MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Anglo-French Relations (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
People with a sense of nationhood seem to be very well aware of who they are and where they come from, but they aren't especially proud of it.

Let me guess....this applies to you.


My wife actually. She is German. She is very VERY well aware of her nationality but isn't terribly proud of it. She feels this, like so many other Germans, so strongly that I cannot help but call it a sense of nation-hood.

I on the other hand am a shameful patriot.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This was what I meant by erratic. Maybe a bad choice of word.

So you disavow your original statement. That's good, that's progress.

When looking at the fluctuation of European borders such as those between Germany and Poland, or those of former Yugoslavia, Slovakia, I see flexibility. The wars make it erratic.

Well, if you could tell me an occasion when these borders were changed other than by war then I might try to make head or tail of your distinction between flexible and erratic. Oh and by the way you shouldn't chuck in "fluctuation" as well unless you truly mean a back and forth process.

Even our own little Berwick problem (the mayor wanted to write a cheque to the English state to get back into Scotland). I see moving malleable borders.

So we can add malleable to fluctuating, flexible and erratic as categories of borders. I can see you must have made a statistical study of the general phenomenon of border change. Unusual.

Please refrain from making these large and unproveable statements.

I should have written "Someone in a suitably patriotic state tends to lean towards what he regards as the positive aspects of his or her society."

Please refrain from making these large and unproveable truisms.

This could be supported with sociological stats. (I'll ask the wife - 'tis her field).

Yes, I suppose two people might be considered a more reliable statistical sample than one.

For all time?

Yup. I can of course only speak up until 2007 AD.

My wife actually. She is German. She is very VERY well aware of her nationality but isn't terribly proud of it. She feels this, like so many other Germans, so strongly that I cannot help but call it a sense of nation-hood.

I would not myself marry someone with such a distressingly commonplace view. But perhaps she has other qualities.

I on the other hand am a shameful patriot.

I trust you are using this correctly and applying it to Britain rather than Scotland.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A lot of people new to Applied Epistemology (and not a few that aren't) have difficulty with our conception of orthodoxy. It is a basic rule of AE that as soon as two people are in agreement, an orthodoxy is established. And orthodoxy's bad. Not necessarily wrong, just bad. It is only when you find yourself in possession of a completely unique view that you should feel the stirrings of smugness.

The problem on this site is that everybody here starts from the absolute self-belief that he or she is unorthodox, even stridently anti-orthodox. And this may well be true in certain areas of specialist interest. However when you stray into other areas (for instance politics) out come all the reactionary shibboleths. And notice my use of reactionary...you pride yourself above everything on not being a reactionary but of course all liberals and orthodox left radicals have been reactionary now for a century or more.

This, AJ, is why I was able to guess about your national colours. It is a pure orthodoxy for somebody of your background to eschew Britain and embrace Scotland. An AE-ist would probably give you half-a-mark were you a British patriot (kicking against the traces would be a start) but a whole mark if you regarded all collective allegiances (ie Scotland and Britain) as a snare and a delusion. Your position is merely hopeless. Fashionably hopeless. This is why I criticised your wife. Her view, at least as expressed by you, is pure orthodoxy too.

If you have been reading Hatty's answers they have also been quite orthodox. Created out of her own mind for sure (which is a start) but nevertheless leadenly predictable. The way out of this is to adopt a general posture. of "Do I suspect this has been said before? Then I won't bother saying it." This leads ineluctably to "If I can't say it, there's no point thinking it" and then, since the brain abhors a vacuum, a whole host of alternatives will course through your consciousness. And you can pick and choose. You can even discard the lot and return to orthodoxy...it's often right.

You asked me about football allegiance. Here's a good test next time you meet a Catalan from Barcelona. Say to hm, "So you must be a supporter of Espanol?" "No fucking way, it's Barca for me," he'll say. "Oh you followed the herd, did you" comes your crushing retort. Actually AE-ists are allowed sporting prejudices -- you may certainly support Scotland football-wise -- but not intellectual ones.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The problem on this site is that everybody here starts from the absolute self-belief that he or she is unorthodox, even stridently anti-orthodox.

