I think we're getting slightly carried away in some sort of semantic nightmare here.
Works over, and so I'm off down the pub.
Thanks for your input.
It's been emotional!
I dont think its really a semantics nightmare. I think its more you are substituting the idea of the flag being irrelevant, with the idea of being anti- flag. They arent the same. Irrelevant would mean you couldnt care less about the flag. Being anti-flag means you have something against the flag, which means the flag is relevant.
What do people think of this concept?
What does it mean?
Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about this country. At least not more or less so than any other place in the world. I don't even know what the word country means. And a flag is as relevant to me as a turd on the side of the street.
Discuss...
I'm very skeptical when it comes to patriotism, but if there are things that you're proud of with regard to your country then that's nothing to be ashamed of. There are a lot of things I like about England and other things I dislike. I think it's a great place to grow and to learn. We're quite down to earth and forward thinking while still retaining our historial and cultural values. We embrace multi-culturalism (compared with most other countries).
And most importantly, despite being a small country, we set the standards in rock n roll.
overall i agree with a lot of what byrnzie says and tend to veer away from patriotism. My main reason for this is a lot of the American patriotism that floats about, which I tend to find abrasive/unhealthy. I hear too many Americans who have probably never visited another country declaring the U.S. as the 'greatest country in the world'.
Obviously you're not all like that! But this portion is an embarassment.
When you are busy seeing what a "better" way for him would be, you are very possibly overlooking what his actual natural Byrnzie-directed way is. And that's about your own view and agenda.
I can understand that he will hook all kinds of emotional responses by his irreverence. It's possible that's his intent--to hook people into these debates, even maybe for a "higher" purpose.
And I'm saying that, because of the point you made earlier about value judgements being meaningless to those who don't share the same values, Byrnzie's intent will fail to all those who don't share his vlaues and is therefore pointless. Rabble Rousing for it's own sake is a pretty pointless activity. To actually make someone consider the worth of their own beliefs, you have to give those beliefs respect. Accusing someon'es beliefs of being ignorant will only foster an angry response and will not lead to change. If you question someone's beliefs respectfully, you might actually get them to think about why they hold those beliefs. Only then will any "higher purpose" be achieved. Saying "i'll piss on the flag" won't do it.
I understood full well that his intent was likely to provoke a reaction. I'm just questioning the purpose of such an action when the method used will likely garner an angry response that will preclude intelligent debate. Extreme examples may seem like a good idea at the time, but they will only bring out extreme reactions.
Frankly, I think that describing his agenda as having a "higher purpose" while accusing me of imposing my view and agenda on his actions contradicts your whole point. I understand your point to be that imposing your own world view on the words and actions of another means you won't get what their trying to say. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm not imposing my agenda on Byrnzie. I get that he sees symbols such as the flag as harmful and divisive and, to an extent, I agree with him. I see that in saying he'd piss on the flag, he's trying to demonstrate that it's just a piece of cloth. My point is, his method is hurting his message. Not because my world view is too limited to see a "higher purpose," but because he has chosen make his point in a way that he knows (or should know if he has any world experience)will provoke anger, not thought.
What do people think of this concept?
What does it mean?
Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about this country. At least not more or less so than any other place in the world. I don't even know what the word country means. And a flag is as relevant to me as a turd on the side of the street.
Discuss...
Posts like this again remind me how life in Western society has become so plush & easy relative to the rest of civilization (across all time and places) that people just don't know what to complain about anymore.
Well if you really feel that way about England and feel it doesn't offer you as its citizen anything more or less than anyplace else, then take on off to the Sudan or something. Since it's all the same, I'm sure you'll be just as happy down there, right? I bet you could just as easily jump on the net like you do there in England.
And as far as the Union Jack being meaningless: I bet your grandparents who were bombed night & day and lived through that so that you could say have the time & means to post on a rock band's message board that the Union Jack is meaningless would feel different. I'm assuming, but I feel it's probably a safe assumption.
Folks, there's nothing wrong with being proud and happy about whre you are from. I'm proud of the street I grew up on!
