This is a very welcome post. I read recently a description of the Catholic church as being "larger on the inside than on the outside." This Tardis concept goes for most isms.
Peter Sellick

Andrew- I hope that your insightful article starts a discourse on OLO that goes beyond the depressing sterility of the battle of the -isms. Unfortunately, the online community seems to have no common basis of thinking or feeling to use as foundation. Motivations seem to range from sincere inquiry to downright vandalism and cyber-bullying. How does one start to find a common basis with someone whose immediate response to informed opinion is to sling insults and revert to non sequiturs?

We seem to be torn between advocating an open-ness and inclusiveness that is at the edge of chaos or retreating into solipsistic in-groups that share our prejudices but are ultimately destroy both spirit and body.

Given this dilemma and the primitive state of our collective consciousness, I advocate that OLO takes a firm hand in filtering comments. The only filter that is required is that the contributions are substantially INFORMED opinion- that is,they are based on knowledge (justified true belief)rather than unsubstantiated insults, allegations and innuendo.

Now that's a challenge to all of us, isn't it?

This article is a welcome relief.
I echo the sentiments that the standard of debate (a very loose term in this context) needs to rise on OLO. The problem is Jedimaster, who is to who is to mediate?
Is there anyone who can claim to free enough of bias to be able to judge what is 'fair comment' and what is 'substantially INFORMED opinion'. I would not like to be the one to decide on what was to be allowed and what was not.
If we could do away with isms it would be a step in the right direction. Maybe some guidelines on valid and fallacious argument might also help.
There are many who do not seem to be able to accept that anyone has any right to any idea or opinion that does not fit into their particular ism. Someone might have a different idea or view on life, but that does not make them idiots or unworthy of having a view.
I find it hard work and frustrating trying to sort out who has something to contribute and those who just want to tear down, insult and abuse.
One of the hard things is that sometimes amongst the abuse of the post there is a small glimmer of hope that the writer has something to say. It is hard not to just reject a post just because of the name on the bottom.
It is indeed a challenge.
In the mean time I hope this article is read by all and the points taken on board.

Andrew makes some very good points. If we are offering opinions (it is impossible to debate online) some issues hit buttons and bring out the passion and poison in people. I will be the first to admit that my views are more tempered when speaking face to face with people. On the same token I have not experienced the same abuse face to face as I have on line. Which view is more honest?

I think our 'isms' do matter. Our isms should not stop us from living in harmony. I think even Boaz and Col have a drink together. We are probably mild compared to the debates in {Parliament).

The rise of Pauline Hanson was due to pc gone mad. By and large the media (dare i say secular) would label someone racist for expressing a different view. Many make out that either the left or right of politics have a mortgage on compassion which of course is a fallacy. Sure strong bias come through. Even some who are obviously highly educated are dumb enough to have opinions like Bush/Howard -bad, stupid etc Obama.Rudd -good. intelligent.

You might raise standards by censorship but you will prevent people from expressing what is in their hearts

This is good up to a point.

Unfortunately it reduces religion and by extension all of culture to a naive well meaning meat-body humanism.

Here we are altogether and aint life wonderful--utopia is just around the corner.

Profound questions and profound doings become almost impossible.

We have all been propaganized by the reductionist "culture" in which we live into making the assumption that we ARE the body, or hence by extension,that the physical universe is all there is. The presumption that we are the body seems obvious to us because we have been propagandized into it by all of our social media, beginning with mom and dad, as a method of survival in the context of bodily existence.

It is really a very naive and primitive presumption.

What could be more naive than identifying with the body, and by extension gross matter, only?
What could be less sophisticated?
Less intelligent?

We thus scratch our heads,or perhaps believe in "jesus" (which is now just another consoling consumerist icon/image), and wonder why there is so much suffering and that everything about our collective social condition seems to be getting worse and worse--which it is.

http://www.dabase.org/broken.htm

Plus Right Human Life and Materialist "Culture"

http://www.aboutadidam.org/newsletters/toc-february2004.html

It's all a bit... well, candy-floss, isn't it?

