It is obvious I don't communicate well and these are difficult things to communicate. Let me see if I can summarize in just a few words.

I am attacking the entire traditional approach: political, financial and religious. It might not seem pragmatic. Attacking racism and sexual intolerance does not seem pragmatic either.

I would like to live in a fair and just world, where folks could be relatively safe and happy, rather than a pragmatic world, where decisions are policies are based upon pragmatism, which seems to me just another way of saying A) fearful of hurting anybody's feelings, and B) making decisions based (in reality) on what's best for "us". And by "us," I of course mean "them".......if ya know what I mean.......

I was talking about Eric Clapton

as i have said before, i am still sorting out the political thing (i have had more exposure to religion than politics),...politics, which would include the financial thing i think(?), but when religion gets involved, i believe it to be a particularly manipulative game.
i am thinking of religion's influence on not just palestine, but on anyone!
i suppose you have to look at question worthy stuff and pretend it doesn't exist in religious texts?
"here, have my virgin daughters, but leave my guests alone!" wha?

that GOD would be backing religious beliefs would make them a potent thing.

christians believe you must be christian to be worthy of being saved...muslims believe you must be muslim...etc..
and when it gets involved in politics?

i have said the gist of this before as well, that even outside of religions, we humans have stuff we need to sort out as well.



...as i really don't have a clear idea what "god" means...other than what is in the "holy" books, in which case i would rather go with..."i don't know" and i feel okay with that

If Israel keep up that blockade of Gaza, it will end up as Luke 21:20 talks of with being surrounded by armies to scare the living hell out of the same kind of folks who killed their last king. After that what it looks like is that its a World Court in Daniel 7 which will sit to give the power to the peaceful.

But my eyes are on Ethiopia for if it erupts as Egypt and Libya we are looking at Daniel 11:40-45, which is only a little ways from the lost jewel of Daniel 12:3, where those with insight shall shine brightly and lead many to righteousness.

So I'm assuming you remember the year they left the region...and where the Palestinians were when they left...

Which of these Harvard Lecturers on psychology circa 1961 was more pragmatic?

Lecturer A:
"The intentional design of a culture and the control of human behavior it implies are essential if the human species is to survive and develop."

Lecturer B:
"Turn on, Tune In, Drop Out"



Then there was Huston?

"It's true, isn't it?"
Huston Smith on Good Friday 1962

I think that both lecturers are employing pragmatism, in their own way, from their own perspectives. Lecturer "A," however, is making an arguement based on a (IMHO) flawed premise. While it is true that, over the course of human existence, many attempts have been made to intentionally design cultures for purposes of behavioral control, culture develops in ways that are usually unpredictable; it has a mind of its own. It manifests in ways which are often very different than those envisioned by the designers.

Tim Leary's message was essentially a "call to arms" soundbite.

A culture can't be designed as a permanent state of affairs in detail. It can be steered and manipulated and that is what advertisers, marketeers, artists and politicians do. Sometimes for noble ends, sometimes for ignoble ends. Note that the existence of pervasive global media is a very recent change in the controls available. This has made behavioral semiotics a subject of intense interest.

"Blow up your TV. Throw away your paper..."

In old cybernetics terms, power is not in your choices but in choosing your choices. Once a entity can control that, they can control you rather effectively. The stampede to get that kind of control is very noticeable unless you are trained not to notice.

YESSSSSSSS

You left out the oldest method of manipulation, religion.

"try to find Jesus, on your own..."


When you submit to authority? The religious rarely consciously submit to the authority of a church. Their faith comes from traditional peer pressure. It is rarely a choice.

I'd say food, shelter and sex are the oldest means of manipulation. In all societies studied, as far as I can tell, as soon as any human population lives in density such that resources have to be apportioned including the kinds of skill sets that enable specialization, hierarchies (authorities) emerge. A church is just such a social organization and unless one chooses wisely, the choices of choices reserved to authorities by consent of membership can indeed be manipulative and destroy individuality. People can be led to do monstrous acts given their needs as social animals. They can also choose to do great and wonderful things and when wisely led, wisely chosen, they will. So it falls on the individual to insofar as power is taken to choose well. And each leader is an individual. There is no escape in the crowd or the sanctuary or even the solitary glade from the will to be informed and choose.

Choose wisely but choose you shall because as Donne wrote, "No man is an island." There is a cost for submission and indifference. A wise old Scottish preacher said "A different world cannot be built by indifferent people. - Peter Marshall"

christian churches base their religion on the bible...the bible is what has influenced my view of (at least the christian) religion...as i have said

So I assume you are unfamiliar with the Humanae Vitae that deals with birth control or the Nostra Aetate that describes the dealings of the Catholic Church with other world religions? Is the name Don Battista Montini or his more familiar name, Pope Paul VI one you know? May I assume you do not distinguish among Protestant and Catholic liturgies and ecumenical rulings?

It helps to have a more educated and realistic view of the authorities of the Christian churches and how their rulings affect their membership. Even Monty Python had more insight than simply to reduce it to the Bible and the single label, Christian. If you can't then by what standard would one critique much less judge the other religions of the world? I don't suggest you join or favor, but do be familiar with the subject matter. Otherwise choices tend to be weak or entirely made in the context of private experiences. These are valid but may not be sufficient when trying to assess the choices of others.

It is Don Battista, for example, who initiates the Sixties meme of service to humanity based on love, not John Lennon and Paul McCartney. I don't agree with some parts of Battista's varioud goals; others I do. I do like to listen to the Beatles but I don't go to Lennon to learn about the problems among Muslims and Christian orthodoxies. I would accept the assertion that the Beatles and Pope Paul VI significantly affected culture in my lifetime and that those who must choose among authorities might include any and all. Nor do I object to that.

On the other hand, perhaps some notions that might seem far from this topic could break the chains of religious critique and provide insights. Are you familiar with the term "gamification" and how this affects web design or really interactive application designs? Would it surprise you that the problems of creating and managing organization of activities toward ethical behavior dominate much discussion in that domain and that this inevitably crosses over into examples from religion? Here is something to look at. Feed your head.

http://www.slideshare.net/dings/dont-play-games-with-me-promises-and-pitfalls-of-gameful-design

Again, whoever controls your choices of choices is very effectively controling you. So by what measures should you choose these authorities? Gamification offers some non-traditional sources for what are in the end, very traditional notions found in religion. In fact, experts such as Richard Bartle believe such game designers are in fact creating religions. I don't, explicitly but I understand why he can make that claim.

i must have said something?
????
note to self: the bible is irrelevant to the christian religion?

it is like the subject of politics all over again!