I dont think its really a semantics nightmare. I think its more you are substituting the idea of the flag being irrelevant, with the idea of being anti- flag. They arent the same. Irrelevant would mean you couldnt care less about the flag. Being anti-flag means you have something against the flag, which means the flag is relevant.
I see another scenario wherein it's possible the flag is irrelevent to him, while at the very same time, he knows it's also an emotional symbol for others.
If that is the case, I don't think he owns that others get riled by his words.
I'm guessing he's smart enough to understand what his controversial approach will bring back to him, and again, that does not mean he is responsible to value systems he does not buy into.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I see another scenario wherein it's possible the flag is irrelevent to him, while at the very same time, he knows it's also an emotional symbol for others.
If that is the case, I don't think he owns that others get riled by his words.
I'm guessing he's smart enough to understand what his controversial approach will bring back to him, and again, that does not mean he is responsible to value systems he does not buy into.
I dont care about his controversial words or that others are getting riled by him, that has nothing to do with my point. You cant keep claiming the flag is irrelevant to you, and then keep tossing out the idea of pissing on it. If it is irrelevant then you dont care about pissing on it because it is more or less meaningless to you. If he feels the need to symbollically piss on the flag then it obviously has some type of meaning to him. It sounds to me like he has something against the flag, which is fine. But if that is the case, then the flag certainly isnt irrelevant to him. And desecrating the flag to upset or rile up others still recognizes the flag has some type of relevence to him.
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think we can claim classical or reggae not to mention various local styles throughout the world that have had an impact on western music (celtic folk, indian classical, etc.). We can claim blues, jazz, rock n' roll, funk, and hip-hop. I'd say that's pretty damn impressive.
I dont care about his controversial words or that others are getting riled by him, that has nothing to do with my point. You cant keep claim the flag is irrelevant to you, and then keep tossing out the idea of pissing on it. If it is irrelevant then you dont care about pissing on it because it is more or less meaningless to you. If he feels the need to symbollically piss on the flag then it obviously has some type of meaning to him. It sounds to me like he has something against the flag, which is fine. But if that is the case, then the flag certainly isnt irrelevant to him.
In your post before this one, you said about Byrnzie: "I think its more you are..." . I accept your point and your point of view. It may or may not be objectively accurate. It may or may not be logically accurate. I can see different scenarios that it seems you don't agree with, so to me, there are different possibilites. I may be wrong.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In your post before this one, you said about Byrnzie: "I think its more you are..." . I accept your point and your point of view. It may or may not be objectively accurate. It may or may not be logically accurate. I can see different scenarios that it seems you don't agree with, so to me, there are different possibilites. I may be wrong.
Even if he is using the flag to rile up others, it still has relevance to him. It might have a different type of relevance or meaning to him than to others, but in his very first post he said the flag was irrelevant to him. But the rest of his posts in this thread dont seem to indicate that a bit. And either way is fine with me, I have no problem if he simply has something against the flag, but it still doesnt seem accurate to claim it is irrelevant to him.
And I'm saying that, because of the point you made earlier about value judgements being meaningless to those who don't share the same values, Byrnzie's intent will fail to all those who don't share his vlaues and is therefore pointless. Rabble Rousing for it's own sake is a pretty pointless activity. To actually make someone consider the worth of their own beliefs, you have to give those beliefs respect. Accusing someon'es beliefs of being ignorant will only foster an angry response and will not lead to change. If you question someone's beliefs respectfully, you might actually get them to think about why they hold those beliefs. Only then will any "higher purpose" be achieved. Saying "i'll piss on the flag" won't do it.
The truth is, I have a very different mode of operation than Byrnzie, and I have it for very clear reasons. I personally focus on clarity and reasoned debate. At the same time, I can see that while Byrnzie seemingly alientates people, these same people are emotionally open and engaged in this discussion. When one is engaged and discussing, there is no denying the seeds that are planted and that WILL take root, if the issue is based on truth. It's like advertizing. On an intellectual level, one thinks they have discerned they do not want a specific product, but advertizers well know that what is going on beneath the surface is a very different story. It's actually all the more effective when people are adamant that Byrnzie is "wrong" because in the meantime, they are distracted from any truths the unconscious self might grab hold of, that assist evolutionary dynamics. This only works if the "seeds" that are planted resonate with us deeply. In this case, Byrnzie's issue is one that we are evolutionarily moving towards so if people are engaging and reading his words, seeds are being planted within, unbeknowst to many. Considering this is my opinion, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that his approach is pointless. The difference between advertisers and Byrnzie is that advertisers do this in order to remove us from our money. Byrnzie is doing this because he believes in what he's saying in my best estimation. The bottom line is I applaud people for being true to who they are and expressing their points of view. That's all he can do.
I understood full well that his intent was likely to provoke a reaction. I'm just questioning the purpose of such an action when the method used will likely garner an angry response that will preclude intelligent debate. Extreme examples may seem like a good idea at the time, but they will only bring out extreme reactions.
On the surface, maybe.
Frankly, I think that describing his agenda as having a "higher purpose" while accusing me of imposing my view and agenda on his actions contradicts your whole point.
Did you notice that when I said that, I put the word "higher" in quotations marks? Did you notice I used the word "maybe" which connotes it's questionable nature? I specifically did that because I am well aware that such a concept is debatable--one could look at it either way depending on where they are coming from. I merely presented an alternative analysis from your own. Therefore your assertion about my contradiction is void because your underlying premise appears to be based on the misunderstanding if you felt I weighed his purpose as being above your own. Or if you assumed I weighed it as being anything other than what it actually is (which in essence I cannot truly know).
I understand your point to be that imposing your own world view on the words and actions of another means you won't get what their trying to say. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm not imposing my agenda on Byrnzie. I get that he sees symbols such as the flag as harmful and divisive and, to an extent, I agree with him. I see that in saying he'd piss on the flag, he's trying to demonstrate that it's just a piece of cloth. My point is, his method is hurting his message. Not because my world view is too limited to see a "higher purpose," but because he has chosen make his point in a way that he knows (or should know if he has any world experience)will provoke anger, not thought.
I don't believe your worldview is too limited to see a "higher purpose" as I explained. And to back my assertion up above, I again point to that my own method is more similar to what you describe and use. I merely felt you were missing an alternative method. They co-exist harmoniously, outside our opinions of them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Even if he is using the flag to rile up others, it still has relevance to him. It might have a different type of relevance or meaning to him than to others, but in his very first post he said the flag was irrelevant to him. But the rest of his posts in this thread dont seem to indicate that a bit. And either way is fine with me, I have no problem if he simply has something against the flag, but it still doesnt seem accurate to claim it is irrelevant to him.
I personally can hold two differing views at the same time, and see perfect sense in that. For example, I could also state that flags don't have relevence to me, while part of me understands there is relevence to others, that I may milk for dramatic effect effectively giving that flag relevence. What you see as a contradiction, I see as in pure logic terms appearing contradictory. But when we have people, they are beyond just logic, and in that context, for me, I did not see Byrnzie being at odds with himself at all.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I personally can hold two differing views at the same time, and see perfect sense in that. For example, I could also state that flags don't have relevence to me, while part of me understands there is relevence to others, that I may milk for dramatic effect effectively giving that flag relevence. What you see as a contradiction, I see as in pure logic terms appearing contradictory. But when we have people, they are beyond just logic, and in that context, for me, I did not see Byrnzie being at odds with himself at all.
But the relevance of the flag for him, would be that it is a tool used to rile people up. It is still relevant. But regardless, this is a conversation that is pretty pointless, as I dont think the flag was the actual purprose of the thread.
But the relevance of the flag for him, would be that it is a tool used to rile people up. It is still relevant.
Yes, on one level. And can you also see that within the context that he said flags are not relevent to him that also had validity within that different context? Do you hear that to him, personally, as a symbol, they are not relevent?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But the relevance of the flag for him, would be that it is a tool used to rile people up. It is still relevant. But regardless, this is a conversation that is pretty pointless, as I dont think the flag was the actual purprose of the thread.
The flag can be irrelevant to him while he still uses it's relevancy to you to get a reaction. It the feelings towards the flag that cause the reaction. The flag, itself, doesn't have to cause any reaction in him to get one out of others.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The flag can be irrelevant to him while he still uses it's relevancy to you to get a reaction. It the feelings towards the flag that cause the reaction. The flag, itself, doesn't have to cause any reaction in him to get one out of others.
Yes, which is why I said it is relevant to him in a different manner than to others. But that still doesnt mean that he see doesnt see its significance and uses it as a tool to get a reaction out of others. Which makes it relevant to him in that manner.
rel·e·vant
–adjective bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.
If he is using the flag to piss people off then it is connected with the matter at hand.
Yes, which is why I said it is relevant to him in a different manner than to others. But that still doesnt mean that he see doesnt see its significance and uses it as a tool to get a reaction out of others. Which makes it relevant to him in that manner.
rel·e·vant
–adjective bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.
Are you telling me that if he is using the flag to piss people off, that the flag isnt connected with the matter at hand?
But the flag has a much meaning as a bunch of grapes if it's only used to get a reaction out of you. Your feelings is what he uses. The flag has no meaning to him without your feelings being attached to it. It's only an issue because of your feelings towards the flag not his.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But the flag has a much meaning as a bunch of grapes if it's only used to get a reaction out of you. Your feelings is what he uses. The flag has no meaning to him without your feelings being attached to it. It's only an issue because of your feelings towards the flag not his.
Well, I could care less about the flag, it doesnt offend me a bit. But Im not talking about his personal feelings of it, I didnt say that he had feelings towards the flag one way or the other. But when he uses it to rile others up, then it does have some sort of relevance to him, simply because thats the tool that is enabling him to rile people up in the current situation. I just dont think someone can say the flag is irrelevant to them on one hand, and on the other keep talking about pissing on it to piss people off. Obviously, it is relevant to him at some level, or he is at least making it relevant, because it is part of the method he is using to rile people up. Even if its just helping him get his shits and giggles, that is still relevant.
But the flag has a much meaning as a bunch of grapes if it's only used to get a reaction out of you. Your feelings is what he uses. The flag has no meaning to him without your feelings being attached to it. It's only an issue because of your feelings towards the flag not his.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that if the goal is to provoke people and make them angry, I'm sure it's quite effective. If the goal is what Byrnzie started this thread with, to get people to take their nationalist/patriotic blinders off (a goal I fully support, by the way), then I think it's counter-productive because you are reinforcing the meaning of the flag to the people you're provoking.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I respectfully disagree with Angelica. To extend her analogy, seeds may be planted in the unconscious, but I believe that Byrnzie's method does not give enough water and sunlight for them to grow into anything. Maybe psychology classes say differently, but I've never seen an opinion changed or a meaningful discourse started using Byrnzie's tactics. The discourse we are engaged in now is more about the method than the message, if you ask me.
Patriotism, in my mind, is a form of national pride. National pride is the basis of nationalism. From nationalism comes intolerance, ignorance and classism.
Something I've never quite understood. To many, this word simply means the waving of a flag. To others, it represents something a lot deeper than that. What exactly? No idea. I'd like to hear somebody give me a meaningful definition.
I don't think you need to look much further than the phenomenon of football supporters to find an answer to your question. It quite simply comes down to believing something to be as important as you choose it to be.
It's a state of mind.
This is why I feel we need to move beyond it, whilst keeping in mind all that is positive in our culture.
I've always harboured similar opinions with regard to race. I had a friend once who was of Indian decent. Or at least his parents came from India. I remember that he took offence when the subject of race came up in conversation once and I told him that his colour meant nothing to me, and that I'd never really given it any thought. He seemed to think that the racism that he'd expereinced in his life, and his 'difference' in regard to the culture he lived in was something that I needed to be conscious of and sensitive towards. I told him that I didn't give a shit about it and that he was simply my mate who I valued solely for who he was, above and beyond any of this stuff.
I've since realised that he was right in a sense, but I still haven't changed my fundamental attitude to these things. Simply put, I refuse to be drawn in to these webs of taboo, custom, and tradition simply because it's expected of me. I can't help but see the absurd in these things.
Flags, borders and blind patriotism represent division, competition, and inequality.
