Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Security

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

Canada Not OK

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

Show in topic

Canada Not OK

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

Canada Not OK

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

Canada Not OK

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

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic