originally posted by Ellydee
Hello again all.
I realized I'd forgotten to clarify a point about my previous post - obviously I don't believe that the animal-like instincts embedded in our brains are our only motivations. I'm more a follower of Plato myself than of Aristotle, and I like to think that we glimpse a better world intuitively. 
As Blue said above, I believe humans are motivated by higher morals and ideas, philosophies that separate them from other creatures on the planet. I think it's the struggle between the animal instincts that are carried over from our genetic ancestors and the morals, philosophies, and the ability to look beyond oneself that we associate with only humans, that is the main source of conflict both internally and externally among humans. Those that can conquer the more basic instincts and completely embrace their "human" side, choosing to be "moral," are often the heroes, like Ghandi, artists, or religious figures.
But again, all I can ever be sure of as far as the perspectives and morals I consider "right" in the world is through the funnel of my own senses and consciousness. So there's my story, and somebody else's story, and one is probably just as real as the next.
This does not stop me, of course, from viciously taking sides in anything from a chess tournament to world conflict.
Sigh. We should really have been built to understand each other.
originally posted by Blue
We should really have been built to understand each other.
What a gift that would be, Ellydee!
originally posted by George
Just to wade in to the quagmire of this argument and add my $0.02…
In the words of the Carpenters…"what the world needs now is LOVE, sweet LOVE".
How many of us have actually thought about what it is to love in the TRUE context of the words. In terms of love, and without meaning to preach, i wish to cast the following quotation from none other than JC himself:
"And what shall it profit a man if he shall love only those who love him, and give to those that will give back?"
In love there is no self-interest, no gain, and there is no duplicity. To love another, is to love them as yourself.
According to this standard, i ask the following philosophical questions:
How well do WE love eachother?
If our governments are duly elected by "WE the people", do they reflect our desires for unity and love? If not, WHY?
I agree to Janny that forgiveness is the key, but forgiveness (IMO)can only born out of LOVE. I think Janny touches upon this point in her books.
What do you all think?
originally posted by Blue
Couldn't have put it better myself, George!
AND you did it without getting as long winded as I did!
originally posted by Konran
"forgiveness (IMO)can only born out of LOVE."
… or compassion? *wink*
originally posted by Neil
Sigh Trys,
I believe you are quoting me the film… I don't think that Gandalf describes Valinor to Pippin; this was Frodo's vision on the boat at the end 
Valinor is not a place for those who die. It is where the Valar/Maia/elves live. Frodo, Bilbo and Sam (I guess) would have gone to Eressa(?), an isle just off the shores of Valinor.
QED…Greg, the US military evidently wants a piece when the rest of us might be working for a peace
But *I* was talking about killing
War v Peace…easy choice.
And yes one should not start killing but if faced with the choice 1) survive and kill / 2) do not kill and die…it's difficult, no? You don't get to come back and see the result of your sacrifice.
I note, with tongue *firmly* in cheek, that it is particularly the US people that seem to believe in peace. You'll have to forgive a resident of Iraq if he doesn't believe you…
originally posted by Trys
Neil,
I was quoting the movie, one of the truly wonderful scenes that was added (among many that weren't no wonderful that were added) and yet it has the problem I outlined. Just a little more evidence that the creators of these films didn't fully understand the world Tolkien created.
Yes, you are probably right about Frodo's, Bilbo's and Sam's final destination. Hopefully they aren't there by themselves.
Trys
originally posted by Ellydee
Neil,
I believe Tolkien said somewhere that one of the major themes of his trilogy was death. I think that Valinor represented his own vision of death; it was his "heaven," I suppose. So do the technicalities of who ended up there physically matter all that much?
But this isn't a Lord of the Rings board.
Reviewing the above posts, I am reminded of why I like this series so much - it's so morally ambiguous, in so very many respects, including the motives and actions of all characters involved. I really enjoy the struggle between the needs of the individual v. the needs of the group; I wonder what R. W. Emerson would advise Arithon to do? (That would be a fun conversation) Thanks for writing such a fascinating series, Janny!
The movie was Remember the Titans, thanks, Greg.
You knew someone who was there - did they feel the movie was an accurate depiction? It certainly was a moving film.
With regard to the "kill vs. be killed" tape loop - I have always believed that this polarized presentation was erroneous - that there is ALWAYS another choice available, even if we cannot imagine it. There is always another way - even if apparently beyond our ken.
