The Grey Griffin Lounge and Coffee House

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:47 am

So, what do you think has been real paradigm shifts for man historically? And what kind of events would you imagine could induce future paradigm shifts in the way we live and perceive ourselves and the world?

The introduction of the assembly line and the automobile led to the gradual loss of the established community of generations and the physical structure of the extended family. Why should five brothers and sisters live near one another and raise all their kids in the same town and visit and imbibe the same family values from parents and grandparents, when they can get better jobs and see greater possibilities in distant communities? Goodbye, Smalltown, Anywhere. Hello, Suburban Sprawl.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:52 am

Originally posted by Flagg:
@Brink, 0 divided by 0 is 1. Any number divided by itself is one.

Of course other answers are also arguable...

*LOL* - I at one time tried to argue this with my mathprofessor at university - I tried everything - simple division (0/0 contra number/number) and (don't know what it is called in english) 0!/0! = 1/1 = 1

He didn't go for it

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 10:21 am

Originally posted by C Elegans:
@Minerva and Waverly: I think "nothingness" is a concept our human minds can't really fathom, like "endlessness" or "eternity". The words exist as symbols of phenomena we can only come close to, or understand via allegories. I doubt that the human mind in its present state can conceive these things other than as theoretical contructs. Maybe it's different for zen monks?

I agree with you. A buddha is someone who understand what 'nothing' really means (amongst other things), and, as far as I know, Siddhartha Gautama is only one succeeded (hence he is the Buddha) so far. In other words, it is almost impossible to understand for us to really understand it, as you said.

BTW, zen is one of many ways to achieve to be a buddha (or enlightened one), and one of the buddhism schools... Like Christianity has many different orders/sects/schools, such as Jesuits, Franciscans, Lutherans, Calvinism etc.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 10:24 am

A buddha is someone who understand what 'nothing' really means (amongst other things), and, as far as I know, Siddhartha Gautama is only one succeeded (hence he is the Buddha) so far.

I remember reading that anyone who becomes "nothing" becomes a Buddha, while those Buddhas who choose to remain in the world to help unenlightened people are Buddhisatvas. Mind, I'm neither one or the other, probably because I'm not sure that I exist, and nothing can hardly contemplate, well, nothing.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:37 pm

1. About paradigm shifts:

Scientific discoveries and technical inventions might be more obviously revolutionary that ideas, but since they all hold the possibility of inducing great change, I think they are equally interesting in the context of paradigm shifts.

@Waverly: I wouldn't say that scientific discoveries are revolutionary by nature. Some entertaining examples of the opposite are described in Umberto Eco's next latest book. (I don't remember the title.)
I also find the question of selection mechanisms of ideas quite interesting. Care to elaborate and speculate about Christianity? Since the very nature of Christianity is exclusive and "missioning", it's not difficult to understand how it could stay dominating, but how and why did it get into a leading position in the first place? What was the advantages compared to other simultaneously existing religious believes?

But what about future paradigm shifts? Please let me hear your speculations, no matter how unrealistic they seem today.

2. About genetic engineering:

@Flagg: I agree. Another problem I can see that it might lead to increased socioeconimic segregation, at least for a long period of time. Availability of technical development and medical treatment is very segregated throughout the world, and I suspect it will be the same with all kind of genetic engineering if no special global standards are set to avoid this. Thus, a prolonged life for only the richer part of the world would most likely increase power and wealth for this already privileged group.

@Waverly: Obviously you and I are not exposed to the same media. (I think I'm lucky

)
I had no idea media was making sensationalist journalism about prolonging human life. Of course I'm not at all surprised since fear of death and aging and idealisation of youth is very common in a large part of the world, but where I live, media has hardly mentioned this aspect of genetics. (I've only discussed it with friends and colleagues working in the field of genetics, some of which fear this possibility will be available within 20 years, others more sceptical to the generalisation from nematodes to humans.)

It would be interesting to know what questions media debates focus on where you all live, since I'm sure there are is a lot of local variability.
Of all the almost unfathomable possibilities that genetic and stem cell engineering hold, Swedish media mainly debates
A. Whether possibility of replacing genes that cause a disorder, is discrimination of individuals with this disorder (ie "Don't people with Down's syndrome have the right to exist, but shall be extinct?)
2. Whether to change or not change the time limit for legal abortion. Usually ending in off target debate on when the exact point of life starts.
3. Fear of an elite society. Media unfortunately exaggregating heavily how much genetics contribute to indiviual differencies in various areas.

4. About the function of religion:

I totally agree with Flagg and Waverly here. I believe the idea of religion is part of the human survival kit. We humans need organising principles whereby to understand, organise and ultimately control ourselves and our world.
I also would like to stress the idea that structures and rules connected to otherworldly, more perfect beings than humans probably had a necessary function of holding communities together and making groups of people work toward the same goal. A human leader can be accidentally killed or intentionally disposed of. Transcendental beings are invulnerable, thus providing stability and continuity. Religious belief has without doubt played a necessary role in the evolution of man and society.
(I realise this is a very schematic description of events, and I also know that it can be argued that my viewpoint is reducing and materialistic. Please do not take offense anybody, I'm merely relating my personal opinions and believes.)

Anyone has other ideas?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 6:09 pm

On Christianity: Constantine's adoption of Christianity was a pivotal moment--for Europe (and to some extent, the Middle East). As Christianity has never been the major religion in Asia, I cannot say that gave an impact on the whole world.

I think Christianity gained power as the national religion of the Roman Empire, ordered from the top. I do not believe Christianity spread peacefully compare with other religion, like Islam. For example, Latin and South American countries are Catholic states, but it's hardly a peaceful conversion, was it?

I wonder why Christianity is the only one major religion which is declining now.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:58 pm

I think Christianity gained power as the national religion of the Roman Empire, ordered from the top. I do not believe Christianity spread peacefully compare with other religion, like Islam.

I agree with your main point, Minerva; but if I understand that last part, Islam did not spread peaceably. The jihad, or holy war, was Standard Operating Procedure in Islam from the first. It was applied in the conquest of the MidEast, North Africa, sections of the Far East, and of Southern Europe, where physical conquest by Islamic theocracies was relatively standard.

One of the pivotal points in history has to do with the divisions that opened up in Islam following the conquest of Northern Africa, and much of Spain/Portugal. If one or two key political developments had been sidetracked or treated differently through Islamic-Arabic diplomacy, the money and manpower would have been available to push further north into Europe, and put the squeeze on the small Arab-Hispanic kingdoms that only paid lip service to external overlords. Would France have survived? Or the various Italian states, if the Arabs had formed a united front and invaded in 900 AD, instead of allowing Western Europe to technologically advance through the next several centuries?

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 11:51 pm

Cor', it gets quiet here during the still dark hours of the night.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 11:59 pm

There was a question about what media currently discuss in each country. It surprises me that the Dutch media hardly talks about the possibilities of genetic manipulation. As far as I know, scientist expect that they will have closed in on the aging part of DNA within this century.

The only question that is really being put forward is whether or not and to what extent genetic manipulation should be allowed.

Of course there are a lot of other hot topics that are being discussed here in Holland. For some strange reason most have to do with euthanasia.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 12:05 am

Originally posted by fable:
I agree with your main point, Minerva; but if I understand that last part, Islam did not spread peaceably.

Sorry, I used wrong expression (I had a couple of glasses of wine before posted that

)...

Of course, you are correct. I meant Christianity cannot claim they spread more peacefully than Islam; not Islam spread peacefully and I don't think Muslim would claim that.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 3:19 am

@Minerva: are there any eastern religions that spread peacefully? While certainly there are degrees, I can think of none in the west. Whether you spill blood for the hungry Aztec gods, or run people thru with the sword so they may experience the gentle love of the Christian god, the bottom line may be that only the religions that don't shy away from violence expand.

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 3:20 am

I shall abstain from posting

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Brink ]

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 3:25 am

@Brink, why abstain from posting?

