|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-25 15:15:37
Certainly. Our foreign policy does not exist in isolation from how we collectively view ourselves, and how we view ourselves in relation to the US and the rest of the world. So in my view, any attempt to form a foreign policy should be pre-empted by a sober look at who we really are, followed by a serious discussion on where we want to go. Don't get me wrong, its not my contention that who we are is all bad, but rather that once we embark in a process of self critique, we'll find that several of our attributes are less than gratifying, if not altogether surprising.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-25 19:21:14
I must concur wholeheartedly. "Find the End, and the Means will find you".
Or, less cryptically, 'Once you choose where you want to go, the path becomes clear'.
However, that being said, lots of people agree (especially in Canada) that the ideals of Marx (and indeed of true communism) are utopian. Yet we choose to see utopia as unattainable, and go in the direction of self-gratification.
We have a choice to go left (or more left, as Canada's case may be) or right, becoming more like the US.
I, personally, do not want our country to be like the US, where "Every man for Himself" is the common denominator. I believe in socialism, for 'what benefits all ergo benefits me'. I just wish our government wasted less, and produced more. Unfortunately, government itself is a 'caste' system. Privatization, especially of government, could 'maximize profit', but whom would ultimately benefit? The upper caste.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-26 18:14:30
Hmm, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I'm not sure that any notion of 'utopia' (in the broad sense) is in fact attainable. Mainly for the simple reason that there is likely to be little agreement on precisely what utopia represents (again in the broad sense). However, it remains an extremely useful construct for guidance, or a road map if you will. Again, your concept of utopia and my concept of utopia may be quite different, although in this case, it seems that they we are both decidedly to the left. So, do we try to develop an 'average utopia' or collective utopia to represent society as a whole, while understanding that it will not likely reflect the conceptualization of any single individual?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-26 23:45:39
In a previous post, you mentioned that 'our policies must go beyond the issue of Iraq'. This is also (or could be) pivotal in our national, and individual, development.
For Utopian ideals, I believe that they are much simpler that many think. There is one common ideal that pervades all things.
The right to exist.
Perhaps if I were to adhere to a 'religion', it would have to be buddhism. The 'sentient' quality of all 'existing entities' have equal rights to existence, it is only mankind who sees their 'individual right' as greater than thy neighbor's.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-27 16:45:51
Buddhism, -an interesting choice. In my case, though I'm anything but religious, I've always been semi- enchanted with the concept of reincarnation. Principally because if we faced the prospect of a return to earth upon death, we might have a much greater impetus to take better care of it, and make it a much better place. Quite strange the way western religions have evolved, seems the evolution of religion, in some (but certainly not all) ways, has fundamentally defied the principles of evolution as biologists and behavioural scientists understand them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-27 21:18:44
Personally I am a devout agnostic. My diocese is called "Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism". As far as I have studied, Buddhism says ' don't worry about the afterlife when you can work on perfecting this life'.
If The Second Coming were to happen, Jesus would be hungy (as a mere mortal) and would need to eat. Let's suppose he sees an apple tree. If he were to go pick an apple, and eat it, he would be branded, in todays world, as a thief and a tresspasser.
I still believe that the earth was the allegorical 'Garden of Eden'. We are still in it, yet it has been subdivided, polluted and paved strictly for Man's purposes. To return to it is all in our heads. We must see mankind as 'of one', rather than 'the one'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-25 20:25:19
http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=506 is a link to an Environics report of the Pew Center for People and the Press. I do *not* work for Environics. :-)
Polls are odd creatures. Our media tend to simultaneously give them too much weight and too little analysis. They can be pretty good snapshots. If you really want to get a good grip on a poll always find out precisely what the question was and precisely how the sampling was done. And always, always take the margin for error into consideration.
This study revealed some interesting things about Canadians. You might find it interesting. If you like you can backtrack in the Environics site and find other polls that might interest you as well. And if you'd like to investigate the Pew Center their url is http://people-press.org/
Reply to this message
|
|