Few times is that choice held open - few times, is that possibility entertained.
I had a friend, who, when a violent man with a weapon climbed in her bedroom window - Talked her way out of a rape.murder - she patiently explained that this madman was going to hurt himself far MORE IN THE LONG HAUL than any act of his could harm her, short term…
I had another friend who, when held up at gunpoint in a convenience store, burst out laughing, fell on the floor in hysterics - and that so disoriented the criminal that it disarmed the entire situation. No money was stolen, no one was hurt. His laughter, he said, was entirely spontaneous. Yet it healed the violence in an instant.
These are only two cases - how many, faced with threat have ever dared to look in another direction, or believe that there may have been another way, if they could just see past the 'survival panic' in the moment?
For me, to believe otherwise, is to write a world script that states that hate is stronger than love, and that basic humanity is not sane. You do get what you believe…and that is what sets the limitation of what you can expect.
Lastly - in my admittedly limited travels, both to communist areas, to eastern cultures, to Africa, to Europe - in my utterly limited understanding, mind - and please do not take this as a statement that condones any act of aggression with armament - or as endorsement of any one nation's stand, whoever they are — but, in my limited understanding of things — very very very FEW areas of the world truly understand the concept of the words "individual freedom" - the meaning as some cultures understand it DOES NOT EXIST in the same way…there are too many ties to history, too many culturally perceived limitations attached.
Individual freedom - what it truly means, coupled with INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY for that liberty - is something that I think (My take, mind) bled through from indiginous thinking, coupled with the spirit of the people who fled a (born to it) class system, and were forced by survival to break into another paradigm.
I am not saying "best or better than" - I am stating a matter of understanding a concept - that in many areas of our globe, the CONCEPT does not have foundation to be understood in perspective, due to very ancient cultural encumbrances. "Take or be taken" - "dog eat dog" is just too ingrained - the idea of hammer and nail being ALL THERE IS, just too entrenched, to let in a breath of hope…there are many who cannot SEE this as being possible. They only look at overlord and underdog, and so see that, even when there is more to that picture Available to See. If they could JUST frame the concept - but kneejerk teaching from infancy prevents. And the stunted imagination, from a stunted life picture, also suffocates chance of the breakthrough.
Nor is any idealogy pure, in any area or country. When looking at mass events, I always have to go back to the individual stance: if no one pulled the trigger, no blood would be spilled, regardless of what the 'governments' in question wanted. In the end, we can only be truly responsible for the picture WE LIVE in the moment.
Our governments do NOT always do as the people wish - what happens next - up to the people. I think we're going to see some very VERY interesting developments, globally, over the next seven odd years.
originally posted by Neil
Oops sorry Ellydee…I was not having a serious ponder…sarcasm is hard to communicate in writing…
originally posted by max
how hungry are you???
originally posted by max
HUH!!?? I looked at that above post and I wondered 'when did I post that obscure and unexplained little comment'? I never should look at the computer after an evening of debauchery. What I meant was, if I had to kill to feed my family, my child I most definitely would. Maybe even the family dog Charli and I love her! I hope that I would have the strength to starve to death before I would even consider eating a human, but I don't see that humans are first on this planet just more numerous. Alot of folks in the Pacific Northwest claim they intend to go to the national forest when their time comes and be part of the food chain. Cougars have been known to eat a few folk out here and I have heard the alligators in the south don't shy from eating humans either. I decided a long time ago that nothing in my culture was worth dying for except freedom. I have no objections to other cultures and I never taught my child to shy from exploring other cultures either. I also taught her fair play, You don't kick a person down unless it's extremely important he don't get up again. Mercy stroke?? who is that a mercy to? Euthanasia? I don't think so, they stabbed even minor wounded that couldn't get away. I had a sociology professor that claimed that everything was acceptable in some part of the world. I don't accept that. Some things are universally wrong. Which are worse than others I can't really say because I am not God. But if we don't attempt to do better, to fix our world and not just Americans but all over the world than WE as a world on't deserve to last either and therefore if we go to destruction we will have proved to the universe that we were not fit to servive. In Nature the fittest survive. In the universe I fear that our fitness may be judged and based on a totally new foundation. Basically [and I must be down on humanity tonight.] I don't see either the townsmen or the clansmen on Athera deserving of their second chance. I also don't see the F7 as being gods and fit to judge but at least they have an oath to keep. Maybe that is why they are still in the medieval ages. I mean really how many thousands of years on Athera and they still don't have electricity or penicillin or TV or any of the other wonderful evils we left behind on earth. [grinning at ya!!]
originally posted by PurplePenny
"they still don't have electricity or penicillin or TV" - well to be fair to them they're not allowed to have those things.
But that leads me to wonder why they are still so mediaeval. Just which technologies would be proscribed? I read in a history of technology that the Romans had everything that was necessary for an industrial revolution (steam, water pumps and valves) but that it didn't happen because they had slaves to do everything that the machines would do - so they used the technology to run fountains and not to pump water out of deep mines. Are there fountains on Athera?
Even without electricity there are many ways of powering machines. Is steam a proscribed technology? What about direct wind or water power? The Laxey Wheel [a giant water wheel] on the Isle of Man powered weavers' looms - would the F7 have to destroy those?
Max - I'm with you on the clans and the "mercy" stroke.
"Some things are universally wrong" - I agree but I fear that your sociology prof. may be right. A few years ago there was a TV programme about a tribe in somewhere like Papua. They had a secret ritual, performed by adult men and pre-pubescent boys, that they were exceedingly reluctant to admit to. The ritual was supposed to build the boys into men. How? By making them swallow semen. How did the boys get the semen? By giving the older men oral sex.
Now what was really interesting about the programme was the men's reluctance to discuss this ritual, especially to admit to having taken part in it as boys. The reluctance was not based on our western revulsion at what they were forcing the boys to do; it was based on the attitude of their own women (who said the men made the boys do it because the women refused) and the tribes around them (who considered that tribe's men to be perverts and didn't like their women marrying into the tribe).
originally posted by Neil
For me, if you're in a "survival panic" ("fight or flight" dilemma?) the mind/body has already got itself worked up using some primitive biological tricks and even if you're aware of this is the case cooling off takes time…in the meantime if you have the choice and wish to avoid decisions you might regret later, you "walk away".
For me the idea of "kill or be killed", (theoretically) is nothing to do with love or hate.
You make a decision that you want to live more than you want to let yourself die. In a desperate situation I think you may already be too tired to even feel anything…suffering/horrors would blunt your senses…escape/survival would be the no. 1 aim. No energy for more thinking…
I'm going to read some primo levi books maybe he can shed some light on this…
I feel that forgiveness can occur without love…if you understand. You don't necessarily have to love…maybe understanding is a form of love?
I had a french teacher who faced down a gunman in my school back in the 80s. Guns in school were a rare thing in those days…I don't know the details but from knowing the teacher (a frenchwoman, strict but fair) she had the emotional strength stay cool and negotiate.
But my theorical rambling assumptions - badly explained above - are based on when negotiations have broken down and you are reacting to external forces outside your control.
"Is there ANY real justification for killing?"
I feel that you can justify it if you could escape from Auschwitz to raise your children. It's not nice and it would haunt you for the rest of your life. Who is to know if the person you "remove" wouldn't have invented something wonderful for the world? I guess this is "a human mistake, or an ignorance that sees without options".
Sorry if I'm boring anyone. Sadly, in my example, I don't think statistically many would have been able to find too many options.
originally posted by Ellydee
Sorry Niel (embarrassed smile) I sometimes find it difficult to pick up on said things, as you can well see . . .
originally posted by Neil
No it's me as well I was worked up on this one…it might have shown in the length of my posts…
…but "justification" is not the same as "condone" but maybe I don't understand the dictionary definition of justify (absolve?) 
It seems finally that the clans aren't justified in killing/robbing. Extinction is a very real possibility in the current environment.
Caolle learnt killing leads nowhere, Arithon has learnt the hard way and will teach others I guess…
For Iraq, I really don't buy the argument that if invading force created a mess they might as weel hang around to ensure law and order…I feel this is ultimately a corrupt way of working. They should just go home, send civilian aid instead…but maybe I'm being here naive here?
I felt condemning others who pursue terrorist actions against invading forces in *real life* was naive. We don't live on Athera.
I feel it's easy to write what you would do in such a situation…what you feel is right etc. etc. what you feel state and nations should do, etc. etc.
