John Stuart Mill

[Nieckq]

Hello,
How do you understand the word *belief*
in Stuarts quote
"One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only
interests."
Thanks in advance.

A belief is much stronger than an interest, and could inspire far more
support and activity for whatever it is.

OK, but _what_could the word "belief" mean here?

A. religion.
B. any philosophocal, political, social or religious conviction.

I think, too, that in Mill's day, 'interest' often meant merely concern
about or participation in something, which made the contrast with belief
even stronger.
So if I have a mild preference for the policies of Political Party X, and
maybe donate a little money to them, I'll have much less effect than if I
believe completely that Party X is the only group that will save my
country from complete disaster. In the first case, I have some interest in
the future of Party X; in the second, I believe, I am absolutely
convinced, that Party X's policies are right, and Party X must succeed.

[Cheryl]

Post by Nieckq

Hello,
How do you understand the word *belief*
in Stuarts quote
"One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only
interests."
Thanks in advance.

A belief is much stronger than an interest, and could inspire far more
support and activity for whatever it is.

OK, but _what_could the word "belief" mean here?
A. religion.
B. any philosophocal, political, social or religious conviction.

(b), unless in context he mentions a specific religion or political theory.

But I think he means that in general a person with a belief (in
anything) will be much more effective than a person with a mere interest
in the same thing.

Post by Nieckq

I think, too, that in Mill's day, 'interest' often meant merely
concern about or participation in something, which made the contrast
with belief even stronger.
So if I have a mild preference for the policies of Political Party X,
and maybe donate a little money to them, I'll have much less effect
than if I believe completely that Party X is the only group that will
save my country from complete disaster. In the first case, I have some
interest in the future of Party X; in the second, I believe, I am
absolutely convinced, that Party X's policies are right, and Party X
must succeed.

[Nieckq]

How do you understand the word *belief*
in Stuarts quote
"One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only
interests."

Big Number Creep! What J.S. Mill said was "ninety-nine," not 100,000.
"One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who
have only interests."
Wikiquote gives the previous sentence, as well the source. Mill was
speaking of social forces, not religion. In fact he says "social power"
in the correct quote.

Thank you.

[Heron Stone]

belief, itself, is the great sin

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Nieckq

Hello,
How do you understand the word *belief*
in Stuarts quote
"One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only
interests."
Thanks in advance.

A belief is much stronger than an interest, and could inspire far more
support and activity for whatever it is.

OK, but _what_could the word "belief" mean here?
A. religion.
B. any philosophocal, political, social or religious conviction.

Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.

In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.

Then again, I'm not quite sure what I'd expect in the case of the death
of a god. If you look at the various people and groups who are convinced
that God is dead, the reaction seems to range from indifference to
indignation (that everyone doesn't agree). If you look more
metaphoricaly, at someone who has lost something or someone or some
group they consider a god, the initial reaction could be again one of a
range of options, but eventually they seem to re-assemble their lives
and go on as before, sometimes substituting, say, one political theory
for another, but sometimes not bothering.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.
Then again, I'm not quite sure what I'd expect in the case of the death
of a god. If you look at the various people and groups who are convinced
that God is dead, the reaction seems to range from indifference to
indignation (that everyone doesn't agree). If you look more
metaphoricaly, at someone who has lost something or someone or some
group they consider a god, the initial reaction could be again one of a
range of options, but eventually they seem to re-assemble their lives
and go on as before, sometimes substituting, say, one political theory
for another, but sometimes not bothering.

In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness

[Peter Brooks]

Hello,
 How do you understand the word *belief*
in Stuarts quote
"One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only
 interests."
 Thanks in advance.

I presume, by the way, that this is not synchronicity, but a result of
hearing that the Nordic mass-murderer claimed to be a fan of JS Mill
and, in particular, of this quote.

What I don't understand is the low ambitions of these mass murderers -
why don't they work to lead a country so they can get some really high
kill rates? I mean, of course, why so few do - we all know the ones
that have..

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.
Then again, I'm not quite sure what I'd expect in the case of the death
of a god. If you look at the various people and groups who are convinced
that God is dead, the reaction seems to range from indifference to
indignation (that everyone doesn't agree). If you look more
metaphoricaly, at someone who has lost something or someone or some
group they consider a god, the initial reaction could be again one of a
range of options, but eventually they seem to re-assemble their lives
and go on as before, sometimes substituting, say, one political theory
for another, but sometimes not bothering.

In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness-

Your wiki quote mentions "grief porn" as a concept; Amy Winehouse may
trigger a bit of that this week.

[Skitt]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.
Then again, I'm not quite sure what I'd expect in the case of the death
of a god. If you look at the various people and groups who are convinced
that God is dead, the reaction seems to range from indifference to
indignation (that everyone doesn't agree). If you look more
metaphoricaly, at someone who has lost something or someone or some
group they consider a god, the initial reaction could be again one of a
range of options, but eventually they seem to re-assemble their lives
and go on as before, sometimes substituting, say, one political theory
for another, but sometimes not bothering.

In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness-

Your wiki quote mentions "grief porn" as a concept; Amy Winehouse may
trigger a bit of that this week.

Yeah, I've heard of her. It's a shame. So ... what's new?

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Brooks
In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness

I thought that sort of thing came long after the Kennedy assassination,
and that the original TV series was supposed to be a fairly accurate
reflection of the period.

I can quite understand watching the funeral of some really major figure,
and possibly even sending flowers, although I think signed condolence
books in embassies is more common and less messy.

Piling up the flowers in a public place just seems bizarre, and I don't
get the stuffed teddy bears at all. Some people seem to think stuffed
teddy bears are always a good gift, even if you don't know the person
who died or anyone in the family, they aren't public figures, and you're
just placing it on the side of the road anyway.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness

I thought that sort of thing came long after the Kennedy assassination,
and that the original TV series was supposed to be a fairly accurate
reflection of the period.
I can quite understand watching the funeral of some really major figure,
and possibly even sending flowers, although I think signed condolence
books in embassies is more common and less messy.
Piling up the flowers in a public place just seems bizarre, and I don't
get the stuffed teddy bears at all. Some people seem to think stuffed
teddy bears are always a good gift, even if you don't know the person
who died or anyone in the family, they aren't public figures, and you're
just placing it on the side of the road anyway.

I can even understand piling up flowers, but flowers still inside their
plastic wrappers? Worse, plastic flowers? What are these people on?

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0800, Robert Bannister

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness

I thought that sort of thing came long after the Kennedy assassination,
and that the original TV series was supposed to be a fairly accurate
reflection of the period.
I can quite understand watching the funeral of some really major figure,
and possibly even sending flowers, although I think signed condolence
books in embassies is more common and less messy.
Piling up the flowers in a public place just seems bizarre, and I don't
get the stuffed teddy bears at all. Some people seem to think stuffed
teddy bears are always a good gift, even if you don't know the person
who died or anyone in the family, they aren't public figures, and you're
just placing it on the side of the road anyway.

I can even understand piling up flowers, but flowers still inside their
plastic wrappers? Worse, plastic flowers? What are these people on?

I've been puzzling over that since the mass-outpourings of flowers
following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

The first thing to bear in mind is that people copy one another.
Particularly in that type of situation people look to see what others
have done -- "What is the custom?".

Secondly, one way to think of the the flowers is as a form of gift to
the deceased. The flowers are therefore gift-wrapped. They typically
have a message attached.

Plastic flowers? I would hesitate to use them for this purpose, but they
do have the advantage that they do not decay within a few days.[1]

Following Diana's death people spontaneously put flowers in her memory
in public places in towns and cities all over the UK. I looked at those
outside City Hall, Belfast, and read some of the messages. They came
from people all over the city. Some flowers were lying on the
pavement/footpath/sidewalk others were attache to the ornamental iron
railings. Not all of the flowers were wrapped in paper. Some were in
cylindrical or conical vases which the givers had attached to the
railings.[1]

This how it looked when I was there (6th image down):

http://www.cartania.com/ireland/ireland.html

[1] It was reported in a local newspaper that the best of the flowers
would given to residential homes and that "compost made from the
remaining bouquets will be used to create a special Princess Diana rose
bed in the city's International Rose Gardens".
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61151827.html

The International Rose Garden is not a city-centre affair. It is 11
acres of rose beds in 128 acres of undulating parkland in the rural
outskirts of the city with reportedly 45,000 rose bushes.

[Cheryl]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness

I thought that sort of thing came long after the Kennedy assassination,
and that the original TV series was supposed to be a fairly accurate
reflection of the period.
I can quite understand watching the funeral of some really major figure,
and possibly even sending flowers, although I think signed condolence
books in embassies is more common and less messy.
Piling up the flowers in a public place just seems bizarre, and I don't
get the stuffed teddy bears at all. Some people seem to think stuffed
teddy bears are always a good gift, even if you don't know the person
who died or anyone in the family, they aren't public figures, and you're
just placing it on the side of the road anyway.

I can even understand piling up flowers, but flowers still inside their
plastic wrappers? Worse, plastic flowers? What are these people on?

Apparently, in the case of Amy Winehouse, some people are leaving
cigarettes and bottles of vodka.

That reminds me of a story that was going the rounds about a local thug
who died violently, as so many of them do. His friends held what was
apparently a rather wild wake, and placed bottles of his favourite
beverages in the coffin.

Supposedly, they were buried with him, and his friends, when sober,
remembered all this and dug them and him up rather than waste the booze.
I've always thought that last bit must surely have been an exaggeration,
since neither leaving the booze to be buried nor managing to dig it up
undetected sounds very plausible.

[Frank S]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness

I thought that sort of thing came long after the Kennedy assassination,
and that the original TV series was supposed to be a fairly accurate
reflection of the period.
I can quite understand watching the funeral of some really major figure,
and possibly even sending flowers, although I think signed condolence
books in embassies is more common and less messy.
Piling up the flowers in a public place just seems bizarre, and I don't
get the stuffed teddy bears at all. Some people seem to think stuffed
teddy bears are always a good gift, even if you don't know the person
who died or anyone in the family, they aren't public figures, and you're
just placing it on the side of the road anyway.

I can even understand piling up flowers, but flowers still inside their
plastic wrappers? Worse, plastic flowers? What are these people on?

Probably "on" a sincere need to say or do something appropriate to the
feelings the incident inspired.

In Puerto Rico in the 1950s there was a memorial at each traffic-death site
alongside the highway between San Juan and Aguadilla. One or more of the
vehicles was left at the edge of the jungle, with the number of victims
painted large: "7 muertos", for instance.

In the early 1960s I drove the highway through Rumarosa, east of Tijuana, at
night. Part of the road was a steep, twisty set of switchbacks. At many of
them there was a memorial with flowers, crosses, and candles flickering in
their glasses. I'd estimate at least two dozen such sites. With the candles
lit. Almost all of them.

The flower-pile as a tribute to deceasature happens around here every week.
As the TV reader of the "news" story begins to tell of it, I start counting,
and it's been seldom they go on for more than five seconds before the phrase
"makeshift memorial" triggers my channel-changing response. Click.

[Cheryl]

Post by Frank S
Probably "on" a sincere need to say or do something appropriate to the
feelings the incident inspired.
In Puerto Rico in the 1950s there was a memorial at each traffic-death
site alongside the highway between San Juan and Aguadilla. One or more
of the vehicles was left at the edge of the jungle, with the number of
victims painted large: "7 muertos", for instance.
In the early 1960s I drove the highway through Rumarosa, east of
Tijuana, at night. Part of the road was a steep, twisty set of
switchbacks. At many of them there was a memorial with flowers, crosses,
and candles flickering in their glasses. I'd estimate at least two dozen
such sites. With the candles lit. Almost all of them.

I've always thought that tradition began somewhere in south or central
America and started moving north. You even see it this far north
sometimes, although they (friends? family?) usually prefer to erect a
cross than to leave the vehicles or a list of fatalities. Or candles,
for that matter, but we do have a wet and windy climate. Some type of
cross with names and perhaps flowers (if it hasn't been long since the
tragedy) is more typical. There are some local rules restricting posts,
structures, notices, etc., that are permitted along the highways which
may restrict the adoption of the roadside memorial custom.

Post by Frank S
The flower-pile as a tribute to deceasature happens around here every
week. As the TV reader of the "news" story begins to tell of it, I start
counting, and it's been seldom they go on for more than five seconds
before the phrase "makeshift memorial" triggers my channel-changing
response. Click.

Yes, is happens in Canada for local deaths, too.

[tony cooper]

Post by Frank S

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In this case it seemed another case of popular hysteria as described
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness

I thought that sort of thing came long after the Kennedy assassination,
and that the original TV series was supposed to be a fairly accurate
reflection of the period.
I can quite understand watching the funeral of some really major figure,
and possibly even sending flowers, although I think signed condolence
books in embassies is more common and less messy.
Piling up the flowers in a public place just seems bizarre, and I don't
get the stuffed teddy bears at all. Some people seem to think stuffed
teddy bears are always a good gift, even if you don't know the person
who died or anyone in the family, they aren't public figures, and you're
just placing it on the side of the road anyway.

I can even understand piling up flowers, but flowers still inside their
plastic wrappers? Worse, plastic flowers? What are these people on?

Probably "on" a sincere need to say or do something appropriate to the
feelings the incident inspired.

Those roadside markers become trashy-looking soon. There's a traffic
judge here in Orlando that hands out community service sentences
requiring offenders to spend a certain amount of time cleaning up
these sites, photographing them, and writing an essay on the effect of
the deaths represented on the remaining family.

[Mike Lyle]

[...]

Post by Frank S

Post by Robert Bannister
I can even understand piling up flowers, but flowers still inside their
plastic wrappers? Worse, plastic flowers? What are these people on?

Probably "on" a sincere need to say or do something appropriate to the
feelings the incident inspired.

But in the case of dead public figures, I think the feelings are
mostly bogus: an infection of hysteria. The small Welsh town down the
road from us hired coaches simply to see the flowers for Princess
Diana...and you can't see the damn things anyway because, as Rob says,
they leave the wrappers on.

Post by Frank S
In Puerto Rico in the 1950s there was a memorial at each traffic-death site
alongside the highway between San Juan and Aguadilla. One or more of the
vehicles was left at the edge of the jungle, with the number of victims
painted large: "7 muertos", for instance.

[...]

It took a Romanian couple to be arrested helping themselves to flowers
from the Princess Diana pile outside Buck House. I wonder if Amy
Winehouse's fags and booze will be accorded the same respect by the
natives. (Gods, what fools these mortals be!)

[R H Draney]

Post by Mike Lyle
It took a Romanian couple to be arrested helping themselves to flowers
from the Princess Diana pile outside Buck House. I wonder if Amy
Winehouse's fags and booze will be accorded the same respect by the
natives. (Gods, what fools these mortals be!)

It's generally conceded that the funerary offerings of rice at Buddhist
memorials will ultimately be eaten by birds and/or mice rather than by the gods
and/or ancestors they're officially meant for....r

[Peter Moylan]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Mike Lyle
It took a Romanian couple to be arrested helping themselves to
flowers from the Princess Diana pile outside Buck House. I wonder
if Amy Winehouse's fags and booze will be accorded the same respect
by the natives. (Gods, what fools these mortals be!)

It's generally conceded that the funerary offerings of rice at
Buddhist memorials will ultimately be eaten by birds and/or mice
rather than by the gods and/or ancestors they're officially meant
for....r

Who can say who the birds and mice were in their previous incarnation?

[R H Draney]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by R H Draney
It's generally conceded that the funerary offerings of rice at
Buddhist memorials will ultimately be eaten by birds and/or mice
rather than by the gods and/or ancestors they're officially meant
for....r

Who can say who the birds and mice were in their previous incarnation?

They were fish: http://sylvar.livejournal.com/481244.html

....r

[Peter Brooks]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Mike Lyle
It took a Romanian couple to be arrested helping themselves to flowers
from the Princess Diana pile outside Buck House. I wonder if Amy
Winehouse's fags and booze will be accorded the same respect by the
natives. (Gods, what fools these mortals be!)

It's generally conceded that the funerary offerings of rice at Buddhist
memorials will ultimately be eaten by birds and/or mice rather than by the gods
and/or ancestors they're officially meant for....r

Sacrifices are usually eaten by the priests - it's one of the perks of
the job. It'd be a pity to waste.

[John Varela]

Post by Frank S
In Puerto Rico in the 1950s there was a memorial at each traffic-death site
alongside the highway between San Juan and Aguadilla. One or more of the
vehicles was left at the edge of the jungle, with the number of victims
painted large: "7 muertos", for instance.

Those memorials are more accurately termed "cenotaphs". When
crossing the mountains on highway 82 in Greece I tried counting them
but lost interest at around 140.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess Di's
provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps "idol", rather
than "god"?

[R H Draney]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl
I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess Di's
provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps "idol", rather
than "god"?

It's hard to say exactly what archetype was invoked as we watched him sailing
off to Avalon....r

[John Varela]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl
I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess Di's
provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps "idol", rather
than "god"?

It's hard to say exactly what archetype was invoked as we watched him sailing
off to Avalon....r

Theseus departing Crete?

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess Di's
provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps "idol", rather
than "god"?

Aren't idols gods? Or demi-gods at least?

[CDB]

[state religion and I really mean it]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the
deity - I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear
that everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of
a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that
sounds a bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination,
and it never occured to me that it, or the coverage of it
emanating from south of the border, resembled that of the death
of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess
Di's provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps
"idol", rather than "god"?

Aren't idols gods? Or demi-gods at least?

Only pictures. I was dozing through some childhood memories the other
day, and came on one from my Paris jardin d'enfants, c. 1947: we were
learning to read from the blackboard, and the sentence assigned was
"Voici une pipe" (as I remember it) or possibly "Ceci est une pipe".
If that was a widespread pedagogic trope, it would go some way towards
explaining Magritte's choice of subject.

[LFS]

Post by CDB
[state religion and I really mean it]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the
deity - I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear
that everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of
a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that
sounds a bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination,
and it never occured to me that it, or the coverage of it
emanating from south of the border, resembled that of the death
of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess
Di's provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps
"idol", rather than "god"?

Aren't idols gods? Or demi-gods at least?

Only pictures. I was dozing through some childhood memories the other
day, and came on one from my Paris jardin d'enfants, c. 1947: we were
learning to read from the blackboard, and the sentence assigned was
"Voici une pipe" (as I remember it) or possibly "Ceci est une pipe".
If that was a widespread pedagogic trope, it would go some way towards
explaining Magritte's choice of subject.

Ah, you've reminded me that somewhere I have a translation of Foucault's
essay "This is not a pipe". As you might expect, Foucault provides some
rather more complex speculations on this, one of which IIRC relates to a
slang expression "Le nom d'un pipe", the meaning of which I can no
longer recall.

[CDB]

Post by LFS

Post by CDB
[state religion and I really mean it]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the
deity - I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered
the assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite
clear that everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the
death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that
sounds a bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination,
and it never occured to me that it, or the coverage of it
emanating from south of the border, resembled that of the death
of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess
Di's provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps
"idol", rather than "god"?

Aren't idols gods? Or demi-gods at least?

Only pictures. I was dozing through some childhood memories the
other day, and came on one from my Paris jardin d'enfants, c.
1947: we were learning to read from the blackboard, and the
sentence assigned was "Voici une pipe" (as I remember it) or
possibly "Ceci est une pipe".
If that was a widespread pedagogic trope, it would go some way
towards explaining Magritte's choice of subject.

Ah, you've reminded me that somewhere I have a translation of
Foucault's essay "This is not a pipe". As you might expect,
Foucault provides some rather more complex speculations on this,
one of which IIRC relates to a slang expression "Le nom d'un pipe",
the meaning of which I can no longer recall.

I have heard it used anarthrous as an avoidance of "Nom de Dieu!" I
must try to get hold of that essay; thanks.
O, ma pipe. I think I have found the part you mentioned, online, and
it looks like too much mouth music for one no longer to be compelled.
Campbell, Campbell, Campbell [1].
http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.thisIsNotaPipe.en.html
[1] More mouths and more pipes.

[Bernard Cordier]

Post by LFS

Post by CDB
[state religion and I really mean it]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the
deity - I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear
that everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of
a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that
sounds a bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination,
and it never occured to me that it, or the coverage of it
emanating from south of the border, resembled that of the death
of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess
Di's provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps
"idol", rather than "god"?

Aren't idols gods? Or demi-gods at least?

Only pictures. I was dozing through some childhood memories the other
day, and came on one from my Paris jardin d'enfants, c. 1947: we were
learning to read from the blackboard, and the sentence assigned was
"Voici une pipe" (as I remember it) or possibly "Ceci est une pipe".
If that was a widespread pedagogic trope, it would go some way towards
explaining Magritte's choice of subject.

Ah, you've reminded me that somewhere I have a translation of Foucault's
essay "This is not a pipe". As you might expect, Foucault provides some
rather more complex speculations on this, one of which IIRC relates to a
slang expression "Le nom d'un pipe", the meaning of which I can no
longer recall.

"Nom d'une pipe !" actually. It's a very mild general exclamation, used
to avoid "Nom de Dieu !" as CDB mentionned it. It's quite old-fashioned
and not really in use nowadays. Today's exclamations are much more crude
as you can imagine.

[Bernard Cordier]

Post by LFS

Post by CDB
[state religion and I really mean it]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the
deity - I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear
that everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of
a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that
sounds a bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination,
and it never occured to me that it, or the coverage of it
emanating from south of the border, resembled that of the death
of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess
Di's provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps
"idol", rather than "god"?

Aren't idols gods? Or demi-gods at least?

Only pictures. I was dozing through some childhood memories the other
day, and came on one from my Paris jardin d'enfants, c. 1947: we were
learning to read from the blackboard, and the sentence assigned was
"Voici une pipe" (as I remember it) or possibly "Ceci est une pipe".
If that was a widespread pedagogic trope, it would go some way towards
explaining Magritte's choice of subject.

Ah, you've reminded me that somewhere I have a translation of Foucault's
essay "This is not a pipe". As you might expect, Foucault provides some
rather more complex speculations on this, one of which IIRC relates to a
slang expression "Le nom d'un pipe", the meaning of which I can no
longer recall.

"Nom d'une pipe !" actually. It's a very mild general exclamation, used
to avoid "Nom de Dieu !" as CDB mentionned it. It's quite old-fashioned
and not really in use nowadays. Today's exclamations are much more crude
as you can imagine.

[Cheryl]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Robert Bannister
Is there really a difference? In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

I think not. In all these cases the religion of nationalism or
patriotism was (as in Nazi Germany), the actual religion.
In a lot of nationalist theocracies, the glorious leader is the deity
- I watched 'Mad Men' the other evening and it covered the
assassination of John Kennedy in a way that made it quite clear that
everybody there (bizarrely for me!) saw it as the death of a god.

I might have to try to find and watch the episode, just out of
curiousity since the series doesn't appeal to me, because that sounds a
bit odd. I mean, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and it never
occured to me that it, or the coverage of it emanating from south of the
border, resembled that of the death of a god.

I'm not sure about the god bit, but Kennedy's death like Princess Di's
provoked a response way over the expected one - perhaps "idol", rather
than "god"?

It didn't strike me that way - that is, I thought the reaction to
Princess Di's death exaggerated but not that to Kennedy's. Then again,
Kennedy was president, and of a nuclear power (I was picking up all
kinds of dire warnings about how we were all going to die in a nuclear
holocaust any day now), and Diana merely the wife of someone who would
probably eventually become a constitutional monarch.

I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

What, personally? Kennedy went out and shot him down?

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

What, personally? Kennedy went out and shot him down?

If he'd wanted to be a small-time serial killer he'd have done that -
but people don't get involved in serious politics for that, to be a
big-time, seriously effective serial killer, you need to get other
people to do the job.

Do you think that Phony Tony could have managed those kill rates if
he'd personally gone out to shoot Iraqis and Afghanies by hand??

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

What, personally? Kennedy went out and shot him down?

If he'd wanted to be a small-time serial killer he'd have done that -
but people don't get involved in serious politics for that, to be a
big-time, seriously effective serial killer, you need to get other
people to do the job.
Do you think that Phony Tony could have managed those kill rates if
he'd personally gone out to shoot Iraqis and Afghanies by hand??

I think we did this argument recently, so there's not much point in
going over it again, although since it is on the appropriate definition
and usage of English words, it is on topic.

Maybe someone else will oblige.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

What, personally? Kennedy went out and shot him down?

If he'd wanted to be a small-time serial killer he'd have done that -
but people don't get involved in serious politics for that, to be a
big-time, seriously effective serial killer, you need to get other
people to do the job.
Do you think that Phony Tony could have managed those kill rates if
he'd personally gone out to shoot Iraqis and Afghanies by hand??

I think we did this argument recently, so there's not much point in
going over it again, although since it is on the appropriate definition
and usage of English words, it is on topic.
Maybe someone else will oblige.

I know a lot of people will claim that they 'built their house' -
when, actually, they paid an architect and builders to do it, and the
architect was toady enough to say it was their idea. So, in this
sense, it's clearly wrong to say that they 'built it'.

However, if you actually design a house and then supervise the
construction without an architect, then I think you can, correctly,
say that you've built it - though some would disagree and say that you
can only make the claim if you personally dug every spadeful of
foundation, laid every brick etc. etc. I'd say that, if you believe
that, then you should also insist that you made the bricks, mined the
copper and designed the wall sockets.

The drongo who actually killed the President of Vietnam was simply a
paid killer, an assassin, and, in court, you don't actually get away
with it if you claim that you didn't land the killing blow - paying
for the assassin and sending him to do the deed makes you the killer.
So it is with JFK. If you declare and take part in an illegal war,
then any claim that you're not a serial killer because

[Peter Brooks]

On Jul 26, 3:57 pm, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:

The drongo who actually killed the President of Vietnam was simply a
paid killer, an assassin, and, in court, you don't actually get away
with it if you claim that you didn't land the killing blow - paying
for the assassin and sending him to do the deed makes you the killer.
So it is with JFK. If you declare and take part in an illegal war,
then any claim that you're not a serial killer because you can hide
behind the skirts of the government is lost - if you've given illegal
instructions to killers who have then killed people, then you're a
serial killer...

[ sorry - cut short by the browser for some reason...]

[John Varela]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

What, personally? Kennedy went out and shot him down?

As I recall, Kennedy assented to the betrayal and overthrow of Ngo
Dinh Diem but not the murder.

[Jared]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

What, personally? Kennedy went out and shot him down?

I think we're talking about this guy:

"Amid religious protests that garnered worldwide attention, [Ngo Dinh]
Diệm lost the backing of his U.S. patrons and was assassinated by Nguyen
Van Nhung, the aide of ARVN General Duong Van Minh on November 2, 1963,
during a coup d'état that deposed his government."

It appears from what I was able to find in a few minutes that the U.S.
did not assassinate him or intend for him to be assassinated. [1]

[1] http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm

However, the involvement of the Kennedy administration in the coup is
presumably the reason for the accusation.

[Cheryl]

Post by Jared

Post by Cheryl

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Cheryl
I don't think there had been a lot of recent assasinations of leaders of
countries, either, at the time of Kennedy's murder, so to me, too young
to remember earlier incidents, it was the first time it hit home that
powerful leaders could be killed so easily.

Part of the joke, the irony, was that JFK had assassinated the
President of South Vietnam shortly before hand - a space cadet might
find karma coming to mind...

What, personally? Kennedy went out and shot him down?

"Amid religious protests that garnered worldwide attention, [Ngo Dinh]
Diệm lost the backing of his U.S. patrons and was assassinated by Nguyen
Van Nhung, the aide of ARVN General Duong Van Minh on November 2, 1963,
during a coup d'état that deposed his government."
It appears from what I was able to find in a few minutes that the U.S.
did not assassinate him or intend for him to be assassinated. [1]
[1] http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm
However, the involvement of the Kennedy administration in the coup is
presumably the reason for the accusation.

Oh, I got all that. I just disliked the loose language usage. Kennedy
didn't commit the assasination and probably didn't directly order it.
And if he had, terms used for the criminal and insane are generally
applied to political figures for rhetorical effect, not to communicate
accurate information.

[Nieckq]

"Robert Bannister"
....

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Nieckq
OK, but _what_could the word "belief" mean here?
A. religion.
B. any philosophocal, political, social or religious conviction.

Is there really a difference?

Yes.

Post by Robert Bannister
In the former Soviet Union, the idea of
communism effectively replaced religion for many for a long time. In
some countries, the belief that making a lot of money is the purpose of
life does much the same thing.

We - you and I - do not live in the Soviet Union.

[Skitt]

"Robert Bannister" ....

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Nieckq
OK, but _what_could the word "belief" mean here?
A. religion.
B. any philosophocal, political, social or religious conviction.

Is there really a difference?

Yes.

Post by Robert Bannister
In the former Soviet Union, the idea of communism effectively replaced
religion for many for a long time. In some countries, the belief that
making a lot of money is the purpose of life does much the same thing.

We - you and I - do not live in the Soviet Union.

But I did.