From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V5 #307 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Sunday, January 1 2006 Volume 05 : Number 307 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [chakram-refugees] Happy New Year to all [NZJester ] Re: [chakram-refugees] [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 01:08:29 +1300 From: NZJester Subject: [chakram-refugees] Happy New Year to all Happy New Year to all - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Catch ya later NZJester - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:28:25 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] On Saturday 31 December 2005 14:52, Laconia wrote: > No, this was a serious question. I have heard of a "religious" gene which > makes people more likely to get into organized religion. So I'm wondering > about any other innate factors that may contribute to religiosity, whether > it's moderate religiosity or fundamentalist religiosity. > > ***** Well, my 'flamebait' comment was not entirely facetious, and it could be taken on several levels - it could refer to the question, or the topic, or the fundamentalists themselves, or even my comment itself It is quite possible that there is a 'religious' gene - I suppose one could also call it a 'belief-in-something' gene. I suppose persons suffering** from it might equally strongly believe in, say, Marxism, or UFO's, or patriotism, or conspiracy theories... (** Though they usually manage to make others do most of the suffering) I guess it's most extreme manifestation is characterised by irrational belief in something, and out-of-proportion responses when that belief is questioned. (I am _not_ saying that everyone who believes in Marxism or religion etc is irrational...) I suspect it's possessed by a few in the Xena fandom, too. ('Fan' comes from 'fanatic', after all). The mailing list archives have some classic examples, I think, of quasi-religious denunciations of Rob Tapert, the great heretic, anytime he took the storyline in the 'wrong' direction. cr > > On Thursday 29 December 2005 13:16, Laconia wrote: > >> Very interesting. Speaking of free will and innate programming, what is > >> your opinion of people who are religious fundamentalists (of whatever > >> religion)? > >> > >> ***** > > > > Flamebait? > > > > cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:58:20 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] I > >>"The Greater Good" is a dangerous concept in general. The greater good > may be served, by restricting health care to older persons with chronic health > problems, to divert resources to infants and children. But the greater good > might be best served by denying health care to severely ill children who will > need care for the rest of their lives. It's hard to decide "the greatest good > for the greatest number"! > Thankfully none of use are in the position to make that decision. > I disagree. We make that decision when we have the opportunity to vote for people who will determine priorities for our tax money. We make it by choosing which charities to support as individuals. Sometimes we must make such choices about family members. To the extent that others make similar choices, it can influence a society's overall determination of who benefits from the "greater good" -- which does not necessarily equate with the most concrete or measurable (e.g., physical, financial) impact on the greatest number. I say "concrete" because some may see a more intangible benefit in terms of a society's values, how people think of and relate to each other, how good people feel about themselves, etc. What I liked about XWP was the main characters' willingness to take responsibility for their own actions, to assume leadership or serve as an example if they believed it necessary. They weren't always "right." There was always the probablilty someone else would see it as "wrong." However, whether the motive was self-interest or altruism, they didn't sit by while someone else was being harmed. Xena's notion of the "greater good" was not about affection, convenience or the "worth" of those in need. It wasn't even about the numbers of victims. If she sacrificed herself to save one life, she saw greater value in that than doing nothing. I fear that may have been overshadowed when she had to save 40,000 souls in the end. I don't think the "greater good" is a dangerous concept just because sometimes it means decisions that benefit/protect some people more than others. I think it becomes dangerous when we also accept great harm to others (even the most "innocent") as a "necessary evil" of the greater good. When the justification is that those others are "less than" in some way. When we demonize, diminish, dismiss them for the long term to establish/maintain the superior humanity, status or beliefs of someone else. Xena nearly did that with the Horde. It's what she recognized as the danger in Njara's "Light" and Caesar's imperial Rome. On a practical level, XWP didn't seem to treat the "greater good" as a constant, universal state. Xena generally considered people enemies or dangerously misguided in a particular context where they could do harm. The "greater good" she achieved in that context did not mean the "good" or "bad" guys would always be the same, or that the outcome would be a perfect, permament "good" for all time. In LEGACY, Gabrielle's death might've assuaged her own guilt and the need for vengeance. It might've saved the wrongly accused Roman soldier. It would've done nothing to improve the chances for prevailing against the Romans -- a greater good Xena promoted (manipulalted?) for both personal and altruistic reasons. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V5 #307 **************************************