Most of us live in a country that has not been invaded with force in our lifetimes. There are few people living today in our countries who have direct experience. Horrors continue today all around the world but the media does not focus on them consistently and with sufficient depth in order to understand all the angles.
It's easy to say what's right, harder to do what's right, and even harder to rectify mistakes once made…a vicious circle once entered becomes hard to get out of…the price that you may pay is yours to judge and choose. But justification is perhaps subjective…
originally posted by Memory
quote:"Some things are universally wrong" - I agree but I fear that your sociology prof. may be right. A few years ago there was a TV programme about a tribe in somewhere like Papua. They had a secret ritual, performed by adult men and pre-pubescent boys, that they were exceedingly reluctant to admit to. The ritual was supposed to build the boys into men. How? By making them swallow semen. How did the boys get the semen? By giving the older men oral sex.
Now what was really interesting about the programme was the men's reluctance to discuss this ritual, especially to admit to having taken part in it as boys. The reluctance was not based on our western revulsion at what they were forcing the boys to do; it was based on the attitude of their own women (who said the men made the boys do it because the women refused) and the tribes around them (who considered that tribe's men to be perverts and didn't like their women marrying into the tribe).
This example is one I'm familiar with, as it was brought up in our kinship and gender lectures (as an example of how gender is not always given, but made). We need to be careful with things like this. Most people in New Guinea probably know more of anthropologists than any random member of the general public do in Britain or America. It has been one of the most highly studied areas, and the people there have had much contact with Westerners (some for over 100 years). This is why it becomes complicated when you say that there are feelings of disgust and shame involved in something like this now.
Of course, this is totally alien to us, and with the standards of our own society, we do not agree with it at all. But how these people think about their ritual now is highly likely to have been influenced by their contact with Western society - especially Christian missionaries. I very much doubt that reactions were always as such.
I think there are very few things, if any, that can be found to be thought 'wrong' on a universal scale.
originally posted by max
to say that we live in a country that has not experienced violence is not good enough. you don't have to drop a hammer on your foot to know it is going to hurt. and that is patronizing!! I watched my father shot to death in front of me 20 years ago. I know what violence is!! I intend to become a part of the northwest medical team and I assure you we won't be working with pretty little surgeries and nice clean syringes. so to say that we haven't experienced enough violence and we couldn't possibly understand what the poor masses of the third world are about is to say we all live in the 'ivory tower and I assure you I don't!!
originally posted by R’is’n
Max: what a terrible thing to have happened to anyone. My husband's mother was also a victim of violence - and he was only 11 and it has marked him deeply - and yet he grew up, a white in South Africa; without hating those who had done it - unlike many who might have used it as an excuse for violent retaliation.
originally posted by PurplePenny
quote:I think there are very few things, if any, that can be found to be thought 'wrong' on a universal scale.
That was my point! I agree that the perceptions of both the people in question (Sambians?) and the surrounding villages will have changed. The practice used to be widespread in Melanesia as did anal insemination for the same purpose. But how they felt in the past has nothing to do with the discussion at hand as we need to use contemporary examples.
What I was trying to say was that although we may think that such a thing is universally wrong (involving as it does non-consensual sex) there are, as Max's sociology prof said, people somewhere in the world who think it acceptable.
Indeed I could probably have found more local examples of people who think acts that most of us would find reprehensible, to be acceptable (though then the definition has to be made between those that think there is nothing wrong with a particular practice and those that don't care whether it is morally acceptable). It is for that reason that laws are drawn up according to the mores of the majority.
Max - I ought to let Neil defend his own position but I don't think that he was saying that we live in countries without violence. I understood him to mean that we live in countries that have not been invaded in our lifetimes. In that, for the majority of us on here, I would imagine that he is correct, however I don't agree that that means that we can have no idea how it feels to be invaded. We have the testimony of those who lived through WWII to tell us how it feels.
I support a small charity that funds childrens' clinics in Palestine. When I received an e-mail to say that one of our doctors had been blown to pieces (and I do mean pieces) by an Israeli mortar whilst trying to bring a group of children under cover I could understand the anger, helplessness and frustration that leads to suicide bombers. It does not mean that I condone them - just that I understand. Whether I think that they are justified is an entirely different matter and one that I find hard to answer.