Anxious platitude follows reassuring banality with the regularity of a dripping tap.

"We hold our beliefs because they make sense of our experiences, and provide frameworks for organising them. They help us make decisions."

We also have regular meals because our bodies need nourishment, and mealtimes provide a framework for organising them. They help us stay alive.

I am sure we could unearth other equally staggering insights if we tried.

"In the end, I find that aspiration and adherence to values like respect, patience, compassion, justice, gentleness, and openness are much more accurate predictors of the person"

...than "isms"? Really? You do surprise me.

Breakthrough stuff, this.

Jedimaster kindly illustrates the article's crystalline pointlessness with his observation:

>>We seem to be torn between advocating an open-ness and inclusiveness that is at the edge of chaos or retreating into solipsistic in-groups that share our prejudices but are ultimately destroy both spirit and body<<

Yup. I think that has captured the rhythm nicely.

I particularly like the idea of "inclusiveness that is at the edge of chaos". Elegantly meaningless.

And all leading up to...

>>I advocate that OLO takes a firm hand in filtering comments. The only filter that is required is that the contributions are substantially INFORMED opinion- that is,they are based on knowledge (justified true belief)rather than unsubstantiated insults, allegations and innuendo.<<

How do you feel about "substantiated" insults, Jedimaster?

This is a much nicer article to add to the usual religious debates. Thank you Andrew.

I would only add one small nitpick to the comment you made in reference to "Churches have practical atheists, who say they believe in God, but show no change in behaviour." Atheists who already feel they contribute positively to society and who already act with compassion may not feel the need to change their behaviour.

We are all influenced by "isms" which have been formed from the time we are born and our experiences from childhood are very strong in helping to form the adults we become.

Lets face it most of us seek the same things. A good and satisfying life, to be treated with respect/to treat others with respect and to do no harm.

It is a shame the "isms" sometimes work in opposition to those needs. Particularly considering each "ism" in its own right seeks in some way to achieve the same end. We seem to spend more time debating the validity of our "ism" over another that we forget the ultimate goal.

In real life the truth is that "isms" mean much less than on an opinion forum where we don't have the benefit of knowing a person or seeing facial expressions or body language. Sometimes the written word can be unintentionally misleading and then the passions flow.

Can a world with such a variety of "isms" ever be harmonious? Will the need to be right always win over the need to do right?

Pericles
I see you are at it again.

Dear Pericles
Thank you for your contribution, which, I consider, illustrates the point I am trying to make.

You have, without reference to anything other than your own prejudice, insulted both Andrew and me. Can't you find a civil way of expressing yourself? Just repeating my statement and then heaping abuse on it is not what passes for intelligence. If you don't understand something, why not inquire with the author, or others, as to what it might mean. Maybe I haven't expressed myself with sufficient clarity, maybe you can't understand such things. We will only find out from civil discourse.
FYI, "open-ness and inclusiveness that is at the at the edge of chaos"
refers to including so much diversity that any chance of order or meaning is lost.

Yes, substantiated insults are possible: It's what judges do every day to felons eg "the evidence has demonstrated that you are the worst felon that I have had to deal with".

Some of us are trying to expand our minds and make sense of the world. Opinion can be many things, but in my case, I like to think of informed opinion being the conjectural growing edge of knowledge. It is partly speculation and hypothesis but constrained by what is already known. It's working within the paradigm of reason, but with scope for imagination.

In conclusion, I'd commend to you the Wikipedia site of your Athenian namesake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles), with the hope that if I don't make any sense to you, then he might.

I think the author and most of his respondents have demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of the nature of the internet, its denizens and their motivations.

Don't ask me to explain or elaborate on that statement (or post) because, as with most things on the internet, if you don't understand it or agree with it, then I am not likely to either explain it to you nor change your mind about it and thus it will waste all of our time. And if you agree with it, then you already think you know what it means and you don't need to waste your time telling me because I don't need your validation (but many others do, so go waste your time on them).

The ability to comment on articles effortlessly and have people read what you write seems like a great idea in theory doesn't it? The reality is that the vast majority of it is complete dross and should never be bothered to have been read, let alone taken seriously. Some people understand this and use the internet for entertainment purposes only instead of continually whining on why can't we make the online 'community' a nicer place, where logic and reason rule and insults are rare? Grow up, nobody's listening because your opinions are retarded.

If you think you are going to "expand your horizons" on internet opinion sites, then please send me your bank account details and I'll deposit some money and give you some valuable information that will expand your horizons.

It's a great pleasure, Jedimaster.

>>Dear Pericles Thank you for your contribution, which, I consider, illustrates the point I am trying to make.<<

I aim to please.

>>You have, without reference to anything other than your own prejudice, insulted both Andrew and me. <<

Hardly.

I referred almost exclusively to your contributions.

Oh, hi Daviy.

>>Pericles I see you are at it again.<<

Yep. Fun, isn't it?

Someone burbles a lot of trite pseudo-intellectual stuff, and I have a quiet chuckle.

Someone else strings together a bunch of clever-sounding words ("open-ness and inclusiveness that is at the at the edge of chaos") and I have a fit of the giggles. Especially since openness is not hyphenated, and the verb should really be plural.

Sort of... punctures its own self-importance, if you see what I mean.

But since we clearly both get something from the transaction, it's all quite symbiotic, I guess.

Bugsy,

'If you think you are going to "expand your horizons" on internet opinion sites, then please send me your bank account details and I'll deposit some money and give you some valuable information that will expand your horizons.'

Amen.

Pericles,

'Someone burbles a lot of trite pseudo-intellectual stuff, and I have a quiet chuckle.'

And I have belly laugh.

Jedimaster,

'Just repeating my statement and then heaping abuse on it is not what passes for intelligence.'

Of course not. But it passes for entertainment. Besides, your comments begged the response they were given. Lighten up man.

I am reflexively wary of all “isms” as the declaration that “I am a Xist” or “I am a follower of Xism” usually denotes a mind that is closed to discourse that might shake their faith. Of course this is understandable if that person considers that life is likely to be more viable or livable with a limited amount of information than it would be with a larger amount that they consider they can’t process. So be it.

But of all the “isms” of which I am wary, cynicism is the most troubling. At least religions have some elaborated, if not limited intellectual structure, and aim to give hope to their followers. Atheism, similarly is a fervent “belief” in the power of rationality. But cynicism is nothing more than a vacuous and reflexive doubting- not the doubting of skepticism, which queries the data, but a corrosive doubting of the motives, integrity and morality of the person seeking knowledge.

Cynicism, to me is not just intellectual laziness, but an inadequately developed sense of civility.

And most cynics say that they are just being humorous and that others should “lighten up.

One persons cynicism is another persons realism.

The thing about cynicism is that as an attitude, it isn't ever really formed as an a priori position, but tends to be developed from contact with the 'real world' and the people and motives that are found within it. It's not laziness, but self-defence. And it often works.

Lighten up man.

Bugsy
The internet is a medium. That is all. It does not have a nature. It is used by different people for different purposes. Because some use it for paedophilia and other debauched purposes does not mean the internet is debauched.
Of course much of it will be complete dross. Of course there will be some like Pericles who will use the internet only as an instrument of insult and abuse.
But that does not mean that everyone or everything on the net is dross.
I have become a multi-millionaire three times this week on online lotteries I never entered and have received five offers of several millions of dollars to help a poor young woman whose father has died suddenly leaving vast amounts of money that needs to be moved from one place to another. But that does not mean everything is a con?
As a writer I have found OLO a very useful forum to test ideas and have often modified concepts from the valuable input of other participants. Even Pericles has proved useful at times in helping me find out what sort of objections and abuse a totally negative imbecile can come up with.
O dear. That was a judgment. Forgive me Father for I have sinned.
If there are those who wish to have a corner of this vast net where there can be open and constructive debate on issues that interest them there is no reason why they cannot, even if there is a lot of dross and insults intermingled that needs to be ignored.
Becoming aware of a person's performance in debates is a learning curve. Now that I have learnt that any post with 'Pericles' on the bottom will be a waste of space I can ignore them.
It is more than a waste of space. With only 2 posts in 24 hours it is counter productive to reply when there may be other posts worth responding to.
Anyone who insists on telling others what they can and cannot do only end up telling the world of their own limitations

Ah Jedi master, you really need to lighten up. Come on down off that horse and join in the fun. I think you belong in the smh letters section. I'm always wary of people who use the word 'vacuous'. Just add in 'rhetoric', 'de-riguer', and 'beggars belief', and you have a prime example of a pompous, pretentious ....

I'd rather the musings of a cynic than the pontifications of a pseudo-intellectual any day.

<<The internet is a medium. That is all. It does not have a nature. >>

the medium is the message.

I have a suggestion.
How about we ask OLO to provide two comment streams for each article? One for the group who want to discuss the issues raised in the article, and the other for the playschool group? Maybe we could have double the posts, half for each group.
That way I could stay with what was going in the discussion group and if I felt like crapping on Pericles or Houellebecq just for fun once in a while I could do it in the sandpit. Not too often because it would be too easy. I prefer a challenge.
All sorts of possibilities there.
I have an alcoholic ex-wife who used to say 'lighten up' whenever she was being particularly obnoxious, but I will admit she had a degree of wit and was sometimes even genuinely funny. This was a small saving grace I have yet to observe in Pericles and the others, although there are times I have a suspicion that Pericles may related to her. She did have lots of odd ball relatives (most of them illegitimate). Her grandfather got around a bit when he wasn't passed out on the public bar floor. Runs in the family.
Placing 'pseudo' in front of words has become such a cliché of reverse snobbery. It went out with cloth caps and smelly pipes. Isn't there at least some way you can get some originality into you insults?
I think what pisses me off about your inane posts are that they are so boring. This is a cardinal sin to me because I hate being bored when I am supposed to be having fun. That of course coupled with I do not like being reminded of my ex-wife.
A sandpit group would overcome that. You could all 'play and have fun' whilst I got on with what I wanted to do without being continually interrupted by you infantile presence.

I thank you Daviy for providing an excellent example of what I was writing about. As an 'author' you must surely be aware that words have several meanings, and that various forms of media do have a 'nature' in one or more of those meanings. Eg., we can talk about the 'nature of television', or any other form of communication (or media if you like) without it being totally meaningless. Now I have just wasted my time trying to explain this to you, and yours for reading it, because you will not listen or take this on board, thus is the 'nature of the internet'. But I can certainly take your point about how comments from the online community have been useful in changing (perhaps improving?) your writing somewhat, since after reading some of your earlier stuff, I daresay you needed it.

Also as an author, you must surely be aware of not just the meaning of the word 'irony', but that your last post was an excellent example of it. Lamenting peoples infantile presence interrupting what you had to do by indulging in an even more infantile rant about sandpits and how you married an alcoholic etc. is just pure gold. You truly have very little understanding of the internet if you believe it's medium and 'that is all'.

I LOL'd.

I hadn't realised that you are an "author", Daviy.

Could this be the reason you believe that your theories and views should be automatically gravely revered, as opposed to being held up to the light and examined critically?

>>I echo the sentiments that the standard of debate (a very loose term in this context) needs to rise on OLO. The problem is Jedimaster, who is to who is to mediate?<<

Very owlish, that "who is to who".

Fits well with the pompous tone, though.

I suspect that I am actually doing more than most for the cause of standards-raising, when I occasionally poke fun at the smug verbal flatulence that some consider to constitute intellectual discourse.

If you wrote intelligently and argued thoughtfully, I would not need to resort to such tactics. But you hang a big sign on the back of your arguments that says "Kick Me" in big red letters.

And hey, I'm only human.

Pericles et al
My two previous provided you with the perfect opportunity to show that you could respond with wit and have fun. That is the excuse for your ongoing insults isn't it?
My ex wife (if she exists) was there to give you a lead in. There were all sorts of come-backs for that one, but you missed them. As a minimum I would have expected some suggestions as to why I married her in the first place.
You could look at the exchanges between Lady Nancy Astor and Winston Churchill if you need pointers as how it is done by a master.

Winston, you are drunk.
Nancy, you are ugly, in the morning I will be sober.

And

Winston, if you were my husband, I'd put poison in your coffee."
Nancy, if you were my wife I would take it.

The internet should be easier for you because you have time to work it out. Notice that Winston Churchill did not have to resort to using big words. With true wit big words are redundant. They get in the way.
Forget about decrying what happens 'when I occasionally poke fun at the smug verbal flatulence that some consider to constitute intellectual discourse.' And come back with something original instead of the same old words in a different order. Create the challenge of responding.
'Some consider to constitute intellectual discourse'? Who is being pompous here? 'Intellectual discourse' is a tautology because of the overlap in meanings. There are so many redundancies in your insults that they become meaningless. Try using little, focused words.
Looking back through your previous posts in this and other places it appears that there is a standard list of insults that you cut and past from. Something new please?
May I request that you write an article? Maybe it could be on the art of insulting? If you have already would you please let me know the title? It could be fun commenting on something you have written.
You want to have fun with words and ideas? OK. Show me you can do it.

Daviy, what an intriguing insight into your personality.

>>My two previous provided you with the perfect opportunity to show that you could respond with wit and have fun. That is the excuse for your ongoing insults isn't it? My ex wife (if she exists) was there to give you a lead in.<<

That is positively weird.

First of all, you have a very strange idea of what constitute "insults", if you believe that was what has been heading your way.

My observations have concentrated on the material of your contributions, which - it has to be admitted - provide enormous scope for humour. But the observations themselves would be insulting only if they were inaccurate.

But really. To pretend that you introduced a third party - an ex-wife, to boot, whom no ex-husband in their senses would ever volunteer as a target - with the objective of providing joke-fodder for your fellow-posters?

Come now. That simply is not credible.

Try to follow your own advice. Rather than simply spray, address the observations themselves.

They are quite specific, you know.

>>May I request that you write an article?<<

Ah, yes, but I'm not an "author".

How would I cope?

Does anyone have anything to say about ~isms anymore?

I'm ready to be slammed for saying this, but I find it interesting that the regular detractors are people who have nothing to contribute. They either don't get the article, or are so convinced of their own superiority that they don't feel the need to share their wisdom with us. They have everything to prove but nothing to gain by proving it.

As for the article, I enjoyed it. I don't think it was particularly earth-shattering, but it was a nice summary of ideas. What we are - or choose to be - gets in the way of who we are, and clouds our judgment. Sometimes we need articles like this to articulate ideas we have in our heads and help us to take a look at ourselves and others. Of course, not everyone wants or appreciates these articles, and that's their right.

otokonoko, i sort of agree. i didn't much like the article, though i appreciated the sentiment. and i kind of held back because of that. and i do think pericles was too harsh.

but i do also think it's way too easy to recite the let's-all-get-along thing. and it's not as simple as that those who recite this are the nice guys, and those who don't recite it are the combative guys. for instance, when i read sells-sellick's "this is a very welcome post", i choked on my cornflakes! but i did let it go (until now).

Andrew makes the observation that – Peoples stated philosophical and religious adherence may bear little relationship to their ability to work together or their common hopes for society.
This is true depending if their common hopes for society are the same as the other groups in society. But if they want to make society over to suit their favoured ism then sooner or later when they become powerful enough to do that their ability to work together with other non ism groups can descend into civil wars or acts of terrorism.

Andrew also states in this article – Perhaps our passions and aspirations, our deeply felt values are more truly us than the labels we wear.

This is really just another way of saying we are all human, the brotherhood of man kind of thing. While this also is true that as human beings our needs and the kind of life we wish for ourselves and our families is identical. The key word for conflict here is family, blood ties,tribes, we will do whatever it takes to make sure we have adequate control of the resources we and our bloodlines need to survive. As humans we also have that trait in common.