December 2006.
Pontification
I reckon at the moment I would describe myself as pacifistIC and anarchistIC.
Not tout court pacifist and anarchist.
In other words I TEND TOWARDS pacifism and anarchism.
The reason I am not sure if I am an anarchist or not is simple.
Anarchism is opposed to the state, government and coercive authority.
The essential principle of anarchism, according to Emma Goldman, is "individual autonomy".
Anarchism is not opposed to organisation.
If the organisation is consented to by those it affects.
Now what if the state is nothing more than an organisation?
I am not really sure about all this.
If it is an organisation that involves coercive authority then anarchism objects. But what if it does not?......
------------------
America
First written by me in 1992:
Still applies in 2009:
AMERICA MUST BECOME A TRUE FRIEND OF THE EARTH BEFORE SHE EVEN CONSIDERS TRYING TO REACH MARS.
MARS, THE GOD OF WAR, IS A GOD SHE MUST NO LONGER WORSHIP.
-----------------------------------------------
The Soda and Lime Think Tank
Welcome to what used to be called the Soda and Lime think tank.
So named because (whilst this may sound counter-intuitive) you can in fact think just as well while sober as while pissed.
You see it was originally called the Five Pints of Guinness Think Tank.
Which..sounds better than Compass or Civitas or Ecclesia or Bolloxia.
Incidentally I claim to have coined the word "bolloxia - the new name for everything". (c)
I mean why shouldn't I hawk my intellectual wares. I mean look at what goes by the name of intelligent commentary.
It is almost exclusively right wing/pro-capitalist/pro-business.
I don't think like that. I am against capitalism. I think it is a wrong direction.
I mean Melanie Phillips? ....text deleted...
Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas... text deleted....
They all seem to be ex-communists turned general right wing/let's buy a property in Bulgaria/let's abandon centuries of thought/..bland rightwing types...
Can I have a job at a thinktank please? I think I'd be good. I can't?
Why not? Because you are far too sensible and leftwing.
Haven't you heard all think tanks are pretty much right wing.
Why should that be?
Dunno.
I am thinking of writing a blog about my experience of internet dating.
If it qualifies for the word "experience".
-------
"A reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw.
--------------------------------
I seriously cannot see how anyone can reasonably accept things as they are right now...
Monday, December 04, 2006
It is the season of peace and good will to all men.
So what is Tony Blair's message to the world this Advent? :
"The bombs we've got at the moment aren't big enough.
Let's build a big feck off bomb. Happy Christmas!"
----------
Basically it's a bit tricky to say to other countries "Hey we don't want you to have nuclear weapons" when we have them ourselves.
I believe in nuclear disarmament.-
--------
Once again I am thinking of putting up all the old blogs, yes even those ones.
And then going public in the international blogosphere with them.
--------------
I support freedom of speech. Even for myself.
==========
I am reading and greatly enjoying "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins defines "theism" but does he define "religion"?
He seems to allow a form of religion - what he seems to call Einsteinian religion.
Is it mystical or spiritual this sort of awe at the natural world as revealed by science?
I don't think religion can only be explained in a Darwinian way as Dawkins says because it is a feature seemingly universal to the species.
Maybe it's just a case of a characteristic of our species is that we can attempt explain things and have philosophies. Surely that is what a religion is - just a philosophy, an interpretation of the world.
I did not feel that this book proves beyond reasonable doubt that God does not exist. I know that it doesn't pretend to do so.
I know of an anarchist pamphlet called "May the farce be with you: A light-hearted look at why God does not exist". I found this pamphlet has a far more convincing case for atheism than even Dawkins. Must dig it out. It was much stronger on why God cannot by definition exist...
[The best literature available is usually to be found among anarchists.]
God if he/she/it exists at some point gave us a reason which compels us to conclude that atheism is the correct position.
One thing you come slap up against is that a religion is not just a set of propositions but a cultural phenomenon, an institution, a part of social dynamics.
It is also a thought pattern and an ideology.
Hence it is the province of study for psychology and social science as much as for natural science.
There is no evidence for God. And there is no possible way that the supernatural can exist. Therefore God cannot exist.
I am most definitely on the side of Enlightenment and reason and not superstition and other bullshit.
I can tell Richard Dawkins right now why people prefer astrology to astronomy etc. Because it rocks and is fun apart from anything else.
Is a world without theism/religion possible? Are humans religious animals?
Believing that you are the sole aribter of what constitutes reason is maybe dangerous.
But making the effort to be reasonable and deliberately trying to be rational and reasonable is a good thing.
I will say more about all this later.
God this sounds pompous. Can't be helped.