Modern Society and the Value of our Values

Ok, maybe not anything. but probably a lot, & who knows, maybe murders are comitted by parents to help their children but they don' appear in the news, it's not like if we have a effective judicial system, or a good police.

Maybe that's the reason here we have a large number of missing persons.

Even the heads of police here are designed mainly by cronysm, & sometimes by nepotism.

Yeah, Frank is right; it's like saying "never." c.i.

What Dux speaks of is plainly important. Do forgive me if you feel i ought to have weighed in sooner on this topic, but it is useful many times to watch a thread age, and give some thought before posting.

From Bustamente to Fox, in post-revolutionary Mexico, there has been a consistent, blatant and unabashed right-wing conspiracy. Hidalgo and Allende lead a successful popular uprising on the order of that which had occurred in France, with none of the blood-soaked state-organized reprisal of that earlier revolution--and Hidalgo was captured by a reactionary royalist military, defrocked and executed. The conservatives of Mexico were happy to accept the monarchy imposed in Spain by Napoleon, because it was conservative. But when in the following year, the Cortez at Cadiz wrote a constitution, and then Ferdinan VII was succeeded by his daughter Isabel, whose ministry began to institute reform, the conservatives of Mexico launched a reactionary revolution, because they intended to preserve their ascendency, and would stop at almost nothing to succeed. Antonio López de Santa Anna can stand as a model for the type of dictatorship which has almost always obtained in Mexican history--and this has been true whether it were Santa Anna, or a "reformer" like Porfiro Diaz. Diaz rose to prominence during the War of the Reform--and even Benito Juarez can be questioned for the constitutionality of his claim to the Presidency--however, both of them fought in the struggle against the emperor imposed by the conservatives, some of whom had wandered Europe for a generation trying to find a monarch for Mexico. The guerilla in the 1860's against French and Belgian rule ought to give pause to anyone contemplating the American occupation of Iraq today. Many Mexicans who had stood on the side-line came out to fight the invader--and the atrocities commited by the conservatives and their foreign allies were, sadly, nothing new in Mexican history, nor has their like entirely ended. Right-wing "death-squads" have existed there for more than a century before the term was coined. But Maximilian was executed in his turn, and Mexico plunged into civil strife again. The remedy was hardly better than the ill, and Diaz, elected in the normal order in 1876, assumed a dictatorship in 1878. He became more right-wing and repressive as time went on--bringing foreign investment and some prosperity to the nation, he fell into the toils of a right-wing attitude, and was finally unseated himself in a popular uprising in 1910.

It isn't necessary to rehearse the history of Mexico in great detail to see that the ordinary institutions which Americans and Canadians look to for order and equity in their respective polities have never had a chance in to survive and thrive in Mexico's sorrowful past. For some of this, certainly, that right-wing portion of Mexican society is to blame; and certainly the left has not been guiltless--witness the Institutional Revolutionary Party and the labor unions of Pemex. Just as certainly, Porfiro Diaz simply recited a well-known home truth when he said: "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States." Not only was American greed for territorial expansion inflicted upon Mexico in that so obvious example, what we call the Mexican War--but economic domination by American capitalists has also been able to enlist our governments' support: we invaded and occupied Vera Cruz in the wake of Madero's uprising against Diaz; and, although with more justification, Pershing lead the First Cavalry into Mexico in 1916 to hunt down Pancho Villa. A good argument could be made that we had created the chaos in which Villa arose by Taft's and Wilson's support for the destabilization of Mexican government in the wake of Madero's rebellion. With Zapata's successful challenge of Madero, Mexico was assured of continuing turmoil, and bloody strife.

That the PRI was able to end the cycle of armed violence by the petty armies of ambitious men does not in any fashion suggest that liberty thereafter reigned in Mexico. Simply consider for a moment the oxymoron embodied in the title Institutional Revolutionary Party. The right-wing in Mexico has been down many, many times--it was never out. But there is a far deeper issue raised by what Dux so justifiably condemns. How many revolutions have succeeded to move into smooth waters of domestic tranquility? Certainly not France, with the successful reactionary counter-revolution of the jeunesse dorée, the Directory and the subsequent rise of Napoleon. Certainly not Italy--Cavour and Garibaldin simply, unwittingly created a senescent monarcy, to be exploited by the wealthy and well-connected until its slumber was disturbed by the rise of facism. Certaily not Russia, where the same scene in the streets of Paris in October, 1789 was repeated in Petrograd in March of 1917--women filled the streets to demand bread, and the Bolsheviks, although caught flat-footed by the sudden success, quickly moved to destroy the Petrograd soviet, unwittingly paving the way for the rise of Stalin. Most certainly not Iran--untold thousands have been executed, on a scale to make the French Terror pall in comparison, and a protracted, bloody war was waged with Iraq which saw adolescent boys in human wave attacks against dug-in T-55's. We none of us know where their odyssey will take them next--we can only assert with certainty that to this point, since the airforce cadets who had overthrown Pahvlavi turned the state over to the Ayahtollah, religous privelege and right-wing religiously motivated repression has been the modus vivendi in Persia.

When people want to seriously discuss politicians and lawyers, or any other group of wealthy, powerful and successful professionals, i will not accept a blanket indictment of such people. The functions they perform in the body social, as well as the body political, are necessary, desireable and laudable. I have also maintained the point for my adult life, that venality in those occupying such powerful positions need only appear in a handful to wreak great mischief among us. Unfortunately for Dux, he inhabits one of the nations of this world in which venality, and by extension, nepotism, have almost always reigned supreme, in defiance of any social contract. And nations such as the United States and Canada, and for only slightly more than 50 years, less than half of Europe, enjoying societies only relatively free of such pernicious influences, are exceptions which demonstrate the rule that throughout recorded history, privelege and all of its attendant evils have prevailed. Read Thucydides sometime--you won't get ten pages into the Peloponnesian Wars without being overwhelmed by the account of oligarchic repression, and the exploitation by aristocrats of popular demagoguery. This has always been with us, as in the human race; it simply has been largely spared us--as in the Norte Americanos. Dux' insistence on the force of his argument is both valid and of immediate consequence.

What it really comes down to is that some will and some will not. In some cultures, it may be more common, and in others, not. The question becomes, are they the majority or minority? c.i.

The "Nepotists" are definitely the "majority opinion" and always have been . . .

Terry wrote:



Yes, many don't know, agnosticism is a relative truth. No one is saying otherwise.

"agnosticism is as close as we will likely ever get to the ultimate truth."

Meaning agnosticism is not what we're after. Agnosticism isn't an ultimate goal in and of itself, except perhaps in the short term;..... after all it's a declaration of ignorance.

Nothing wrong with stating one's ignorance if that is the truth, matter of fact it would be the right thing to do. But there is an attempt, a drive, a goal, an ambition to more away from agnosticism in search of the truth,... since it is not an answer but the lack of one. Most pursuits of knowledge and personal insights are an attempt to shed one's agnosticism.

Which is not an attack against agnosticism, it's just stating a fact.

Matter of fact any claims that one is attacking agnosticism are ridiculous, how can one attack, "I do not know"....?

But placing agnosticism along side 'either god exists or god does not exist,.....and pretending there are three possibilities is absurd.



I understand the differences. But the bottom line is, if god or a transcendent 'self' or universal consciousness does not exist, if life is an accident, all talk of meaning, value and worth etc., is baseless. It has relative meaning but apart from that, if there's no (ultimate) reason you exist, whatever meaning and value one does find is imagined.

Our artificially constructed meanings have value within their own frame of reference, and if there is no god (transcendent 'self' etc.) they don't go any further for there is no 'further'

Although I do not think that that is the case.




As JLNobody once put it, "Observation cannot be observed."

Pretty straightforward to me.

" I " am not the one being observed if " I " am doing the observing.

The only way I can be the 'observed" and the "observer" is in nondualism, in which they both are one and the same. But that's certainly not what you're talking about.

Dux, and setanta (very exhaustive, and informative);

We in Canada have the advantage that while nepotism, and cronyism exist, and are as destructive as any where else, they become "our' collective problem, as we are responsible to recognize them and ensure, with our votes, that we eradicate them.

And a good thing it is for y'all, Boss . . .

. . . Consider, if you will, Louis Riel, multiplied by orders of magnitude, scattered about the country and commanding a loyal "peasant" following everywhere. Then imagine men like John McDonald, Bishop Strachan, General Isaac Brock, Sir George Prévost at the heads of private armies dedicated to crushing the "peasants' armies" and fighting a constant internecine war for personal power . . .

I'm atheistic, but the following phrase is nonetheless apt for describing the social and political histories of the United States and Canada vis-à-vis Mexico:

There, but for the grace God, go we . . .

Yes, hmmm;
oxymoron that; the "grace of god". Yeah, right!

It is odd that, as you point out, while Canadians have a history of oppression of minorities, be they the Metis, the numerous indigenous Aboriginal groups, the Chinese imigrants, and the Japanese Canadians during the second war; in spite of it (or in ignorance of it), we always exhude an air of superiority with relation to racial relations, and cosmopolitanism.

Yeah, but ya got great restaurants there in Tarana, so we don't mind that much . . .

Many sins are overlooked when a country has great restaurants. c.i.

Just some points:

1.- While most os setanta wrote is true, Hidalgo was defeated becuase he refused to take Mexico City when he had the chance, he did because Fernando VII was just put back in the throne of Spain. Very dumb decision, he had 40,000 men to about 300 armed men of the spanish goverment. So he retreat his troops & the later Calleja defeated him.
He wanted to do what they did in Brazil.

2.- It's not exactly a majority, however all the heads are nepotists or cronysts. I love my country a little less than I love myself(it's the second thing I love after me), & I would like to do something for it, I would hate to leave it because I couldn't do anything about the problem, I would apreciate solutions for nepotism & cronysm. I can't stand seeing my country in the road to mental destruction.

3.- Btw, my solution for nepotism & cronysm & cut the head first & create new ones, what do you guys think about that solution.(I know it's not a really good one, however i still can't come up with a better one)

4.- It wasn't fair that so many countries invade, however our internal problems seek those invations in a way.

Dux; one of the most "crazy making" things about youth is that everything takes soooooooooo long to happen.
If you can summon all your patience, and choose the best route to full democracy in your country, then stand solidly behind (or in front of) those with like minds, and work endlessly toward your goal; in spite of the dissapointments, and setbacks, you will begin to get a sense of accomplishment that comes from knowing that you are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, and not selling your soul, along the way

I have not idea of what you mean by a "relative truth" -- but it is a TRUTH.




One cannot shed one's agnosticism by making a guess and pretending that the guess is something more than a guess.

Fact is, most attempts to get away from agnosticism -- at least in the area of answering "What is the nature of reality" -- is not a search for the truth at all. Most often it is the insinuation of a guess -- and a pretence that the guess constitutes something more than a guess.

And then the people making the guess claim they have shed their agnosticism.

Gimme a break! The only thing they have shed, in most cases, is their objectivity.



There was a time where I would have endorsed that completely -- and as written, I probably can endorse it now.

Fact is, one cannot logically and reasonably attack "I do not know" -- but that doesn't prevent people like you, Twyvel, from ATTEMPTING to attack it anyway. Even if the attack has to be made back door.



You are right.

But what is happening here is not placing agnosticism alongside "either god exists or there are no gods." We are placing agnosticism alongside "I believe there is a God" and/or "I believe there are no gods."

And even there agnosticism does not belong -- because agnosticism is more logical, more ethical, and more honest than either of the others.




Your thought here is absurd. It is possible there is no God -- no transcendent self -- no universal consciousness -- and all talk of meaning, value, and worth can be anything but baseless.

WE CAN DECIDE VALUES ARBITRARILY. WE CAN ASSIGN WORTH ARBITRARILY. WE CAN DECIDE WHAT IS MEANINGFUL AND WHAT IS NOT ARBITRARILY.

This attempt by you to have their be a God (or universal consciousness) or nihilism is bizarre. I'm not entirely sure why you want it to be that way, but whatever that reason is (perhaps even you don't know) it is the major motivator for you thinking it is -- not logic or reason.

Frank;
"One cannot shed one's agnosticism by making a guess and pretending that the guess is something more than a guess."

Absolutely; one should do what I do:
Be right (spot on) all the time; it's tough work but I'm "up" for it!

Btw Frank, if there's some little thing your not sure of, feel free to ask :wink:.

I'm sure there is something very clever I could say in response to your post here, Bo, but it ain't comin'.

So here's a question: What would be a pithy, witty reply to your post?

Bo....."GO!" (woe)

Damn!

Yes, such as the Texas mom (Wanda Holloway) who tried to hire a hit man to kill the mother of her daughter's cheerleading rival. But that sort of thing is very rare in this country.

And just how do you propose to get from agnosticism to Ultimate Truth regarding the existence of god(s)? "Personal insights" seem to me to be nothing more than rationalized guesses based on what people want to believe.



If you read the links I posted for you and understood the differences between atheism, humanism, agnosticism and nihilism, I don't see how you can continue to insist that there is no meaning without god.

I believe that what I can see and feel is a meaningful reality for me and those I love. You dismiss my feelings as imaginary and say that they are meaningless unless there is a non-perceptible "transcendent self" or god or universal consciousness to give them meaning. One of us is indeed imagining things.

How does the existence of a transcendent self give life anymore meaning than a transient self? How does the existence of a god make a human life any more valuable than it already is? Whether or not life was an accident, it has REAL worth to the person living it and to the society in which she lives.



Well, that's the whole point. "I" am the observer, not the observed. I observe my perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, but they are not "me" any more than my breath is "me". No mystical god/transcendent self or denial of material existence is required.