The following is probably a really dumb question:

To what extent is Budhism a religion? Is it actually a religion or more a philosophy?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 3:42 am

@Waverly: I am not sure how Buddhism spread in Asia... But, as long as Japan is concerned, it did not rely upon armed forces. Partly because it was more philosophical thought than religious belief, and also helped by the political situation in Japan at the time. Some powerful families (later became aristcrats) found it useful for the power struggle they had at the time (6th century), so decided to take advantage of it. Particularly, it came with Chinese technology and other knowledge. They altered the religion itself to suit to Japanese culture, especially its relation to Shinto, thus Buddhism in Japan is different from it's in other countries.

Japan's Shinto has many gods in the first place, people don't bother if there's new gods arrived from abroad (that's something Roman church found impossible to understand later centuries). And, as is everything else, Japanese people are unbelievably good at adopting alien concept and mixing it with their own culture, whether it's cooking, writing, or religion.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 3:48 am

Originally posted by Flagg:
Of course there are a lot of other hot topics that are being discussed here in Holland. For some strange reason most have to do with euthanasia.

Hm? I thought that was a rather non controversial subject in Holland. The Swedish media has debated this for a while, and Holland is used either as a nightmare example (by the contragruops of course) or as an ideal example (by the pro groups.) The Swedish media focus mostly on fear of euthanisia being used for econimical purposes like getting rid of patients who need expensive treatments.

About Jihad, crusades, inquisition and other ways of spreaking divine word: MPO is that Christianity and Islam share some core features that I believe many Asian religions lack. Two of these features being exclusiveness (ie they do not accept other Gods and other religious believes) and the mission from God to spread believe in Him.

I am certain an religions systems have different positive as well as negative consequences. Hinduism, I believe, lack the exclusive intolerance to other religions, but the Carma idea might be segregation conserving. What about Buddism, Confucianism and other world religions?

@Brink: Please do not refrain from posting!

@Minerva: Is it so that Christianity is the only world religion decreasing now? Well, for the better! (Sorry Flagg, I didn't say that, you didn't see it

)

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 3:49 am

Originally posted by Flagg:
To what extent is Budhism a religion? Is it actually a religion or more a philosophy?

That is a very good question.

Only thing I can say is what exactly you mean by religion? I mean, meaning of religion is not necessarily same in the East and West. And who can tell the religion in the East is not right, or vice versa?

I think people believe in god/gods, and that created religion in the first place. The concept itself may not the same, but then many sects/schoold amongst same religion cannot agree to each other anyway. If one says he/she believes in certain religion, then that is religion, I think.

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 4:23 am

What good does being exclusive bring when one cannot accept another's religious belief,especially in current times?

The one thing bad that I can see in almost all religions is that it's core doesn't change much in relation to the times we live in.Right until now,there are some of us who still practise things that may seem relevant and essential at the time a particular religion gained prominence,yet doesn't really apply anymore in these modern times.

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Brink ]

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Brink ]

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 4:34 am

@Miss E, Well Euthanasia is still a hot topic in Holland. Not so much as it being debatable, but rather to what extent. They are currently talking about making a type of euthanasia pill available to the elderly, so that they don't need a doctor. Of course the elderly have to be screened before they can get access to the pill.

Somehow Holland seems to be in the news a lot when it comes to topics such as abortion, gay marriages, euthanasia, soft-drugs, etc... I still don't know whether this is good or bad.

Let me ask all of you a serious question: Taking into consideration the above mentioned subjects, what is your view of Holland?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 4:42 am

@Brink: IMPO, exclusiveness in religion as well as other areas, is a very destrucitve power. Millions of people have been tortured, killed in the name of "there shall only be one God". Not tolerating other cultures, ideas and believes, give the advantage that you think you have the right to power, wealth, the worlds resources etc, whereas "the other" have not. So you get a good excuse to ram a pike through them. But what good comes of exclusiveness? I can't really see anything, functional advantages for the exclusive gropu is not necessarily what we might mean with "good" things.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Apr 18, 2001 4:59 am

@Flagg: Holland is a, if not THE, front line country when it comes to controversial questions like abortion, gay rights, drug use etc. I think I rather not post my personal viev on Holland, since that includes many of my personal opinions about these questions. But generally speaking, I like many aspects of Holland.

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]