Being anti-orthodox for the sake of it? No point unless you genuinely believe there's a more plausible alternative surely?

If you have been reading Hatty's answers they have also been quite orthodox.

Twice Hatty's answers have been consciously as per the text-books and on both occasions they elicited the response "Good point" which was rather startling (the deliberate differentiation between "Us" and "Them" is well-known, in anthropology at least; likewise, the expulsion of Jews or similarly unwanted elements coinciding with nationalistic trends ).

The Barca example is no different from any other country - what Englishman - pick a nationality of your choice - would say he doesn't support his national team? Whereas a woman, of any nationality, goes off to the shops/to the tennis club/to meet her lover, knowing the roads will be empty, every time her country's at war, I mean playing.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Being anti-orthodox for the sake of it? No point unless you genuinely believe there's a more plausible alternative surely?

I've just told you the point. It aids creativity. And people always 'genuinely believe' orthodoxy, that's also the point. You have to have some kind of inner training programme to escape its dead hand. I have also pointed out that you can eventually and regretfully return to orthodoxy at any time. But this time with wisdom.

Twice Hatty's answers have been consciously as per the text-books and on both occasions they elicited the response "Good point"

Harrumph, the law of averages. All I have to do to confound you is to recognise an orthodoxy and ask, "Well, is that really true?" And if you are honest you'd have to admit that quite often it isn't. In five minutes I therefore come up with more original ideas than most people do in a whole lifetime. Just by asking this question in the sure and certain knowledge that orthodoxy is wrong one heluvalot of the time.

But you could have done the same think since very little of what I said was beyond you. Omniscience is incredibly easy.

The Barca example is no different from any other country - what Englishman - pick a nationality of your choice - would say he doesn't support his national team?

No, it is not at all the same. An Englishman has no choice in the matter (alas). A resident of Barcelona does. He could (just as AJ could) decide not to belong to either orthodoxy. As I keep urging on you, "supporting Espanol", ie being counter-intuitive, is the first step to intellectual liberation.

Of course it is doubly hard for members-of-minorities (Catalans, Scots etc) to rebel against their local orthodoxy because it feels like aiding the enemy. But loving your enemies (pro tem) is almost always a good intellectual idea.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It aids creativity.

Creativity is creating something afresh from a personal perspective. Not at all the same thing as being anti something just for the sake of it though there may be an overlap at times.

And people always 'genuinely believe' orthodoxy, that's also the point. You have to have some kind of inner training programme to escape its dead hand.

That's a bit of a misleading statement. I agree that most of us have a 'blind spot' but you can't honestly maintain that that means someone is in thrall to orthodoxy. The training can be begun by universities, if a course isn't just seen as a job qualification or a memory test, but just as likely to come about through personal experience.

All I have to do to confound you is to recognise an orthodoxy and ask, "Well, is that really true?" And if you are honest you'd have to admit that quite often it isn't.

But this is what everybody does except when it's their 'blind spot'. Just look at the letters pages in, say, The Times arguing over received opinion.

But loving your enemies (pro tem) is almost always a good intellectual idea.

Quite so. But it's hardly a new idea, something about to understand is to forgive. What's interesting is how enraged people get when it's put into practice. Actually my point about the treatment of the Jews wasn't gleaned from a book, it arose out of a discussion of the1290 expulsion from England which was the earliest mass expulsion of Jews in the world I was informed.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Say something surprising. That's always the clue.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
No point unless you genuinely believe there's a more plausible alternative surely?

There is always a more plausible alternative.

-- Applied Epistemology Rule #36 -- subsection 2.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Bob Monkhouse said everyone was well aware he was from Kent: he heard people muttering "Kent" as he walked by.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Do you realise that rejecting collective allegiance is a product of collective allegiance? If it were not, how would one know what to reject?

Certainly there has to be a collective allegiance for it to be subscribed to or rejected... but "product of" sounds like you had to be in it first or that it inevitably produces dissenters... either or both of which may be true... but so what?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is always a more plausible alternative.
-- Applied Epistemology Rule #36 -- subsection 2
.

But "Never apply fixed strategies." Rule #44 -- subsection 7.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"Never apply fixed strategies."

But "Never apply fixed strategies." Rule #44 -- subsection 7.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
Bob Monkhouse said everyone was well aware he was from Kent: he heard people muttering "Kent" as he walked by.


They laughed when I said I wanted to be a comedian. They're not laughing now.

I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

I can still enjoy sex at 74. I live at 76, so it's no distance.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Talking of Anglo-French relations, I've just found a rather good account of The First World War as a Pub Fight. Blatantly stolen from someone who stole it from other people.

Are You Looking at My Pint?

Germany, Austria and Italy are stood together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.

Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view.

Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria's trousers.

Russia and Serbia look at Austria.

Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at.

Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.

Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.

Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.

Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.

Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium.

Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.

Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.

France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.

Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.

France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.

Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.

America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here's a blurb sent to me today from Forgotten Books re The History of the Crusades by Joseph Francois Michaud Vol. 3 of 3

St. Sabbas, in which the Venetians and the Genoese assembled together to celebrate the ceremonies of their religion.

Never heard of St Sabbas -- either the saiint or the place. Interesting chappie. Apparently in Egypt.

This common possession had often been a subject of quarrel between them; a short time after the departure of St. Louis,

That is after the first French invasion of Egypt (aka the Seventh Crusade). Louis died invading Tunisia (aka the Eighth Crusade). Later French invasions of Egypt and North Africa were not called Crusades.

discord broke out anew, and roused all the passions that the spirit of rivalry and jealousy could give birth to between two nations which had so long contended for the empire of the sea and pre-eminence in commerce. Amidst this struggle, in which the very object of the contest ought to have recalled sentiments of peace and charity to their hearts, the Genoese and Venetians often came to blows in the city of Ptolemais, and more than once, the sanctuary, which the two parties had fortified like a place of war, resounded with the din of their sacrilegious battles.

All very Christian.

Discord very soon crossed the seas, and carried fresh troubles into the West. Genoa interested the Pisans in her cause, and sought allies and auxiliaries even among the Greeks, at that time impatient to repossess Constantinople.

Not from the Moslems but from the Christian Fourth Crusaders!

Venice, in order to avenge her injuries, courted the alliance of Manfroi, who had been excommunicated by the head of the Church. Troops were raised, fleets were armed, and the parties attacked each other both by land and sea; and this war, which the sovereign pontiff was unable to quell,

Perhaps you shouldn't have excommunicated him, your Holiness

lasted more than twenty years, sometimes to the advantage of the Venetians, as frequently to that of the Genoese; but always fatal to the Christian colonies of the East.

Oh, I don't know, they were making a pretty good job of that on their own. Thank God though that they had the two great orders of Christian knights to help them

This spirit of discord likewise extended its baneful influence to the rival orders of St. John and the Temple; and the blood of these courageous defenders of the Holy Land flowed in torrents in cities of which they had undertaken the defence; the Hospitallers and Templars pursued and attacked each other with a fury that nothing could appease or turn aside, both orders invoking the aid of the knights that remained in the West. Thus the noblest families of Christendom were dragged into these sanguinary quarrels, and it was no longer asked in Europe whether the Franks had conquered the Saracens, but if victory had been favourable to the knights of the Temple or to those of the Hospital.

A bit like Syria today, you're not quite sure what side you're meant to be rooting for but you can be sure it's your tithes and taxes that's keeping the pot boiling.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Page 12 of 13

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group