er.... castration anxiety  yes that's it.  It's all driven by minimising fear.  :P

Sheesh .. is that condition in ANY way related to penis envy in any way? Just asking only coz I was accused of having it a few times yesterday :P

Perhaps we ought to discuss this further .. hmmm I wonder if Relationships is the correct forum for this.

muso wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 3:23pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 9th, 2011 at 9:33pm: It is violence that shapes society ....or is it love??? one or the other Did you want a philosopher's answer to that? Er.... castration anxiety  yes that's it.  It's all driven by minimising fear.  :P

You mean a PsChOlOgIsTs answer, don't you?

Philosophers deal with the uncovering of truths in order to attain a sense of enlightenment and wisdom.

Psychologists make money by confusing their patients for a long as possible

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 8:42pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 2:12am: Soren wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 9:12pm: Yes, yes, yes, the Western, especially the Britannic  system of organizing politics, society and culture are the worst possible except for all the others that are tried from time to time. This is true, even if an Englishman said it (and a non-Marxist Englishman at that). I am amused by how the knockers of that heritage have retained, through some deft transference,  the Judeo-Christian  notion of original sin: they have shifted their guilt from their passé  Adamite inheritance to their Britannic one.  But the reflex rending of the clothes, the ready denunciation, the unshakable conviction in the sin of their forebears is all there, present and correct. Not me, I'm a Paki. Our system is much better than the Britainnik one. We have raki, sodomy and the rattan. We also have nuclear bomb, but we only use against that bastard India. Oh, and we love the Englishman. Very nice tea and good cricket! Like Australia, we are all a parts of the Britannik Commonwealth. We are all brothers and sister together, my friend. You Muslim buggers are still stuck in the dark ages of the enslavement of mind and spirit. You treat anyone turning his mind or heart away from Islam as a slave to be hunted down and killed.  Just because you can hold a tea cup or cricket bat does not mean you are not savages.  Your metaphysic explains your contempt for each other. Tea and cricket is a cover up knowingly deployed. In summary what you are saying is that the Corporate Slave Tyranny (CST) operating in the USA is based on the Quran?

No, you are saying it, whatever the hell it means.

I was being facetious.

Soren wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 8:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 2:12am: Soren wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 9:12pm: Yes, yes, yes, the Western, especially the Britannic  system of organizing politics, society and culture are the worst possible except for all the others that are tried from time to time. This is true, even if an Englishman said it (and a non-Marxist Englishman at that). I am amused by how the knockers of that heritage have retained, through some deft transference,  the Judeo-Christian  notion of original sin: they have shifted their guilt from their passé  Adamite inheritance to their Britannic one.  But the reflex rending of the clothes, the ready denunciation, the unshakable conviction in the sin of their forebears is all there, present and correct. Not me, I'm a Paki. Our system is much better than the Britainnik one. We have raki, sodomy and the rattan. We also have nuclear bomb, but we only use against that bastard India. Oh, and we love the Englishman. Very nice tea and good cricket! Like Australia, we are all a parts of the Britannik Commonwealth. We are all brothers and sister together, my friend. You Muslim buggers are still stuck in the dark ages of the enslavement of mind and spirit. You treat anyone turning his mind or heart away from Islam as a slave to be hunted down and killed.  Just because you can hold a tea cup or cricket bat does not mean you are not savages.  Your metaphysic explains your contempt for each other. Tea and cricket is a cover up knowingly deployed.

My dear good friend, I am sorry to disagree, but Pakistan is much better than your good country, Mother England. Your country imports many of my fellow countrymen to live with you and teaches you to work hard. Also, you enjoy our food so much we make it for you lovely curries on the High Street.

The Englishman likes curry and papadam more than baked bean and chip, isn't it?

People who turn their hearts away from the Prophet should be helped. We do not enslave these peoples, my friend. Rather, we must re-educate them. You do not want these bad peoples in your family. They can bring much shame and taint your good names. It is the same for you also in the Christian faith, if I am not mistaken. For example, if your son becomes homosex, God forbid, you must take him to the church for the exorcism, isn't it?

We are not savages. If we see savage in the countryside, he should be killed, don't you agree? Our last president, Mr Musharraf, had marvellous friendship with your good prime minister, Mr Blair. This was to help you in your War On Terror. Pakistan is very good helping in this war, my friend. We kill more people than your own English soldiers. We help your country to ask them the question. We ask things like "where is the bomb?" "Why you become terrorist?" "Who help you?" "Why you hate Amerika and Mother England?"

If these savages do not tell us the truth he must be liquidated, don't you agree?

I do.

But first we have some fun with him, no? Amerika and Mother England is too "civilized" to use car battery. Ha! Amerika invent the car battery.

It is long hours, my friend, very hard work. Many men do not talk for many days. Telephone book and car battery for 10 hours at the one time. Soon they don't sleep - same Black Sabbath song played top volume, over and over again. Same question, over and over: "why you want to kill Amerika and Mother England?" They always break, my friend. CIA do the number one scientific research, very good.

Prisoner always give confession, go on TV, give the names, anything. It is good your countries bring democracy to our humble country, my friend. We have much to teach your country: praise Allah, work hard, love Mother England.

But you have much to teach us also.

They don't know their luck, the jammy bastards.

Metaphysics shapes society:

Malay Muslim clerics firm on ban on Christian-rooted poco-poco dance
From ANI

Kuala Lumpur, Apr 24: Islamic clerics in Malaysia are firm on their ban on 'poco-poco' a popular dance form, claimed of having Christian roots, despite the country's National Fatwa Council's decision to allow the dance.



DO the cursed jews and Christians care? No, they are looking for a cure for diseases. Typical oppressors..

My frien, you say these peoples is oppressors. This is so. They do not cure the diseases. Instead, they put pig fat in medicine to make trouble. This is very bad.

These Jews drink Christian blood, so you should not be so happy. Come to the Prophet, my friend. You will find much peace, insh'allah.

Metaphysics shape social institutions  (ie we create societies in the image of our God/s).


"The fence that divides the city of Nogales is part of a natural experiment in organizing human societies. North of the fence lies the American city of Nogales, Arizona; south of it lies the Mexican city of Nogales, Sonora. On the American side, average income and life expectancy are higher, crime and corruption are lower, health and roads are better, and elections are more democratic. Yet the geographic environment is identical on both sides of the fence, and the ethnic makeup of the human population is similar. The reasons for those differences between the two Nogaleses are the differences between the current political and economic institutions of the US and Mexico."

An interesting review by Jared Diamond of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson