Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Athena · Oct 4, 2005, 10:56 am

A dogma is a belief. It doesn't have to be a religious one. It can be a materialist one.

I have noticed several people in the forums are dogmatic and what always goes with being dogmatic is an unpleasant agression and defensiveness.

Aristotle was fascinated with first cause. What do you suppose is the first cause of being dogmatic, aggressive and defensive? Is it the belief that makes people so, or a personality trait? Is it prehaps a matter of social skills, a moral habit? For sure it isn't material. A lot of what we experience isn't material, nor is it supernatural.

What does it mean to have a good life? Is being dogmatic, and as aggressive and defensive as Zeus, the best way to have a good life? I would recommend Stoicism for practiced control of emotion, but those guys were up tight guys, wanting to control everyone with laws and their vision of a good life. I like Kuldeep who seems to be okay with what everyone thought as long as it was logical. He wasn't aggressive or defensive, but just rational.

rcne · Oct 4, 2005, 11:27 am

I am unfamiliar with Kuldeep, but logic alone will lead to disaster sooner or later. It will all be rational of course.

A dogma based on reason which includes the logical and allows some reasonable illogical possibilities, would provide a balance and an openness to explore the irrational.

Flip Jackson · Oct 4, 2005, 06:08 pm

I would say that being dogmatic, aggresive, and defensive can come from a few different things. Dogmatism could be a result of arrogance. You are so sure you are right, that you refuse to even acknowledge fair arguments agianst you. This could also be why people get defensive. When some dogma of yours is challenged well, and you don't know how to react, you might get defensive. You might get aggressive when your ideas are challenged, but only if you are demeaning as well as arrogant.

I think you have a good life if you don't subdue emotion, but just use it at the right time. Getting angry is probably never a good thing, but if someone never gets angry, then explodes for some reason, we know it had to be a good reason. Or if we know when to be serious, and when to party and goof around. When practice the right emotion at the right time, we seem to be happier. Especially if we recognize that happiness and kindness are emotions that are almost always appropriate.

SteveA · Oct 4, 2005, 07:06 pm

I think much of the reason for this is because of the way popular sentiments tend to become law in this modern day and age. It's difficult to talk peacefully about issues because we're pressured through social forces and laws into following a united view, so when the news stations pick up on a story, typically there's legislation waiting in the wings to be enacted and often times these ignore minority views. So people are fighting to not have their view not in the minority.

To me, though most people may not even consciously acknowledge it and I'm hypocritical in doing the same thing. we speak of "we" as a society, which tends to imply government and laws and force. There's little talk about individuals. Most the conversations here, as with most political forums, aren't directed between individuals, they are about pressuring changes in attitudes of "the system". When it's a conversation between individuals with no implicit political impact people say things from a personal context, which doesn't imply governing. "I want to see a ballgame", doesn't imply anything about anyone else, so there's no conflict ... a person is free to see a baseball game or not as they see fit, whereas "Baseball is an American sport", tends to imply nationalism and creates division between people over how this applies to "America". Does that imply we're suppose to regulate it, protect it or subsidize it? (Or screen players for hormone use?

) So as America becomes viewed as a single society in which people are expected to act in synergy, we lose what's united us peacefully - individual liberty.

So political conversations are in a context different than personal conversations, and as the political context increases, we'll find fewer issues people can peacefully disagree upon. Maybe it's "doublethink" from 1984 :)

Quote:

A dogma is a belief. It doesn't have to be a religious one. It can be a materialist one.

I'd say things become especially bad when politics moves from social right to economic ones, because then we're dealing with not simply a social freedom but potentially someones livelihood and then you get the fight or flight responses.

Scribbler1 · Oct 4, 2005, 07:21 pm

I agree. "Dogma" perfectly describes the beliefs of some people. I also define it as simply being stubborn.

Athena · Oct 5, 2005, 05:18 pm

Wow, those were some really thought provoking comments!

I will start on thread on anger, because that is especially a subject important to me.

In the broader picture is SteveA's explanation of individual verse social. I think he really hit upon something here!!!

We all know, (right?), that in 1958 we switched from training for independent thinking to "group think". We know the Bush family annouced we are the New World Order.
What does that mean? I will tell you one thing it means, for sure. The change in public education from independent thinking to group think.

Tie me down. I can barely endure my sense of AH HA! excitement. The philosophy of the US when it had training for independent thinking, was completely different from the philosophy we have today. Please don't waste our time with an argument that there isn't one philosophy for the whole US. People are almost willing to kill to keep our present education for technology, and to prevent a return to liberal education. People who know nothing of philosophy or education, are very sure we must have the education we have now, and their children must be in the best schools promoting this education on a very high schalastic level, or horrors, their children may end up homeless and eating out of trash cans. Something very bad has happened to the US. WE ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO THE MARGINS OF SOCIETY IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ESSENTIAL CREDITIALS, OR HAVE A CRIMINAL OR BAD CREDIT RECORD. There is no Christian forgiveness here, nor faith in God, just paranoia- excessive need to control and being superior.

This is so contrary to the education we had. It was focused on citizenship in a God loving country, desiring equality and universal brotherhood, and our liberty depends that education. Not religion! the education. Our democracy is the result of philosophy that people can be taught concepts essential to civilization and good government. They can be taught to make good moral judgements. Ouch, duck, here comes the nasty- some Christians believing we are all born in sin, do not accept or understand this purpose of education. If they do agree people can be taught to be good, it is believed only their particular religious training can do this. Those who do not have this specific education, do not know the true God and morals and are a threat to good Christians. This religious training is identical to what makes some Muslims a problem, and is far from the philosophical understanding of our nature and what is necesassary for good moral judgement.

Democracy aims to teach people HOW to think. Religion aims to teach them WHAT to think. We stopped preparing citizens and left moral training to the church, and now the US is in BIG TROUBLE. We are no longer a nation of individual, independent thinkers, but a nation torn apartment by group dogmas. We have forgotten respect comes from respectful people, and now believe it is what is earned- resulting in eletism, justified marginalizing of others, and wars; confidence in inferior and superior human beings, and the death of universal brotherhood, because if you aren't one of us, you are a threat to us.
After all, we are superior, and they are inferior, possibly the spawn of Satan hiself, and both Christians and Muslims know, we must war against Satan.

Why go from preparing everyone for independent thinking to "group think", besides this war against Satan? Have you come across the many books that seem to use the ant colony as the height of evolution? There are several books advancing the idea that humans have come together in larger and larger numbers, and this is the way of evolution, until ultimately we are all one. This is bringing hail stones of fire down upon us around the world! Every where people are screaming for thier uniqueness to be preserved. They are screaming that the larger political powers, they really need to feed their starving masses, get out and leave them alone. This is too complex for one post, but I hope you pick up, there are global forces right now, that are influencing our human experience, as never before.

"Group think" comes out of the military state we defeated. This purpose of public education was known before 1900. Think ant colonies and military might, and what New World Order means. A Prussian realized modern warfare would demand the highest technology, and the union of industrial and military forces. The education for technology for military and industrial purpose, was what Germany had, and is what the US adopted. It advances technology rapidly, but also leaves people unfit for thinking for themselves. Instead of independent thinking, it is reliance on authoirty (scientific work already done) and "group think" to rapidly advance this science to the next stage. Our nation has been so consumed by this philosophy, just about everyone is ready to fight for it. Even when that means silencing or ignoring US citizens who say something is very wrong here. SteveA, hit upon that something.

In the middle east, this world pressure means the gentlest religion on earth, has become a deadly one. Indiividuals and small groups are no longer safe any where in the world. Thanks SteveA, your perspective was genius.

xyzer · Oct 5, 2005, 06:00 pm

Quote:

I would recommend Stoicism for practiced control of emotion,

Stoics chose to submit without complaint to absolute necessity which is a far cry from controlling emotions is it not? The phrase 'absolute necessity' is key to the subject. This may translate into the modern statement.."Don't fight the city hall!"

As to the assertion that Democracy teaches people how to think, I'm not sure it does. It makes them slaves to the demagoguery that characterizes the market place of ideas and speech in a political system that relies on citizen participation. I'm more comfortable with educators teaching people how to think, religion allowing people to find solace and forgiveness in their hearts, and Democracy allowing people to participate in their own destiny. What one thinks is a product of all these things.
Moral decisions are a function of societys laws. People tend to do what they think they can get away with withiout being sanctioned!

SteveA · Oct 5, 2005, 07:01 pm

Quote:

We all know, (right?), that in 1958 we switched from training for independent thinking to "group think".

I didn't know this but it seems likely true.

History books are almost entirely about group actions. (Winners are the good guys of course

)

Quote:

Tie me down. I can barely endure my sense of AH HA! excitement. The philosophy of the US when it had training for independent thinking, was completely different from the philosophy we have today. Please don't waste our time with an argument that there isn't one philosophy for the whole US. People are almost willing to kill to keep our present education for technology, and to prevent a return to liberal education. People who know nothing of philosophy or education, are very sure we must have the education we have now, and their children must be in the best schools promoting this education on a very high schalastic level, or horrors, their children may end up homeless and eating out of trash cans.

:)

Ironically, I think too centralized an educational system actually decreases creativity and technological advancement. Education now is about being trained to work for Microsoft and the patent and I.P. systems practically force it on people, as trying to compete is illegal, unless you get their consent and/or pay royalties etc. We used to have a growing technology sector but it's become underutilized private mental property now and that's why asian countries are growing so fast in comparison.

The reason why the IBM PC took off versus the Apple computer was because IBM didn't care much about the personal computer market. They thought it would be a passing fad or something for hobbyists, and so they included blueprints and schematics for it and let people freely add whatever they wanted to it. Apple instead wanted to approve any additions to their computer, and though Apple may have had a potentially better machine, the individual freedom to alter the PC and clone it or add plug in cards etc. was what grew the industry so rapidly. The same is true of the internet.

Maybe that's off topic but I'm just trying to show how giving free reign to individual creativity and diversity bring about unexpected and oftentimes incredible results. We can't plan these things through public education because noone knows what innovations the future holds. The best inventors were always a bit ... "funky" anyway

Quote:

Democracy aims to teach people HOW to think. Religion aims to teach them WHAT to think. We stopped preparing citizens and left moral training to the church, and now the US is in BIG TROUBLE. We are no longer a nation of individual, independent thinkers, but a nation torn apartment by group dogmas. We have forgotten respect comes from respectful people, and now believe it is what is earned- resulting in eletism, justified marginalizing of others, and wars; confidence in inferior and superior human beings, and the death of universal brotherhood, because if you aren't one of us, you are a threat to us.
After all, we are superior, and they are inferior, possibly the spawn of Satan hiself, and both Christians and Muslims know, we must war against Satan.

Yes, the "group dogmas" are what's fragmenting things.

Politics today is about what idea can be shouted the loudest by the most number of people. It's a matter of intimidation and control. People are fighting over who gets to speak into the microphone and then others are trying to get everyone to listen.

It's not about peaceful cooperation as much as it is about ruling. We used to not have a king in the U.S. because government was smaller and had little influence to do anything. Now that it's grown and has tossed off most the restrictions that kept it at bay before, we have people courting the system asking for special favors ... a $50,000 donation can turn into $1,000,000 contract (at the expense of others), or a court case can determine who's given ownership of entire city blocks.

You can't even die in peace, as these social forces increase. There are laws about how you can die and what happens to you after you're dead. What should have been a private matter in the Terry Schaivo case became a national discussion/argument because what happened there, through "groupthink" becomes the possible fate for millions of other people. So in some senses, even a private conversation between people can be reflected in the laws later, as whether or not that person agrees with you on some issue has an indirect effect on the laws. Someday, if government decides to regulate what foods we're allowed to eat, it will be hard to let someone else enjoy an egg sandwhich, if you don't also enjoy that type of sandwhich, because their tastes might spread to others and become law. It sounds funny, but that's why you have people that have divorced or even died over a simple political dispute with a neighbor or spouse etc.

This is simply because people can't distinguish private from public anymore and the people that see things as public, feel the necessity to assure their viewpoint prevails in the latest Gallop poll. It's an entirely unnecessary conflict for the most part, but what can you do until people see the problem? --- You've got to try to scream louder than the next guy that this entire thing is a waste of everyones time, and we can instead just talk peacefully with our neighbors and not worry about what's happening in other parts of the country, except to whatever extent each person feels is appropriate, but this is easier said than done considering that people are bombarded by similar media sources daily and these views of America being a single entity, like the ant colony you described are acted on and become laws with people expecting others to be worker ants and so the fight over who's controlling the colony and how the "collective" should operate continues.

(I've got to get my kids from school. To be continued)

Thank you for the insights also, Athena.

SteveA · Oct 6, 2005, 07:47 am

As usual, my "dogma" drifts things off topic

but here's an article I just read that goes along with education, as you mentioned and with our economy and out-sourcing, as I was talking about. I think the best single word to describe the situation is 'apathetic'.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund29.html

People in America are simply living off inertia. We're consumers. We don't build new roads or invest in our infrastructure. We don't invest in our social relationships. We don't invest in our personal futures, or future generations. We don't invest ourselves in acquiring knowledge much - it's not educational funding that matters when half the children don't even appreciate being in school. In many countries it's an honor to receive assistance for an educational, whereas we view it as an entitlement with few costs which devalues it - parents don't directly see the sacrifices others are making to provide it and so don't treat it as the valuable resource it should be. There are various causes from my view - ease of lifestyle, safety nets, lack of individual accountability or reward for success, few natural needs left unfulfilled, while corruption is rewarded and productivity punished, we're too lazy to stand up against injustices, theft is legal so people prefer to spend while they still have resources etc. ... but there're still a few wine bottles in the cupboard so the party goes on, though there's a bit more desperation and fighting over what remains.

I think people want to improve things but they feel helpless as we've become more reliant on "groupthink" and social dependencies. We expect leaders to save us, but they don't possess any diety powers either. Look at New Orleans - we trapped a bunch of people together, without supplies, in order to "gain control" of the situation. Meanwhile they simply hope a news reporter will come by so they can say, "Help us". It's sad. The police were simply following orders, as were the people trapped inside. Luckily, the leaders hadn't told everyone to swim out to sea or you might have seen the police escorting people into the ocean (How much of an exaggeration is that?) People aren't thinking for themselves, they're programmed to follow orders without thinking of consequences (look at Iraq). I'm not putting down people in New Orleans, as I think the same thing would occur in many other areas as well. There's little we can do about hurricanes, but we can stop many mistakes from being piled on top of disaster.

Sorry for being negative, but I think the only thing that's going to motivate change is contrasting the differences between where we seem to be heading and where we could be instead. What would work even better though would be to drop the 'we' and just find a way that individuals could see something better. There's just too much inertia behind the current trend. I think it's better to just cut people loose from the "groupthink" phenomenon and give them some freedom to make something better. If people don't feel trapped in the crowd, they'll spread their wings and fly, and having some better examples will motivate others to do the same ... hey, that's at least the direction I've been hoping we'll eventually head. :)

Starboy · Oct 6, 2005, 08:22 am

Quote:

Quote by: SteveA

People in America are simply living off inertia. We're consumers. We don't build new roads or invest in our infrastructure. We don't invest in our social relationships. We don't invest in our personal futures, or future generations. We don't invest ourselves in acquiring knowledge much - it's not educational funding that matters when half the children don't even appreciate being in school. In many countries it's an honor to receive assistance for an educational, whereas we view it as an entitlement with few costs which devalues it - parents don't directly see the sacrifices others are making to provide it and so don't treat it as the valuable resource it should be. There are various causes from my view - ease of lifestyle, safety nets, lack of individual accountability or reward for success, few natural needs left unfulfilled, while corruption is rewarded and productivity punished, we're too lazy to stand up against injustices, theft is legal so people prefer to spend while they still have resources etc. ... but there're still a few wine bottles in the cupboard so the party goes on, though there's a bit more desperation and fighting over what remains.

Let's face it. Americans have got it way too good. But do not despair. An attitude adjustment is on its way.

Starboy

Boetie · Oct 6, 2005, 11:28 am

Everything you think, you belive it to be true. Well maybe not everything, but you aren't sure which of those things you believe in aren't true, yet it doesn't matter because you feel it doesn't make that much difference if it isn't true. Take away a grain of sand from a heap isn't going to make that much of a difference to your heap. So if one of your believes doesn't pan out, big deal, it isn't going to make that much of a difference to all your believes or will it?

Oct 4, 2005, 10:56 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Athena Volcanic Erupter Location: Oregon Posts: 5,172	morning thought A dogma is a belief. It doesn't have to be a religious one. It can be a materialist one. I have noticed several people in the forums are dogmatic and what always goes with being dogmatic is an unpleasant agression and defensiveness. Aristotle was fascinated with first cause. What do you suppose is the first cause of being dogmatic, aggressive and defensive? Is it the belief that makes people so, or a personality trait? Is it prehaps a matter of social skills, a moral habit? For sure it isn't material. A lot of what we experience isn't material, nor is it supernatural. What does it mean to have a good life? Is being dogmatic, and as aggressive and defensive as Zeus, the best way to have a good life? I would recommend Stoicism for practiced control of emotion, but those guys were up tight guys, wanting to control everyone with laws and their vision of a good life. I like Kuldeep who seems to be okay with what everyone thought as long as it was logical. He wasn't aggressive or defensive, but just rational. Last edited by Athena; Oct 4, 2005 at 11:01 am.

Oct 4, 2005, 11:27 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
rcne Moderator/nobody Posts: 1,566	I am unfamiliar with Kuldeep, but logic alone will lead to disaster sooner or later. It will all be rational of course. A dogma based on reason which includes the logical and allows some reasonable illogical possibilities, would provide a balance and an openness to explore the irrational. Live Long and Prosper (Genetics and Capitalism)

Oct 6, 2005, 07:47 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
SteveA Anarcho-capitalist Posts: 1,972	As usual, my "dogma" drifts things off topic but here's an article I just read that goes along with education, as you mentioned and with our economy and out-sourcing, as I was talking about. I think the best single word to describe the situation is 'apathetic'. http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund29.html People in America are simply living off inertia. We're consumers. We don't build new roads or invest in our infrastructure. We don't invest in our social relationships. We don't invest in our personal futures, or future generations. We don't invest ourselves in acquiring knowledge much - it's not educational funding that matters when half the children don't even appreciate being in school. In many countries it's an honor to receive assistance for an educational, whereas we view it as an entitlement with few costs which devalues it - parents don't directly see the sacrifices others are making to provide it and so don't treat it as the valuable resource it should be. There are various causes from my view - ease of lifestyle, safety nets, lack of individual accountability or reward for success, few natural needs left unfulfilled, while corruption is rewarded and productivity punished, we're too lazy to stand up against injustices, theft is legal so people prefer to spend while they still have resources etc. ... but there're still a few wine bottles in the cupboard so the party goes on, though there's a bit more desperation and fighting over what remains. I think people want to improve things but they feel helpless as we've become more reliant on "groupthink" and social dependencies. We expect leaders to save us, but they don't possess any diety powers either. Look at New Orleans - we trapped a bunch of people together, without supplies, in order to "gain control" of the situation. Meanwhile they simply hope a news reporter will come by so they can say, "Help us". It's sad. The police were simply following orders, as were the people trapped inside. Luckily, the leaders hadn't told everyone to swim out to sea or you might have seen the police escorting people into the ocean (How much of an exaggeration is that?) People aren't thinking for themselves, they're programmed to follow orders without thinking of consequences (look at Iraq). I'm not putting down people in New Orleans, as I think the same thing would occur in many other areas as well. There's little we can do about hurricanes, but we can stop many mistakes from being piled on top of disaster. Sorry for being negative, but I think the only thing that's going to motivate change is contrasting the differences between where we seem to be heading and where we could be instead. What would work even better though would be to drop the 'we' and just find a way that individuals could see something better. There's just too much inertia behind the current trend. I think it's better to just cut people loose from the "groupthink" phenomenon and give them some freedom to make something better. If people don't feel trapped in the crowd, they'll spread their wings and fly, and having some better examples will motivate others to do the same ... hey, that's at least the direction I've been hoping we'll eventually head. :) Freedom - are you man enough to handle it? If so, join us in New Hampshire! The Free State Project ("Liberty in our lifetime!") www.freestateproject.com Last edited by SteveA; Oct 6, 2005 at 08:59 am.

Oct 4, 2005, 06:08 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Flip Jackson The Professor Location: Owasso, OK Posts: 648	I would say that being dogmatic, aggresive, and defensive can come from a few different things. Dogmatism could be a result of arrogance. You are so sure you are right, that you refuse to even acknowledge fair arguments agianst you. This could also be why people get defensive. When some dogma of yours is challenged well, and you don't know how to react, you might get defensive. You might get aggressive when your ideas are challenged, but only if you are demeaning as well as arrogant. I think you have a good life if you don't subdue emotion, but just use it at the right time. Getting angry is probably never a good thing, but if someone never gets angry, then explodes for some reason, we know it had to be a good reason. Or if we know when to be serious, and when to party and goof around. When practice the right emotion at the right time, we seem to be happier. Especially if we recognize that happiness and kindness are emotions that are almost always appropriate.

Oct 4, 2005, 07:21 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	I agree. "Dogma" perfectly describes the beliefs of some people. I also define it as simply being stubborn.

Oct 5, 2005, 05:18 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Athena Volcanic Erupter Location: Oregon Posts: 5,172	Wow, those were some really thought provoking comments! I will start on thread on anger, because that is especially a subject important to me. In the broader picture is SteveA's explanation of individual verse social. I think he really hit upon something here!!! We all know, (right?), that in 1958 we switched from training for independent thinking to "group think". We know the Bush family annouced we are the New World Order. What does that mean? I will tell you one thing it means, for sure. The change in public education from independent thinking to group think. Tie me down. I can barely endure my sense of AH HA! excitement. The philosophy of the US when it had training for independent thinking, was completely different from the philosophy we have today. Please don't waste our time with an argument that there isn't one philosophy for the whole US. People are almost willing to kill to keep our present education for technology, and to prevent a return to liberal education. People who know nothing of philosophy or education, are very sure we must have the education we have now, and their children must be in the best schools promoting this education on a very high schalastic level, or horrors, their children may end up homeless and eating out of trash cans. Something very bad has happened to the US. WE ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO THE MARGINS OF SOCIETY IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ESSENTIAL CREDITIALS, OR HAVE A CRIMINAL OR BAD CREDIT RECORD. There is no Christian forgiveness here, nor faith in God, just paranoia- excessive need to control and being superior. This is so contrary to the education we had. It was focused on citizenship in a God loving country, desiring equality and universal brotherhood, and our liberty depends that education. Not religion! the education. Our democracy is the result of philosophy that people can be taught concepts essential to civilization and good government. They can be taught to make good moral judgements. Ouch, duck, here comes the nasty- some Christians believing we are all born in sin, do not accept or understand this purpose of education. If they do agree people can be taught to be good, it is believed only their particular religious training can do this. Those who do not have this specific education, do not know the true God and morals and are a threat to good Christians. This religious training is identical to what makes some Muslims a problem, and is far from the philosophical understanding of our nature and what is necesassary for good moral judgement. Democracy aims to teach people HOW to think. Religion aims to teach them WHAT to think. We stopped preparing citizens and left moral training to the church, and now the US is in BIG TROUBLE. We are no longer a nation of individual, independent thinkers, but a nation torn apartment by group dogmas. We have forgotten respect comes from respectful people, and now believe it is what is earned- resulting in eletism, justified marginalizing of others, and wars; confidence in inferior and superior human beings, and the death of universal brotherhood, because if you aren't one of us, you are a threat to us. After all, we are superior, and they are inferior, possibly the spawn of Satan hiself, and both Christians and Muslims know, we must war against Satan. Why go from preparing everyone for independent thinking to "group think", besides this war against Satan? Have you come across the many books that seem to use the ant colony as the height of evolution? There are several books advancing the idea that humans have come together in larger and larger numbers, and this is the way of evolution, until ultimately we are all one. This is bringing hail stones of fire down upon us around the world! Every where people are screaming for thier uniqueness to be preserved. They are screaming that the larger political powers, they really need to feed their starving masses, get out and leave them alone. This is too complex for one post, but I hope you pick up, there are global forces right now, that are influencing our human experience, as never before. "Group think" comes out of the military state we defeated. This purpose of public education was known before 1900. Think ant colonies and military might, and what New World Order means. A Prussian realized modern warfare would demand the highest technology, and the union of industrial and military forces. The education for technology for military and industrial purpose, was what Germany had, and is what the US adopted. It advances technology rapidly, but also leaves people unfit for thinking for themselves. Instead of independent thinking, it is reliance on authoirty (scientific work already done) and "group think" to rapidly advance this science to the next stage. Our nation has been so consumed by this philosophy, just about everyone is ready to fight for it. Even when that means silencing or ignoring US citizens who say something is very wrong here. SteveA, hit upon that something. In the middle east, this world pressure means the gentlest religion on earth, has become a deadly one. Indiividuals and small groups are no longer safe any where in the world. Thanks SteveA, your perspective was genius.

Oct 6, 2005, 11:28 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Boetie Hot Lava Posts: 1,227	Everything you think, you belive it to be true. Well maybe not everything, but you aren't sure which of those things you believe in aren't true, yet it doesn't matter because you feel it doesn't make that much difference if it isn't true. Take away a grain of sand from a heap isn't going to make that much of a difference to your heap. So if one of your believes doesn't pan out, big deal, it isn't going to make that much of a difference to all your believes or will it?