I don't see the abstract concepts of 'countries', 'flags', and 'borders' as being particularly healthy or productive.
For the most part, I agree with everything in Byrnzie's last post. The problem is, not everyone wants to live under the same ideals, and many won't tolerate living in a society that doesn't uphold their ideals. In order to get beyond notions of nations, flags, and borders, everyone would have to agree on a single system of government that encompasses a very broad range of cultural values. That will not happen any time soon.
For example, American culture and Indian culture are very different. It seems your Indian friend's culture was very important to him, and there's no reason it shouldn't be. That's not to say that you aren;t correct t o value him as a person separate and apart from his culture. My point is, nations exist because people with similar cultures tend to group together and create a system that works for them (I realize as I type this that exceptions can be found, and that an argument can be made that culture is created by nation, not the other way around). It would be very difficult to create a worldwide system that aloowed everyone to embrace their own culture with no detriment to any of the cultures involved.
the only thing i feel strongly about is my love for the city of Buffalo, and my family.
I love how people are so dogmatic in their blind patriotism for this country, but will step over a bum on the street rather than help. Or will trash people from other parts of the country. or could give 2 shits about the poor of this country. or deny equal rights to gays in this country. etc etc etc.
patriotism is a joke. its a tool for politicians and marketing purposes.
Egalitarianism will eventually rule out Patriotism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
For the most part, I agree with everything in Byrnzie's last post. The problem is, not everyone wants to live under the same ideals, and many won't tolerate living in a society that doesn't uphold their ideals. In order to get beyond notions of nations, flags, and borders, everyone would have to agree on a single system of government that encompasses a very broad range of cultural values. That will not happen any time soon.
For example, American culture and Indian culture are very different. It seems your Indian friend's culture was very important to him, and there's no reason it shouldn't be. That's not to say that you aren;t correct t o value him as a person separate and apart from his culture. My point is, nations exist because people with similar cultures tend to group together and create a system that works for them (I realize as I type this that exceptions can be found, and that an argument can be made that culture is created by nation, not the other way around). It would be very difficult to create a worldwide system that aloowed everyone to embrace their own culture with no detriment to any of the cultures involved.
I'm personally not proposing anything monotone where we all live the same under the same rule at all. For me, moving beyond boundaries and borders is about that at our base we embrace and encourage our uniqueness and our differences, to a degree that we grow to all the more respect them in others. This increase in our realistic understanding, awareness and tolerance for others, is about progress, and done comfortably. In other words it's natural evolution--nothing drastic. By increasing our awareness of one another, and our diversity, we come to see very multi-dimensionally. This means that our awareness of interpersonal systems becomes much more detailed as we discern deeper and deeper lines of understanding. This "advanced" understanding enables us to live and interact in much more complex ways. Not simplified ones. It's evolution, afterall.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm basically with you on this, although I'm not quite so colourful about it.
i don't know about *pride* in one's country per se...since basically you've nothing to do with it. however, i guess to some extent i understand identifying with and feeling part of a community....which i do think? is a part of patriotism. however, i think the idea of it, like many things, has been taken to extrmes, so skewed...that it no longer even resembles anything good or positive.
Comments
I dont think its really a semantics nightmare. I think its more you are substituting the idea of the flag being irrelevant, with the idea of being anti- flag. They arent the same. Irrelevant would mean you couldnt care less about the flag. Being anti-flag means you have something against the flag, which means the flag is relevant.
But anyway, have fun at the pub.
I'm very skeptical when it comes to patriotism, but if there are things that you're proud of with regard to your country then that's nothing to be ashamed of. There are a lot of things I like about England and other things I dislike. I think it's a great place to grow and to learn. We're quite down to earth and forward thinking while still retaining our historial and cultural values. We embrace multi-culturalism (compared with most other countries).
And most importantly, despite being a small country, we set the standards in rock n roll.
The weather is definitely a downside.
Obviously you're not all like that! But this portion is an embarassment.
And I'm saying that, because of the point you made earlier about value judgements being meaningless to those who don't share the same values, Byrnzie's intent will fail to all those who don't share his vlaues and is therefore pointless. Rabble Rousing for it's own sake is a pretty pointless activity. To actually make someone consider the worth of their own beliefs, you have to give those beliefs respect. Accusing someon'es beliefs of being ignorant will only foster an angry response and will not lead to change. If you question someone's beliefs respectfully, you might actually get them to think about why they hold those beliefs. Only then will any "higher purpose" be achieved. Saying "i'll piss on the flag" won't do it.
I understood full well that his intent was likely to provoke a reaction. I'm just questioning the purpose of such an action when the method used will likely garner an angry response that will preclude intelligent debate. Extreme examples may seem like a good idea at the time, but they will only bring out extreme reactions.
Frankly, I think that describing his agenda as having a "higher purpose" while accusing me of imposing my view and agenda on his actions contradicts your whole point. I understand your point to be that imposing your own world view on the words and actions of another means you won't get what their trying to say. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm not imposing my agenda on Byrnzie. I get that he sees symbols such as the flag as harmful and divisive and, to an extent, I agree with him. I see that in saying he'd piss on the flag, he's trying to demonstrate that it's just a piece of cloth. My point is, his method is hurting his message. Not because my world view is too limited to see a "higher purpose," but because he has chosen make his point in a way that he knows (or should know if he has any world experience)will provoke anger, not thought.
You set the standards in Rock and Roll, but you did it on the backs of American Blues artists
Posts like this again remind me how life in Western society has become so plush & easy relative to the rest of civilization (across all time and places) that people just don't know what to complain about anymore.
Well if you really feel that way about England and feel it doesn't offer you as its citizen anything more or less than anyplace else, then take on off to the Sudan or something. Since it's all the same, I'm sure you'll be just as happy down there, right? I bet you could just as easily jump on the net like you do there in England.
And as far as the Union Jack being meaningless: I bet your grandparents who were bombed night & day and lived through that so that you could say have the time & means to post on a rock band's message board that the Union Jack is meaningless would feel different. I'm assuming, but I feel it's probably a safe assumption.
Folks, there's nothing wrong with being proud and happy about whre you are from. I'm proud of the street I grew up on!
Everyone's inspired by something.
If that is the case, I don't think he owns that others get riled by his words.
I'm guessing he's smart enough to understand what his controversial approach will bring back to him, and again, that does not mean he is responsible to value systems he does not buy into.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Weve pretty much invented every genre of music.
I dont care about his controversial words or that others are getting riled by him, that has nothing to do with my point. You cant keep claiming the flag is irrelevant to you, and then keep tossing out the idea of pissing on it. If it is irrelevant then you dont care about pissing on it because it is more or less meaningless to you. If he feels the need to symbollically piss on the flag then it obviously has some type of meaning to him. It sounds to me like he has something against the flag, which is fine. But if that is the case, then the flag certainly isnt irrelevant to him. And desecrating the flag to upset or rile up others still recognizes the flag has some type of relevence to him.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Even if he is using the flag to rile up others, it still has relevance to him. It might have a different type of relevance or meaning to him than to others, but in his very first post he said the flag was irrelevant to him. But the rest of his posts in this thread dont seem to indicate that a bit. And either way is fine with me, I have no problem if he simply has something against the flag, but it still doesnt seem accurate to claim it is irrelevant to him.
On the surface, maybe.
Did you notice that when I said that, I put the word "higher" in quotations marks? Did you notice I used the word "maybe" which connotes it's questionable nature? I specifically did that because I am well aware that such a concept is debatable--one could look at it either way depending on where they are coming from. I merely presented an alternative analysis from your own. Therefore your assertion about my contradiction is void because your underlying premise appears to be based on the misunderstanding if you felt I weighed his purpose as being above your own. Or if you assumed I weighed it as being anything other than what it actually is (which in essence I cannot truly know).
I don't believe your worldview is too limited to see a "higher purpose" as I explained. And to back my assertion up above, I again point to that my own method is more similar to what you describe and use. I merely felt you were missing an alternative method. They co-exist harmoniously, outside our opinions of them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But the relevance of the flag for him, would be that it is a tool used to rile people up. It is still relevant. But regardless, this is a conversation that is pretty pointless, as I dont think the flag was the actual purprose of the thread.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The flag can be irrelevant to him while he still uses it's relevancy to you to get a reaction. It the feelings towards the flag that cause the reaction. The flag, itself, doesn't have to cause any reaction in him to get one out of others.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, which is why I said it is relevant to him in a different manner than to others. But that still doesnt mean that he see doesnt see its significance and uses it as a tool to get a reaction out of others. Which makes it relevant to him in that manner.
rel·e·vant
–adjective bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.
If he is using the flag to piss people off then it is connected with the matter at hand.
But the flag has a much meaning as a bunch of grapes if it's only used to get a reaction out of you. Your feelings is what he uses. The flag has no meaning to him without your feelings being attached to it. It's only an issue because of your feelings towards the flag not his.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, I could care less about the flag, it doesnt offend me a bit. But Im not talking about his personal feelings of it, I didnt say that he had feelings towards the flag one way or the other. But when he uses it to rile others up, then it does have some sort of relevance to him, simply because thats the tool that is enabling him to rile people up in the current situation. I just dont think someone can say the flag is irrelevant to them on one hand, and on the other keep talking about pissing on it to piss people off. Obviously, it is relevant to him at some level, or he is at least making it relevant, because it is part of the method he is using to rile people up. Even if its just helping him get his shits and giggles, that is still relevant.
I respectfully disagree with Angelica. To extend her analogy, seeds may be planted in the unconscious, but I believe that Byrnzie's method does not give enough water and sunlight for them to grow into anything. Maybe psychology classes say differently, but I've never seen an opinion changed or a meaningful discourse started using Byrnzie's tactics. The discourse we are engaged in now is more about the method than the message, if you ask me.
I don't think you need to look much further than the phenomenon of football supporters to find an answer to your question. It quite simply comes down to believing something to be as important as you choose it to be.
It's a state of mind.
This is why I feel we need to move beyond it, whilst keeping in mind all that is positive in our culture.
I've always harboured similar opinions with regard to race. I had a friend once who was of Indian decent. Or at least his parents came from India. I remember that he took offence when the subject of race came up in conversation once and I told him that his colour meant nothing to me, and that I'd never really given it any thought. He seemed to think that the racism that he'd expereinced in his life, and his 'difference' in regard to the culture he lived in was something that I needed to be conscious of and sensitive towards. I told him that I didn't give a shit about it and that he was simply my mate who I valued solely for who he was, above and beyond any of this stuff.
I've since realised that he was right in a sense, but I still haven't changed my fundamental attitude to these things. Simply put, I refuse to be drawn in to these webs of taboo, custom, and tradition simply because it's expected of me. I can't help but see the absurd in these things.
Flags, borders and blind patriotism represent division, competition, and inequality.
I don't see the abstract concepts of 'countries', 'flags', and 'borders' as being particularly healthy or productive.
For example, American culture and Indian culture are very different. It seems your Indian friend's culture was very important to him, and there's no reason it shouldn't be. That's not to say that you aren;t correct t o value him as a person separate and apart from his culture. My point is, nations exist because people with similar cultures tend to group together and create a system that works for them (I realize as I type this that exceptions can be found, and that an argument can be made that culture is created by nation, not the other way around). It would be very difficult to create a worldwide system that aloowed everyone to embrace their own culture with no detriment to any of the cultures involved.
I love how people are so dogmatic in their blind patriotism for this country, but will step over a bum on the street rather than help. Or will trash people from other parts of the country. or could give 2 shits about the poor of this country. or deny equal rights to gays in this country. etc etc etc.
patriotism is a joke. its a tool for politicians and marketing purposes.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
My problem is that when I read in the news about another Palestinian child being shot dead for throwing stones, i feel an ache inside.
Edit: But you're right. It's the things that are immediate to us that we should value first and foremost.
i don't know about *pride* in one's country per se...since basically you've nothing to do with it. however, i guess to some extent i understand identifying with and feeling part of a community....which i do think? is a part of patriotism. however, i think the idea of it, like many things, has been taken to extrmes, so skewed...that it no longer even resembles anything good or positive.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow