Modernism, Post Modernism and Anti-Modernism - The Crux of Mage?
Chris Bell
war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
world as a whole?
Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
organization, etc?)
My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
Last question (bonus points!)
Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Now, I'll hide in the bunker, and watch the bullets fly.
Chris Bell
sart...@hotmail.com
Jess Heinig
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
I tend to boost both sides, but from where I develop I definitely slant the
Technocracy toward having a "bad seed" angle.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
> world as a whole?
Post-Modernist.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
Democratic Socialist.
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
>
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
I don't write it to make a political statement, but that's just me.
Jess Heinig
Mage developer
WWGS
David Johnston
>
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
I prefer the Traditions. Which faction is in the right, is the one that
is convenient for game purposes. (Ie. the one the players are either members
of, or will shortly join). However I have plenty of room for the admirable
enemy character.
>
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither?
Pragmatic solutions are an application of the scientific method.
Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
> world as a whole?
No.
>
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
No.
>
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
>
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
I think it reflects some prejudices against middle-aged white guys, but wasn't
consciously written to make a political point.
Kristopher/EOS
>
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some
> interest (NOT Flame war...the participants have been been
> rather respectful, if heated. Bravo, all in the NG.) I'd
> like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM
> option...The Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction
> do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are
> morally nuetral?
Not being a Mage player, I have to restrict myself to saying
that I find none of the groups actions sympathetic, but I do
find the Technocracy's foundational ideals FAR more
sympathetic than any of the others.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist'
> (all problems with the world can be solved by rational
> application of scientific method, and technology will make
> us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and technology do
> *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you
> feel that return to ancient religion and mystical practices
> in culture will be good for the world as a whole?
Modernist, with this caveat...it's more about objective,
rational thought in general, than science specifically.
I actively dislike the notion that religion and mystical
practices in general are somehow a solution to anything,
accept human inability to deal with the insignificance
and smallness in the universe of human beings as
individuals and collectively.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are
> the best for everyone (unrestricted competition, right
> to own property, no taxes, and so on), Socialist/Marxist
> (workers right, ownership of the means of production by
> the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship,
> tribal organization, etc?)
All forms of political/social/economic organization are
flawed, partly because people are involved. For lack of
a better term, democratic capitalism is by far the best
at not burdening people with those flaws. The list of
inferior systems most definately includes both ideal and
applied anarchy in all its variants.
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will
> have a bent towards both Modernism and Capitalism, but I
> could be wrong. The above questions are merely meant to
> spur discussion, not to prove a point.
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game
> that was written by WWGS to make a political point,
> similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire, which is a
> human-politics nuetral game?
Mage and Werewolf both, without a doubt, reflect the
general ideological bent of one or more persons at White
Wolf, even if they were never intended to, and the anti-
rational, anti-modern, anti-science, anti-objective,
pro-primitive, pro-spiritual, pro-subjective tone of both
games makes that bent painfully clear.
Kristopher/EOS
Geoffrey Brent
<N_1D3.446$7Q.4...@monger.newsread.com>...
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
As written, the Traditions are more enjoyable to play, and closer
to 'in the right'. But given free reign, both can be fun - after some
modification. In my version of the WoD, both groups are
_partially_, but not completely, in the right - the Technocracy
tends to override individual needs for group needs, and the
Traditions vice versa.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all
problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific
method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither?
Post-modernist, with qualifications - I believe that just
about any problem _can_ be addressed with the
scientific method, but it's not always the _best_ approach.
> Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for
the
> world as a whole?
Do you really mean "will", or "would"? (Or "could"?)
As it stands, that's a very vague question. No, I don't believe
return to those practices _will_ be good for the world as a
whole, because I don't believe it's going to happen at a
significant level.
_Would_ it be good for the world? Depends on which
practices you return to. It'd be a bit difficult to return
to _all_ of them, particularly for those of us who come
from more than one background (which is just about
everybody these days.) Some of them are much better
left buried in the past - I don't think going back to witch-
burning would be good for the world in general.
_Could_ it be good for the world? Some practices would
probably be of benefit to the world in general (especially
those of the 'be nice to people' variety), but the vast
majority would be either pointless these days (eg
knocking out teeth as a coming-of-age ritual) or downright
harmful.
OTOH, although in general I'm not in favour of returning
to such practices, studying them and examining them
could well have its benefits - as with just about anything
that increases our knowledge of human nature. Likewise,
I have no urge to see the return of Nazism, but I believe
it's very important to understand why and how it developed.
I should also add that there are a lot of _modern_ cultural
practices that the world would be better off without (IMHO.)
Sorry for the long answer, but I can't really represent my
views in a one-liner here.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and
so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of
production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
No. Most of these systems work very well if you make
certain assumptions (transparency, no 'shared goods',
etc for capitalism; aristocratic benevolence for a monarchy;
rational human behaviour in just about all of them), but in
real life these assumptions fail. Modern economic theorists
are beginning to pay more attention to modelling more
realistic systems, but unless and until they come up with
something unexpectedly good the only thing that seems to
be clear is that no one extreme is a good idea.
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent
towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
Keep in mind that the way you ask a question can have
a significant effect on the answer you get. Your wording
is likely to slant the answers you get in favour of post-
modernism.
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written
by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to
Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
No. Just about any creative work of that size will contain
some of the politics of its authors, and of course all three
of these games have human politics as a _theme_, but I
don't feel that Mage was an intentional political statement.
I think it was written with the goals of having fun, encouraging
people to think, and putting bread on the table.
Geoffrey Brent
Ranma Al'Thor
: I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
: war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
: all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
: Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
: First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
: Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
: right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
I tend to favor the Traditions, having little like for facism, big
business, or people who think science is the answer to everything.
: Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
: with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
: and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
: technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
: and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
: to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
: world as a whole?
Catholic.
: Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
: everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
: on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
: by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
: organization, etc?)
All three are basically unviable as pure forms. I find it tremendously
ironic that modern democracy is twinned with a system of capitalism that
basically consists of competition between absolute monarchies, and that
the same people who shout about liberty in the political arena go work in
jobs which subject them to the will of others, where their only free
choice is which corporate king to which to bend their knee. Socialism,
however, is just as flawed a system, and I'd rather not live in a barter
society which typically has little role for my chosen occupation
(scholar).
: Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
: WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
: which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Actually, I'd argue with its themes of freedom vs. security and the young
vs. the old, that Vampire also makes points about human political
questions.
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"If you're looking for a new coaster, the album _13_ is perfect for you."
--Daily Kansan Music Review
Jason Corley
: >
: >
: > option...The Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction
: > do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are
: > morally nuetral?
Traditions are much easier to both run and play, with the material given
to us. Then, any revisions I need to make to make the Technocracy
plausible, I can easily do behind the curtain of PC ignorance. I think
the Traditions are fairly close to plausible as written (if you smarten
them up a little bit, which is not at all hard).
: > Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist'
: > (all problems with the world can be solved by rational
: > application of scientific method, and technology will make
: > us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and technology do
: > *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
: > and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither?
This is a misnomer. This should be "technologist" and
"post-technologist", for these descriptions. For example, I don't think
technology holds the answer to the crushing inequities in America's legal
system. The solution to that lies in political action, protest, public
outrage, media attention and so forth. Yet this does not mean that science
and technology are "inadequate" in any way. Science and technology are
just plain not meant to handle problems of prejudice. They can go so far
and no farther. They do what they do very well: explain the world and
give us tools. Try to predict what it will do beyond that and you are
blowing smoke.
: > Do you
: > feel that return to ancient religion and mystical practices
: > in culture will be good for the world as a whole?
Doubtful. A great deal of ancient religion and mysticism was premised
upon, essentially, cruelty. For example, many Native American tribes have
essentially benign religious practices: festivals, dances, ceremonies, and
so forth. (The radical religious right could take a few lessons from
them, honestly.) However, some had religious precepts that told them that
certain other tribes were their blood enemies and should be exterminated,
including women and children. Others had no specific /precepts/ that
included traditional tribal enemies or blood sacrifices or whatnot, but
had religious /content/ (such as visions) that provoked bloody wars of
enslavement. If some wacked-out shmoe in Mazatlan gets a vision from the
Virgin Mary saying to get five thousand followers, arm them with UZIs and
march north, killing everything they see, I think it would be stretching
the point of religious tolerance to say that allowing the massacre would
be good for the world.
Short of radical examples like that, though, almost any "modern" version
of ancient religions or mysticisms is probably not only healthy but very
important.
: > Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are
: > the best for everyone (unrestricted competition, right
: > to own property, no taxes, and so on), Socialist/Marxist
: > (workers right, ownership of the means of production by
: > the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship,
: > tribal organization, etc?)
I am personally in favor of more state controls over the economy than are
in place in America right now. European countries and Canada all have more
controls, and I think it would help America to have the same kind of
system in place for some aspects. I am not confident that a completely
state-controlled economy in a truly democratic-republican society could
not function - I am confident that we are unlikely to ever see anything
like this, ever, for any reason. I don't know what that makes me.
I certainly know I am not interested in living in a tribe, a monarchy, an
aristocracy, or a centralized Stalinist system. To the extent that modern
American life may contain elements of these systems, I'm willing to
either accept those parts or fight to change them.
: > Last question (bonus points!)
: >
: > Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game
: > that was written by WWGS to make a political point,
: > similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire, which is a
: > human-politics nuetral game?
I think they just didn't realize what a profound game they had on their
hands and went about writing for it in the same way they went about
writing about the other games, which, while excellent in their own way, do
not even attempt to reach half so high as Mage. They therefore made some
mistakes which they are stuck with to this day, despite efforts to change
it.
--
"Dullness marked the beginning of our tale, dullness marked the thread of
it, and dullness more than permeates it's end altogether we've all had a
dern dull time of it, ain't we? Yezza." ----Geo. Herriman
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
jbu...@my-deja.com
"Chris Bell" <sarta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT
Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated.
Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully,
including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
>
problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific
method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social
questions,
return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for
the
> world as a whole?
Is this the correct definition? I thought modernist thought had people
in control of their own destinies whereas post-modernism had them as
puppets to social forces and their own flaws. The introduction to
Tezuka's Adolph described him as a modernist (and science doesn't play
that big a role in his stories) and compares post-modernism to medieval
religion without salvation.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
jbu...@my-deja.com
eosl...@net-link.net wrote:
> Chris Bell wrote:
> >
> > I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some
> > interest (NOT Flame war...the participants have been been
> > rather respectful, if heated. Bravo, all in the NG.) I'd
> > like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> > Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
> >
> > First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM
> > option...The Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction
> > do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are
> > morally nuetral?
>
> that I find none of the groups actions sympathetic, but I do
> find the Technocracy's foundational ideals FAR more
> sympathetic than any of the others.
Not only are you not a mage player, it sounds like you haven't even read
the book. That's a common trait among the Trchnocracy apologists, who
have made virtue of relying on "what everyone knows" (usually wrong)
rather than what's actually written.
>
> > Last question (bonus points!)
> >
> > Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game
> > that was written by WWGS to make a political point,
> > similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire, which is a
> > human-politics nuetral game?
>
> Mage and Werewolf both, without a doubt, reflect the
> general ideological bent of one or more persons at White
> Wolf, even if they were never intended to, and the anti-
> rational, anti-modern, anti-science, anti-objective,
> pro-primitive, pro-spiritual, pro-subjective tone of both
> games makes that bent painfully clear.
I guess the listing of scientist in the OoH character concepts must have
been a misprint in my book then.
>
> Kristopher/EOS
aetherson
"Chris Bell" <sarta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT
Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated.
Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully,
including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
Well, I dunno if I count as a participent, but I made a few snide
comments here and there...
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
When I GM, I almost invariably make the Traditions be "in the right."
But I also tend to use a non-canonical version of the Technocracy which
is heavily, heavily corrupted by the Nephandi.
I also do my best to make both sides out to be complete bastards,
albeit complete bastards very concerned with the greatest good for the
greatest number (except the Nephandi-influenced people).
Sadly, I never get to play Mage.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all
problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific
method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social
questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that
return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good
for the
> world as a whole?
Those are, um, novel definitions of the terms. By your stated
definitions, I'd consider myself "Post-modernist," though I have a
violent distaste for the more conventional form of post-modernism.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes,
and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of
production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
I don't think that any extremal position is a terribly good idea. I
tend to be right-of-center on fiscal matters, so closer to capitalism
than communism.
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent
towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above
questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
I like technology a lot, and I think that Technomancers are a really
cool idea who deserve to be fleshed out and all that. But I don't
think that, in real life, technology/science have all the answers.
> Last question (bonus points!)
Score! Can I trade 'em in for what's behind door number three?
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was
written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to
Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
I suppose it's pretty hard to look at a game in which all technology is
the tool of fascists (barring computers :P) as being totally
politically neutral, but hey... I don't consider myself Luddite by
inclination, and I still enjoy the game, even with fairly canonical
Technomancers.
Then again, I'm pretty down on enviromentalism, and I still enjoy a
game of Werewolf now and again. Actually, the game which most bothers
me with its political/philosophical assumptions is Changeling, because
serious, rational people like my characters get characterized as Banal,
which I don't think they are.
Mike (aetherson)
Kish
Chris Bell wrote in message ...
>I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
>war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
>all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
>Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
>Technocracy, or the Traditions?
Neither, really. Either can be good.
> Which faction do you think is 'in the
>right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
The Traditions are in the right. No question.
>
>Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
>with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
>and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
>technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
>and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither?
That's a loaded question, Chris. I'll be amazed if anyone seriously says
all problems with the world can be solved by rational application of
scientific method.
> Do you feel that return
>to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
>world as a whole?
No.
>
>Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
>everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
>on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
>by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
>organization, etc?)
As you've described them, Socialist/Marxist. In reality, however, I'm
painfully aware that none of the systems really work.
>Last question (bonus points!)
>
>Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
>WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
>which is a human-politics nuetral game?
I think the essays in the Book of Shadows, together with Phil Brucato's
posts here, indicate clearly that it was written to make a political point.
Kish
Fouletier, Jerome [MLV:0000:EXCH]
>
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
I've not even had any time to lurk recently, let alone actually add
my own grain of salt, but here I see this dangling in front of my
nose. Heh...
I've already ranted and raved about this, but it was a looong time
ago, so here we go again.
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
This, I consider a biased question. Why? Because, IMHO, the whole
set of M:tA books is bent against the technocracy. The rules for
magick are completely anathema to the Union's way of thinking,
for starters, and then, most of the material is from one tradition
or the other's perspective. Even the Technocracy books (except,
maybe, Syndicate) are told by Union renegades or misfits.
I actually don't have a problem with that either, I mean, this
game is called *Mage* the Ascencion, now isn't it? And we all
know that Union people don't think of themselves as mages. So
the game is not for playing them, and, indeed, entertaining
this notion has led me to realise that, to have a Union
campaign played that would *really* be about the Technocracy,
I'd have a better time using some sci-fi or cyberpunk game.
So the net answer is "Yes, I prefer using M:tA to GM with tradition
orphan, or (going out on a limb) Union renegades." I don't see the
game working out for Union-centered campaigns.
BUT, mind me, this is in no way a moral standing, just a practical one.
As for value decisions, well, that's precisely one of the points
in the game: winner takes all, and I really mean *all*. The faction
that comes on top of the Ascencion war will be able to put its
mark on *everything*, and this does not only include physical laws,
but also history, societies, moral codes, and so on. In a Mage setting,
there cannot be objective absolutes. So my answer to your second
question is, that while both factions are not morally neutral,
there is, however, no common scale to which their morals can be
compared, and make one or the other "good" or "bad" in the eyes
of an objective beholder because there are no objective beholders.
Mach's principle...
On the ideals boosted by the factions, well, that's, personally, what
makes me cringe the most in M:tA, that such a great idea that lies at
the base of the Union is presented as having such dire consequences.
The Union promotes equality, but, in the game's setting, has neglected
liberty too much. The traditions do advocate liberty, but are indeed
too elitist for their own good. Each side will, of course, see the
other's faults though their own biased glasses, and the war of
Ascension will go on.
I think that, morally, you can tilt the balance by having one or
the other side be ready to compromise in the name of Fraternity.
The side that is willing to compromise its main ideal by balancing
with the other using the third will get my vote.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
> world as a whole?
Ah, that question is too cut-and-dried.
I'll pass.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
Same thing here, although, as an aside, "ancient" practices hardly deserve
that qualification. You find a lot of feudality in many, many supposedly
"modern" structures.
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
Actually, no. I'm a shameless Union advocate, but am not modernist, and
definitely not capitalist.
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
No, my gut feeling is that WWGS didn't make the political bent of their
games a goal, but rather a means to an end, which is, after all, what
they were paid/paying for.
> Now, I'll hide in the bunker, and watch the bullets fly.
Ah, you should have joined the Union, they make the best heat-resistant
and bulletproof clothing.
J.
Michael P Collins
Oh, this is gonna be fun...
From: "Chris Bell" <sarta...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.games.whitewolf.mage,alt.games.whitewolf,rec.games.frp.storyteller
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:47:57 GMT
Organization: Alpha Channel (alphachannel.com)
I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
Traditions, generally. One of the interesting issues about G3T is
that it does a fairly good idea of establishing that the players are
part of an *organization* as a whole, with bureaucratic runarounds,
requisitions departments and budgets. Still, unless you're playing
Paranoia, filling out forms isn't *that* exciting an experience.
I think that when I finally suss out how I want to play the
Technocracy, I'll probably be viewing it more as a very darkly
paranoid back-against-the-wall reality cops kind of game. The
characters have to make unpleasant choices because the alternatives
are just that much worse. Technocrats should be unpleasantly familiar
with triage.
I'd actually kind of like to do an assumption of damnation style
campaign with the Technocracy: to ensure that some people's lives are
a little more light, other people have to take on very evil roles.
There may be technocrats who consider themselves 'evil', having had to
abandon their moral codes as youth, but the alternative was to let,
hundreds, thousands or millions die. There's a good amount of
authentic tragedy to wring out of a hero who, in order to be a hero,
has to be a villain.
Having ejected *that* body of hot air, I'll say that I consider the
Technocratic _ideal_ to be superior to that of the Traditions. I'll
be blunt, I'm a child of Western Civilization in the twentieth
century, we've dragged ourselves from out of the heel of princes and
prelates and tribal superstition to finally reach the point where we
can look away from the mud, into the stars, and -realistically- think
about one day visiting there. I do not buy into Rousseau's
enlightened savage claptrap: we teach ourselves to be civilized
through blood, sweat and suffering, it's an _achievement_ and not a
natural state. I think the Traditions are anachronisms, I think they
got knocked off their positions of power with the industrial
revolution and haven't stopped whining about it since. Quite frankly,
I think the Technocratic Ideal is, in the mage universe, the only hope
that humanity has for ascension - because the Traditions exist to
preserve outmoded social roles.
Having said that, I would say that the Technocrats fail to live up to
their own ideal, and that there are understandable reasons for that.
The G3T makes a good point about the active dichotomy between the
Front Lines and the Inner Circle. The Traditions are, right now,
probably more in touch with helping *individual* humans achieve
enlightenment, while the Technocracy's implementation of their ideal
has failed, at least (and most poignantly) in the spiritual domain.
Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
world as a whole?
I'm a rather Aristotelian Roman Catholic who specializes in studying
the engineering process. Before this, I was a physicist, and I am
still a skeptic in the Martin Gardner vein. I would describe myself
as Post-Modernist by your classification system, although I think I'm
considerably more in favor of rationalism than your classification
system would describe.
As for ancient religion/mystical practices? Nah. I think we've got a
good 7 thousand years of ethical thought to work with here, let's
synthesize and improve what we've got. I certainly have no particular
urge to return to my ancestor's practices of blood eagles, heads
preserved in limestone and nipple-sucking as a method of apology.
Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
organization, etc?)
Regulated capitalism. Unfettered Capitalism is not just, anymore than
unfettered Democracy is. The whole point of any of these systems is
to ensure justice, after all.
My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
Whatever you may think, we're not running around holding copies of
Atlas Shrugged, chanting "A IS A! A IS A!" all day. Mind you, I think
Objectivism is the engineering student's equivalent of getting a
Prince Albert: something naughty you do to torque off your parents,
but you really shouldn't bring it up in polite company.
Last question (bonus points!)
Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Yes, much like I suspect that White Dwarf has "CONSUME" printed across
every page in faint gray letters, I suspect that Mage + Werewolf were
intended to establish the author's own political prejudices. Frankly,
I think Mage is better than Werewolf, but I think Werewolf is the
silliest kind of adolescent power fantasy.
I think Mage has _brilliant_ ideas, but I think the politics of
"TRADITIONS GOOD, TECHNOCRACY BAD" overshadowed a lot of the moral
ambiguity that I enjoyed in Vampire. I think Mage has a lot of
potential for powerful stories, but I've also seen that it's
*extremely* easy for the game to degenerate into cartoonish
simplicity, and that's largely because the Technocracy has been
EEEEEEEVIL.
Now, I'll hide in the bunker, and watch the bullets fly.
Don't worry, I just insulted every Objectivist on the planet. I'll
serve to draw fire for ya.
Chris Bell
sart...@hotmail.com
Ranma Al'Thor
: Is this the correct definition? I thought modernist thought had people
: in control of their own destinies whereas post-modernism had them as
: puppets to social forces and their own flaws. The introduction to
: Tezuka's Adolph described him as a modernist (and science doesn't play
: that big a role in his stories) and compares post-modernism to medieval
: religion without salvation.
Modernism is based on the idea that the universe is rationally
comprehensible, and that all solvable problems can be solved through
operant rationality. It has, however, frequently included a large
component of seeing humans as puppets to social forces and their own
flaws, as you put it--Marx was a modernist. Being a modernist didn't
necessarily mean you thought all problems could be solved, just that
science and rational organization was the way to go.
Post-Modernism has tended to emphasize the limitations of rationality, the
degree to which we construct our view of reality, rather than discover it,
and on the subjectivity of knowledge. While some such as Foucault may
emphasize human helplessness, others interpret the post-modern viewpoint
in a far more hopeful fashion, emphasizing how their understanding is a
liberation from cold rational utility as the measure of all things.
Alistair J. R. Young
Chris Bell <sarta...@hotmail.com> praised Shub-Internet thus:
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
I want to bang all their heads together, hold a few purges, and build
a third faction out of the bits, with the Order of Hermes, Sons of
Ether, Iteration X and the Progenitors making up the technical side,
the Void Engineers handling the Outside, and a new organisation
stepping into the New World Order's shoes as administrators, but with
a much different approach (see below).
The Syndicate, of course, are a Nephandi group anyway. :)
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
I'd vote for meritocratic aristocracy, but I wouldn't be able to...
Alistair
--
Computational Thaumaturge, Deus Machinarum. -- Cerebrate of the Silicon Swarm.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. So do those who don't, but
they do it more quickly." -- me.
Chris Bell
> Is this the correct definition? I thought modernist thought had people
> in control of their own destinies whereas post-modernism had them as
> puppets to social forces and their own flaws. The introduction to
> Tezuka's Adolph described him as a modernist (and science doesn't play
> that big a role in his stories) and compares post-modernism to medieval
> religion without salvation.
>
>
and science can cure more or less any problem. The mood of the Sons of
Ether, for example, is a very Modernist one (Science will save us!) It's
almost science and technology as religion. We were a Modernist society
really up until the early 60's, when Science was seen to go awry (DDT,
cancer from nuclear waste, the growing pollution problem, the inability of
science and commerce to deal with social injustice, and so on.) Now, we're
fairly evenly divided between Modernist (Science can still solve everything,
we just have to try harder!) and post-modernist (Science doesn't solve
problems, people do!)
Remember, there's still a strong modernist streak in our society, as science
has given us roads, vaccines, and an overall better standard of living than
100 years ago, but has also given us a host of problems as well. Thus, we
have appearing the post-modernist movement, which sprang up back in the
30's. The problem with much post-modernism is that it doesn't claim to be
able to *solve* problems like modernism did in the 30's.
At it's best, science empowers. At it's worst, like anything else, it
enslaves. Remember, Heroin was invented by the Bayer company, the same
people who make Bayer aspirin, as a patent drug.
Chris Bell
sart...@hotmail.com
maccabeu...@my-deja.com
"Chris Bell" <sarta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT
Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated.
Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully,
including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
Well...since everything has been civil so far, I'll go ahead and risk
it...
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in
the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
As a player, I prefer the Traditions. On the other hand, I believe the
Technocracy is actually closer to being in the right--only closer,
though...they have some serious problems to work out.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all
problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific
method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social
questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that
return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good
for the
> world as a whole?
Well...by the definitions given above, "Post-Modernist"...though
frankly I hate that label and the philosophy that usually hides behind
it. It would be more accurate to call me an "Early Modernist"...left
over from the time before Modernism decided religion was inherently
anti-rational.
As for the second part...depends on what you mean by ancient religion,
and how extensive you mean that as. Mystical practices: absolutely
not. But as a "Restorationist Christian" (search for "Restoration
Movement" on Yahoo for explanations), yeah...I kind of have to believe
that a return to one particular kind of ancient religion would be good
for the world--though I doubt that many of you here would consider me
an authentic example.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes,
and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of
production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
Capitalism--but in a rather modified form that I've never heard of
existing and that might very well look a lot like socialism after all.
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent
towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above
questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
>
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was
written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to
Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Given the Metaphysic of Magick...which I loathe...I have to say that
Mage is very explicitly made for a _philosophical_ point, in favor of
Post-Modernism. Politically...ennnhhh...I dunno. Doubtful.
Maccabeus the Mad
One God, One Truth;
One Church, One World
Aaron Peori
> Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The Technocracy, or > the Traditions?
As a player I play an Orphan. I can find no heroism in
either organization. As a GM I play whatever my players want
to play.
> Which faction do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are > morally nuetral?
This is not a question of black and white. Both have flaws,
both have shinning points, both ideologies have good bits
and bad bits. But... to be frank... that is a load of
garbage as far as I'm concerned. In my view of the world
their is no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong or
anything like that. They are just labels we create to make
ourselves feel better. Morally right and wrong are totally
subjective concepts that will variate wildly depending on
the class, timeframe, race, creed and environment of the
person you ask to define them.
From my subjective personaly view I would give each equal
consideration and join that force which I thought had the
most chance of allowing me to attain my personal goals (ie;
basically be left alone and allowed to debate and write).
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist',
> 'Post-Modernist', or neither?
Okay, this is a longer answer.
Basically I believe that all the current problems of the
world can be solved by the application of modernism. Using
sceince and technology we can solve the difficulities we are
having with the environment, social systems and on and on.
This is not a good thing. These solutions, in and of
themselves, can NOT possibly make everyone in the world
happy. As long as humanity continues to have such a wide
variety of beliefs and morals than a pratical solution can
never be made. Their will always be dissidents. The obvious
solution is the elimination of dissention.
No, stay with me here. I'm not talking about killing them
all off. I mean the use of genetic engineering, widescale
terraforming and social conditioning such that while the
world of today will not be better, the world of our children
could be a literal utopia. This would involve the
elimination of many of the things that humans feel are
intrinisc rights of being human, but from a -totally-
rational perspective serve no purpose. These things include,
but are not limited to: sexual reproduction and the coupling
desire, art, religon, competitive sport, personal property
and so on (sound familiar?). This could, indeed, solve all
the worlds problems. But do you consider this a good
solution? I don't. But it is a solution. Other solutions
that pure moderist belief could lead us to include the
obvious conclusions that humanity is inherently corrupt and
ireedemable (aside from a few genetic abberations now and
then) and should be wiped out from the plantery gene pool,
that we would all be much better if we were served by
emotionless robotic servants while plugged into a global
"fantasy machine" that entertained us from birth and so on
and on. Basically moderinsim does offer the solutions, but
we find them repugnant.
I'm not post-moderinst either. I don't believe our problems
-can- be solved. I think that the inherently selfish nature
of our species means that the best we can hope for is to
live on in prepetual distopia and each person trying to get
what little happiness they can.
I think the term for me is "cynic."
Also, one of the things I will note about the concept of
technology. Technology and sceince in and of themselves can
not be morally good or evil (even from a subjective
viewpoint). It is the -attitudes- towards them which are
good or bad. And I agree that the current attitude towards
technology and sceince is bad. The current attitude is NOT
what people think it is. Most people think that sceince and
technology are progressive. They are not, not anymore. For
instance, how many years have we been using the internal
combustion engine? I mean, sure there have been a few minor
improvements but it is the same basic design now as it was
fifty years ago. If we put all the money we are putting into
researcg on increasing the efficency, mass-produceability
and damage control on this technology we could have already
developed reliable alternate system for running our
automobiles. Or, failing that, alternate means of transport.
The trend is the same in virtually all forms of technology,
after the initial boon for a decade or so it will stagnate
and remain in the collective conciousness as an immutable
fact until we are forced to rethink it. Look at television
for example. While some of the techniques of transmitting
signals have improved (radio to microwave to cabel to
sattelite) the basic way it works has not changed in
decades. Only the introduction of a totally new technology
(the internet) has begun to change how we view home
entertainment. And I predict that once we have interactive
realtime multimedia on the 'net that too will stagnate for
years. Oh sure, eventually some new technology will develop
despite our best efforts to retain the status qou but that
will take years.
What people really need to do is to take a more progressive
attitude towards sceince and technology. Not the attitude
that progress is inevitable, or must replace nature or some
other thinly vieled political agenda disguised as progress
(the idea we have had progress in politics over the last
five thousand years makes me want to laugh out loud). More
the idea that we should always be trying to adapt and
improve technology to make it both more human and more
ecologically friendly.
> Do you feel that return to ancient religion and mystical practices in
> culture will be good for the world as a whole?
Do you mean a step back from rationalism? I can't name a
single ancient belief system that would produce a better
world than our own, but then I can't picture one that would
produce one much worse either. I think logic is a marvelous
thing and one of the few human concepts that is truly
innovative so I would resist (personally) any system that
did not appreciate it or (far worse!) actually repressed its
use.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone, Socialist/Marxist, or more ancient practices?
There is no polotical system that will ever produce a state
that will not be found dissatisfactory by at least some of
its inhabitants.
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was
> written by WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as
> opposed to Vampire, which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Mage makes a political point. Whether it was intentional or
not is irrelevant. I can't read the developers minds, and I
can not place 100% validity to their statements (authors
tend to be biased towards their own work in some manner).
Frankly, it doesn't matter. The settings, rules and style
all have political overtones that resonant with certain
common social concepts in our society.
In White Wolf's defense, this would have been next to
impossible without creating a totally genre neutral system
like GURPS or FUDGE. And the big appeal to the systems of
White Wolf, for me at least, is the way that the setting and
the rules set are both intricately linked to create a nice
atmosphere for the game as a whole.
--------------
Epsilon
Proffesional cynic and parttime author
Chris Sheldahl
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
In my personal Mage-verse, both are morally neutral. I haven't read the
GTTT yet, so I'm not sure which is easier to play.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
> world as a whole?
Modernist and post-modernist simultaneously. The scientific method does
not rule out pragmatism. Likewise there are many non-pragmatic
anti-science, anti-tech people out there. I value science. I also have
strong ethical values, and I think that every attempt should be made to
arrive at ethical theories rationally and empirically, not mystically.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
Under these definitions I'm a Socialist. In my own thinking I'm
center-left. A regulated, democratic, liberal Capitalist perhaps.
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
The Old NWO book actually struck me as being very libertarian-capitalist
in its implicit criticism of the NWO. The NWO were portrayed as
"collectivists" <shudder>. Hell, Ayn Rand was listed in the reading. My
own beliefs are well to the Left of the viewpoint I sensed in the NWO
book.
I'm waiting for my copy of the GTTT to arrive.
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
My Pre-GTTT opinion:
I have no idea whether a political point is intended. No consistent
political view-point emerges. The Technos can either be seen as symbols of
either capitalism or socialism depending on how you want to view it.
The game does seem generically anti-establisment, but that has no real
political meaning. It does seem hard on science and tech, though the SOE
and the VA exist as well. One thing I'd like to see is for the darker
sides of the Trads to be shown. I'd think that the Trads attract their
share of religious fanatics, vigilantes, selfish hedonists, etc. They
represent dark sides of the Trads that have their counterpart IRL, just as
the Technos are supposed to represent the dark sides of science,
technology, and so on.
> Now, I'll hide in the bunker, and watch the bullets fly.
>
> Chris Bell
> sart...@hotmail.com
Webwalker
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions?
Traditions. Without a doubt. After reading G3T, I can't see how playing
a _starting_ Technocrat can be any fun whatsoever. All the rules and
regulations to follow, the punishment of most kinds of free thought,
obeying orders from higher ups without question... where is the fun in
having the GM say "You are ordered to go to this sector and eliminated
these three Reality Deviants."? The only upside to being a Technocrat at
the lower levels is the possibility of having some really _really_ heavy
hitters come in to save your ass.
With the Traditions, unless you're a Hermetic, you basically can
do what you want. A Cultist who wants to open a bar? No problem. An
orphan who's a freelance theif/assassin? No problem. A CC who likes to
travel the world? No problem. Hell, you can play a Trad mage who doesn't
know a thing about the "Ascension War", or if he/she does, they don't have
to care about it. You try to find a Technocrat who refuses to get
involved in the Ascension War you go looking in a graveyard.
> Which faction do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are
> morally nuetral?
Neither is totally in the right. Neither is totally in the wrong. The
Traditions have less of a chance of fucking things up, IMO.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither?
Post-Modernist, by your definition. Technology doesn't have all the
answers we need, nor can it ever have close to all the answers we need.
All it does is allow us more freedom for finding those answers.
> Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
> world as a whole?
*snicker* Nope. Not in the least. We look back at historical societies
with rose tinted coke bottle glasses. Most of those ancient societies, on
the whole, sucked royally. (pun intended) Parts of them were worthy; the
idea of one person ruling a country without worrying about losing his job
in an election is a good thing... if the person has the countries best
interests at heart. The idea of being part of the government because of
extraordinary ability is a good thing... as long as the individual chooses
to become part of the government. Etc.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
None of the above. Capitalism sucks; without taxes, we'd have to pay for
the roads to get paved ourselves. And what would I care about having most
roads paved, if I don't drive on the roads? I don't particularly relish
the idea of having to pay for my children's education from age _5_ till
18+, nor trying to find the best garbage disposal company to take my
garbage away.
'Course I would like to pay 7% sales tax instead of 15%. *g*
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
I'm not sure that you're right about that. Especially not the way you
have it written. The idea of the Technocracy is control, and you can't
control a capitalist economy very well. "The Syndicate is offereing
Ascension for $1,000 while the Celestial Chorus is offering it for free,
if you convert to Christianity!" Considering how many Christians there
are out there, how many are going to pay a grand when they can just
reconfirm their beliefs? How can the Technocracy control that?
Now, their idea that technology can solve every problem is one
that might have merit.
> Last question (bonus points!)
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Political point? Not particularly. A social point more than a political
point. Kind of an "Anit-Technology" social point. (and hey, they use
Mac's, so they _have_ to be anti-technology! *grin*) Werewolf was more
political, I think, in the idea of Pentex being an actual company in the
game, whereas in Mage, the Syndicate is an _organization_, not a company.
You wouldn't find the Syndicate listed on Forbe's 500 companies as
"Syndicate Inc.", but you would find "Pentex". (Werewolf is also the
hardest game to run a _good_ campaign in, IMO. Mage, Vampire, Changeling
and even Wraith have so much more obvious depth to work with. WW is far,
far far too easily led into a "Okay... do any of you have Sense Wrym?"
(all players raise their hands. "I've got it twice!") "Okay then, roll
it." (the sounds of ten dice per person hitting the table is deafening.)
"How many successes at 6?" ("4!" "5!" "3!" "7!" "2!" "Shit!") "Okay,
Tommy, Billy, Joe, Bobby and Susie all can tell that the big purple
dinosaur over there is acutally a Fomori. As are half the kids in the
audience. Stan, you just want to sing along. What do the rest of you
do?" ("I Burn a point of Rage and attack!" x 5. "I sing along.") --half
an hour of real time later-- "Well, okay, Tommy, you need to go spend a
few hours in the Caern regaining Gnosis. Billy, you have a Battle Scar
across your left buttock. Joe, you're still stuck in the Umbra, but don't
worry, I won't leave you out the action. Bobby, gain 5 points of Glory
for killing the Fomori. Susie, gain 5 points of Wisdom for figuring out
where the weak point was. Stan, stop singing along." ("I love you... you
love... aww...")
"Now, do any of you have Sense Wrym?"
--
"Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something."
-- Thomas A. Edison
http://chat.carleton.ca/~smiall
Ryan J Franklin
Webwalker <webw...@peekaboospam.icu> wrote:
>
>An orphan who's a freelance thief/assassin? No problem.
....huh?
Isn't being a thief and a murderer-for-hire grounds to say that, at the
very least, said Orphan _does_ have some kind of problem? ;-)
--
i mean, jeez, my high school guidance counselor never mentioned it
fran...@u.arizona.edu
Fred Mensch
>
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
IMC, they're both good. The Technocracy is the only
group really qualified to be in charge of reality,
IMO, but the Trads have a great deal going for them
as well. Finally, I sway heavilly toward sympathy for
the Technocracy but try to portray the Traditions
well too. My players _hate_ the Technocracy and would
never play one, nor let me play one. End of issue.
(As soon as the Ecstatics see the light and defect to
the Technocracy, and the NWO drops all that ignorant
fascism stuff for a healthy respect for human freedom
Mage will have a faction that fits my RL ideology
perfectly.)
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
> world as a whole?
Uhh... I've never heard the terms before, but I think your
definitions may be a bit biased. I'm a rationalist and I
believe in the ability of a combination of technology and
_responsible use thereof_ to solve any _practical, macroscopic_
problems. Not personal/spiritual/meaning of life problems.
And I believe very strongly in an athiestic, non-supernatural
spirituality.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
Direct Democratic Libertarian Socialist Meritocracy
with Government-Controlled Limited Market Economy.
(If anyone really cares, I'll explain more.)
> My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
> both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
> are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
Hate USA-style capatalism with a burning passion.
> Last question (bonus points!)
>
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
YES. Absolutely, and an unfairly biased, prejudicial one
at that.
> Now, I'll hide in the bunker, and watch the bullets fly.
No, don't worry. It was a fair and intelligent survey.
> Chris Bell
> sart...@hotmail.com
The Newcomer
The technocracy supposedly had the 'good' ideals, the best intentions...
but heres the Crux: this is the World of Darkness...
nothig stays good long. The traditions are the good guys... for now.
If it were reversed, the Techs would potentually become the good guys,
fighting to save humanity from the lies of myth, and the uncertainty of
tomorrow, and attempt to give the masses something to look foward to, a
path to the future.....
John R. Snead
: I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
: war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
: all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
: Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
: First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
: Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
: right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
I like both, but lean towards the Technocracy
: Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
: with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
: and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
: technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
: and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
: to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
: world as a whole?
Post-Modernist
We live in a culture which could certainly use more ritual. The legacy of
sterile puritanism is IMHO the greatest bane of our society.
: Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
: everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
: on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
: by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
: organization, etc?)
I'm strongly anti-capitalist, with leanings towards both European-style
social democracy and anarcho-communism.
: My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
: both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
: are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
Many of the serious extropian post-humanists (like me) are also fans of
the techs. While exceptions exist, a number of post-humanist types are
post-modernists, and many are anti-capitalist.
: Last question (bonus points!)
: Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
: WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
: which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Actually, I would say that W:tA has the strongest political agenda of any
of these games. It's a strongly environmentalist game (a fact that I
highly approve of).
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Geoffrey Brent
> Remember, there's still a strong modernist streak in our society, as
science
> has given us roads, vaccines, and an overall better standard of living
than
> 100 years ago, but has also given us a host of problems as well. Thus,
we
> have appearing the post-modernist movement, which sprang up back in the
> 30's. The problem with much post-modernism is that it doesn't claim to
be
> able to *solve* problems like modernism did in the 30's.
>
> At it's best, science empowers. At it's worst, like anything else, it
> enslaves. Remember, Heroin was invented by the Bayer company, the same
> people who make Bayer aspirin, as a patent drug.
Political button-pressing here, but... the ills of heroin have
more to do with the way it's traded than its inherent properties.
Most of the dangers of heroin stem from unsafe injecting
practices or poor quality control (ie you can OD fatally if it's
purer than you're used to, and it's cut with all sorts of
unhealthy crap.) One of the ironies of methadone treatment
for heroin addicts is that pure methadone is actually worse
for you than pure heroin, and according to some users more
addictive. Because it's illegal, it's very expensive, which
means heroin users are by definition lawbreakers who need
a lot of money, leading to some obvious problems.
I'm not saying heroin is a good thing; it's not. But there
are several reasons to think it needn't be nearly so _much_
of a problem as it is.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
<c1.2b7.2S9lzy$2...@chloe.arkane-systems.net>...
> > First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> > Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> > right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
>
> I want to bang all their heads together, hold a few purges, and build
> a third faction out of the bits, with the Order of Hermes, Sons of
> Ether, Iteration X and the Progenitors making up the technical side,
> the Void Engineers handling the Outside, and a new organisation
> stepping into the New World Order's shoes as administrators, but with
> a much different approach (see below).
What would you do with the Cult of Ecstasy?
Geoffrey Brent
Ratspaw
<sarta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
>Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
>right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
Honestly, so far? The Traditions. The Technocracy is cool, dinnae
get me wrong, but I like the variety of options presented in the
Traditions, plus I like to write Orphans and they tend to work better
in the Traditions than the Technos. I haven't given the Technos as
much of a shake, though.
>Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
>with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
>and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
>technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
>and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
>to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
>world as a whole?
Modernist. Religion is an atavism and mystical practices are
regression.
>Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
>everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
>on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
>by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
>organization, etc?)
Non-laissez-faire capitalism. Left untended, capitalism has a
tendency to hit extremes like monopolies and stay there. With minimal
government intervention at key points, everything is all groovy.
>Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
>WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
>which is a human-politics nuetral game?
None of the above. I think it was written because somebody had a
brainstorm that was infectious as all hell. Some things, once
conceived, simply *will* be realized on paper somewhere.
Ratspaw
Man is but a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed.
Ratspaw
wrote:
>
>And I believe very strongly in an athiestic, non-supernatural
>spirituality.
Describe, sir, if you have no objections.
Ratspaw
wrote:
>>Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
>>with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
>>and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
>>technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
>>and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
>>to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
>>world as a whole?
>
>Modernist. Religion is an atavism and mystical practices are
>regression.
I suppose I should modify that to "Modernism as depicted in the
question". I don't read enough philosophy to able to contest the
stated definitions. ;)
Kristopher/EOS
>
> In article <37dcddd1$0$91...@news.net-link.net>,
> eosl...@net-link.net wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some
>>> interest (NOT Flame war...the participants have been been
>>> rather respectful, if heated. Bravo, all in the NG.) I'd
>>> like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
>>> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>>>
>>> option...The Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction
>>> do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are
>>> morally nuetral?
>>
>> that I find none of the groups actions sympathetic, but I do
>> find the Technocracy's foundational ideals FAR more
>> sympathetic than any of the others.
>
> Not only are you not a mage player, it sounds like you haven't
> even read the book.
Listen, jack, I've probably read more Mage material than just
about anyone who has never actually played Mage. I've read
both editions multiple times, plus at least half of the Mage
splat books at least once. I have a borrowed copy of
Ascension's Right Hand lying over there on the couch. I've
read the player's guide half a dozen times. So next time you
think you know anything about me, keep it to yourself,
because you do not know.
> That's a common trait among the Trchnocracy apologists, who
> have made virtue of relying on "what everyone knows"
> (usually wrong) rather than what's actually written.
Oh, so you're a Canonite. Well, look, if you can't stand to
have Canon questioned, or to see the Official Black Hat
status of the Technocracy questioned, or the Official White
Hat status of the Traditions questioned, then you'd better
just killfile my ID, because I'm gonna keep right at it, jack.
>>> Last question (bonus points!)
>>>
>>> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game
>>> that was written by WWGS to make a political point,
>>> similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire, which is a
>>> human-politics nuetral game?
>>
>> Mage and Werewolf both, without a doubt, reflect the
>> general ideological bent of one or more persons at White
>> Wolf, even if they were never intended to, and the anti-
>> rational, anti-modern, anti-science, anti-objective,
>> pro-primitive, pro-spiritual, pro-subjective tone of both
>> games makes that bent painfully clear.
>
> I guess the listing of scientist in the OoH character
> concepts must have been a misprint in my book then.
Ever heard the term "Token minority?"
Kristopher/EOS
Phil Brucato
Ooooo, *nice one,* Chris. I had resolved to stay out of here for a while (falling
behind on my novel), but this is too good to pass up. Thank you for asking some
really good questions, and for inviting a cool discussion/debate. :-)
My answers:
------------------------------------
> I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
<deep booming voice from inside the ruins of Doissetep>But of course! :-)
>First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The Technocracy,
or the Traditions?
Actually my long-running player-character is Jennifer Rollins (1). She began as an
experiment in Sam Chupp’s old “let’s fix the holes in First Ed” playtest, and was
inspired by a three-card Tarot pull. I hadn’t originally planned to gender-bend,
but when the cards pulled were all female (High Priestess, Lovers and Queen of
Wands, as I recall) it seemed like fate. :-)
I enjoyed running Jennifer for several reasons: One, she typified my “none of the
above” feelings on Enlightenment (see below); in Wayne Peacock’s game she actually
got to tell the Council where to stick their power-politics and high-handed
activities. Two, she allowed me to play dumb (“What’s a Nephandus?”), which let me
off the “player knowledge/character knowledge” stick. And three, as Cassie and
Wolf (two other demi-self-portraits, found in CoE) demonstrate, I prefer an
individual quest toward awareness over a group exercise. Jen came to epitomize my
feelings about awareness as a whole – as a frightening yet irresistible challenge
that forces the mage to confront obstacles that terrify her yet allow to overcome
them.
>Which faction do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are morally
nuetral?
One of the running threads in Mage suggests my true feelings on that subject: None
of the above.
As I’ve mentioned in other recent posts, I received Mage “out of the box”; First
Edition was finished, and although I had phenomenal creative latitude, I still had
to steer the ship I was given. I took issue with certain things – like the
black-and-white morality of the Ascension War - and changed them when I could. But
many elements of the setting were built into the design (2). And so I began
muddying the moral waters with Book of Chantries, wherein Steve Brown and I gave
the Traditions a pack of whacked-out Masters and offered hope that many
Technocrats would be appalled by the excesses within their organization.
Eventually, I turned Mage into a four-way struggle between large groups that had
metaphysical places in Reality itself. Even so, groups are composed of human
beings, and the characters we created to populate Mage’s world are flawed,
passionate creatures driven more by their own motivations and perceptions than by
monolithic massminds (3).
Personally, I feel organizations are necessary evils that cannot help but become
corrupted. This is especially true of organizations that gather together for
spiritual or political purposes, and the Council and Union employ both of the
above. (4) Personally, I don’t trust religions (as opposed to faith; see below).
In my experience and observation, they always lose sight of the vision that
inspired them and eventually become hidebound, power-hungry oppressors of future
insights. Someone becomes the High Priest, someone becomes the heretic, and
witch-burnings of one kind or another always seem to result. (Note that I’m not
singling anyone out here – I’m an equal-opportunity offender.) An institution
begins, and while its strictures are essential for survival in a hostile world its
power structures tend toward stagnation. Without constant challenge and reform, an
organization or religion calcifies. Although the Traditions are more open to
reform than the Inner Circle is, that calcification has occurred in both groups.
Although both groups have great ideals, good intentions and valid places in Mage
cosmology, both have been undone by their own orthodoxy and by the lure of power.
The true heralds of the future come from outside all the established groups.
Why didn’t I say this sooner? Because that would have been forcing you all into my
mode of thinking. And despite the perceptions of certain critics on this list, I
have always resisted doing that – except, of course, when my mode of thinking
involved challenging the status quo. :-)
And, as I’ve said in more supplements than I can count, you don’t *have* to
feature the Ascension War, Traditions, Technocracy or anything else in your
chronicle. If you don’t like ‘em, leave ‘em out. In Chapters Two, Six and Seven,
Mage Second gives you plenty to work with – two-page spreads notwithstanding, the
stuff in there applies equally well to any mage.
As for “morally neutral(ity),” there is no such thing. Everyone has principles,
and we all violate them when it’s convenient or expedient (or just plain fun) to
do so. The Traditions and Conventions both have lofty ideals, but they violate
them on a fairly regular basis – just as real organizations and people do.
And Mage, under my tenure, has always been *inescapably* moral to begin with. That
which you do kicks you in the ass whether you like it or not. This metaphysical
morality is true to all forms and practices of magic, and to some schools of
quantum physics as well, but it was lacking in all magic-based RPGs – Mage
included. One of my early objections to Mage First Edition was an essentially
amoral tone that said, “Do what you like as long as you don’t get caught by
Paradox.” Yet as anybody who has had any experience with magic (or life in
general) can attest, things catch up with you, often in very fitting ways. And so
I introduced Resonance and began making the world of Mage reflect the actions of
those within it. (See Book of Chantries.) Mage First was about changing the world;
later, in Second Edition, I began playing with the idea that the world changes you
too. And the changes that both undergo are rooted in what the movers and shakers
(Trads, Techs, and magi in general) chose to do with their power.
IMHO, what the Awakened need to do now is take a hard look in the mirror, see
what’s broken, and fix it – not an easy task. When you have the power to make your
vision of Reality into *everyone’s* Reality, it’s easy to be seduced into a sense
that you are always right. Since Book of Chantries I’ve been pointing out that it
ain’t necessarily so, but the lessons were lost on the fictional characters and
real-life players. And so we blasted Doissetep, Null-B, Horizon and several other
mainstays into scrap and had fun with the fallout. The deaths of Porthos, Sam
Haight, Caron Mustai, and other luminaries (plus the corruption of Voormas, the
Fall of the Nine, Project Invictus, the revelations of Mark Gillian, and other
events) have been deliberate demonstrations of the flaws of both Council and
Union. Those flaws have undermined both groups, and allowed me to level the
playing field (and intensify the drama) of the Ascension War.
<pant pant pant… writing muscles straining… tangent growing…>
There’s a lot more about this in The Book of Mirrors, pages 55-61. Chapter Two of
that book addresses a lot of design questions in infinitely more detail. But I
assure you, the moral ambiguity has been present and intentional since I began
handling the line.
>Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems with
the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method, and
technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and technology do
*not* have all the answers, especially to social questions, and pragmatic
solutions must be sought), or neither?
Post-modernist, and thank you for using the term with its correct definition. I
tend to think technology and science present us with unlimited opportunities, but
they do not, in themselves, show what we must *do* to get the best from those
opportunities. (Or define what “best” means… “the best” for *whom*? )
>Do you feel that return to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture
will be good for the world as a whole?
No. We don’t live in the past anymore and the old rules no longer apply. (Much as
certain religious and racial fundamentalists would like to believe they do.)
Religions grow out of cultures and circumstances. In this era, we have outgrown
our old cultures and must deal with new circumstances. (5)
Yet without some kind of spiritual compass and seeking, we as a species are lost.
Humans have an innate need to look beyond ourselves, and when we do not find what
we want in conventional religious channels we tend to look in materialistic ones –
often with hollow, disastrous results. Like it or not, we are part of something
bigger; whether you view that something as an entity some call “God,” a cosmic
gestalt, an interactive pool of energy, or a giant sitcom depends on your
perspective, but only a blind idiot (6) could deny that Creation is an interactive
whole. Faith and spirituality give us insights at that whole, and despite their
sad excesses (see above) they offer a better clue to our existence than raw
materialism – and offer a better chance of long-term survival.
Funny thing: Both science and faith see themselves at odds, but I feel that both
perspectives offer us a better understanding of our physical and metaphysical
condition. Science demonstrates the true connection and awesome scope of Creation
in ways no old dogma ever could, and helps us elevate our place in it. Faith keeps
us looking for (and sometimes finding) the threads that bind Creation together -
and helps us realize that the whole thing is very much alive.
Personally, I feel the hope for the future is rooted not in a return to obsolete
strictures but in new sets of rituals and observances - in a new and respectful
vision that takes Creation’s vast scope into account while leaving individuals
free to choose their own perceptions of it. Is that possible? I don’t know – in
Mage, centuries-old mystics have been unable to find that balance and I’m not sure
that we humans can do any better. But it’s worth a shot. Otherwise, we’re pretty
much dead.
For the record, I often consider myself a neo-pagan, but I stress the “new” part
of that phrase. I consider myself a neo-Christian, too, but my version of
Christianity bears very little relation to Pat Robertson or the Pope. (These
worthies also bear very little relation to Yoshua the Nazarene [Jesus], but I
digress…) My appreciation of science and rationalism have firm places in my
spirituality, and I could no more reject the insight of reason than I could
embrace pure, atheistic materialism. (7)
>Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so on),
Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production by the
workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal organization, etc?)
None of the above, and I’m not even going near the epic tangent the answer to that
question would require. :-) Let’s just say I’m a Progressive Democrat with
Libertarian Tendencies but a lingering distrust in large organizations.
>Last question (bonus points!)
For me, too? (:-P
>Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by WWGS
to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire, which is a
human-politics neutral game?
I think I can answer that….
First of all, the WW games have been created by several different people, and they
show the beliefs, prejudices and ideals of their authors. Vampire, Mage and
Werewolf show Mark Rein*Hagen’s innate dislike for authority (8) and trendy
neo-tribalism. Stewart Wieck displayed his interest in mythology, social
philosophy, and metaphysics in Mage and Vampire (9), but stayed pretty much away
from Werewolf. Both recognized that RPGs that carried political, philosophical and
literary ammunition (especially of the radical variety) would be a distinct break
from the old “kill enemy/take treasure” model of pre-Vampire RPGs, and they wisely
decided to let the writers and developers run with their personal beliefs,
impulses and agendas. (As opposed to the cookie-cutter D&D “house style” in which
all things are presented as objectly and blandly as possible.) Consequently, all
of the games bear the stamp of the design groups and line developers who worked on
them. (10)
I don’t have the time or energy to go into the philosophical predilections of the
various line developers (or of Sam Chupp, who was instrumental in the design of
three out of four – thank him from the whole Umbra/cosmology thing). Let’s just
say that we all love to kick the status quo in the teeth. Andrew Greenberg
(Vampire) is actually *very* political, as the whole clan vs. clan vs. Sabbat vs.
the individual thing displays. Bill Bridges (the most Native American white boy I
know :-) ) has a degree in philosophy and a keen interest in indigenous cultures
(11). Both of them wanted to make their games into political and social sounding
boards, and I followed them in that mode. In contrast, Wraith and Changeling lack
the same socio-political punch. Rich Dansky worked a bit of social commentary into
Wraith later in the game’s history (see Charnel Houses of Europe, Artificers, and
Shadow Players Guide) but was less overt about it than we were; Jennifer and Ian
don’t care much for politics, and rarely used such themes in their lines.
Yes, the political baggage was intentional, but rarely as cut-and-dried as it
might originally appear. Although Werewolf is more overtly anti-authority than
Mage (12), Mage packs all the subversion I could muster. I wanted to make you
question not only the “accepted authorities” (myself included), but to question
your own perceptions and expectations as well – including your perceptions of what
an RPG should be, and of who the “good guys” and “bad guys” really were. If you
really look at my work, you’ll see that I rarely took a hard “good/bad”
perspective; rather, I preferred to show Mage as a tug-of-war between the world
and the individual. (13) I admit my sympathies definitely tended toward the mystic
end of the spectrum, but I always wanted to show how utterly frightening their
ideals are when taken to an extreme. Those who actually READ the Tradition books
(14) could see how scary a world run by those ideals would be. Hell, even the
Virtual Adepts couldn’t manage a reality based on total anarchy (see Digital Web
2.0). Yes, I made Mage into a political satire, commentary, and occasional
soapbox, but my message was more, “Take responsibility for yourself and fight the
good fight” than “magic good-science bad-ooga booga.” (15)
I go ‘way now. Must tend Technocratic salt mines.
Later!
- Phil Brucato
------------------------------------------------------
Oh, no! More footnotes!
1: See Orphans, pages 94-95, plus Hidden Lore and a four-installment comic strip
in White Wolf magazine.
2: The Technocratic villains, the heroic Traditions, the subhuman Nephandi, and so
on. I couldn’t throw them out, and thus had to rework them within the structure I
already had.
3: People’s tendency to say “The Celestial Chorus wants this,” or “The Cultists of
Ecstasy invented that,” has always driven me to fits. It’s like saying “America
invented this,” or “The Christians want that.” Since the beginning of the line,
I’ve been trying to emphasize the idea that a group is formed by and comprised of
individuals, but a lot of folks don’t seem to get it. Eventually, I just let
loose, said “To hell with it all,” and did The Orphans Survival Guide.
4: Yes, in its own way the scientific community is almost a form of religion,
complete with heresies, sacraments and excommunication.
5: Allow me to vent a moment about certain folks who claim to practice “the Old
Religion.” Bullshit. You might take your cue from pre-Christian cultures and
tribal practices, but we all live in a post-Christian, post-Industrial world.
Thank you.
6: No offense intended toward the blind or mentally-impaired – just the idiots! ?
7: For a more poetic version of my personal beliefs, see Cult of Ecstasy, page 18.
8: Unless it’s his own. <smack!>
9: The whole Caine/Book of Nod/Gehenna thing was his idea.
10: Which is one of the reasons I never hired Anders Sandberg. I really liked what
he was doing, but he had a different vision of Mage than I did (one rooted more in
First Edition, in many ways). Rather than have him compromise his work by telling
him what *I* thought should be done, I let him do what he wanted and followed my
own concept.
11: Oddly, he has very little love for the Great Outdoors – that’s more Ethan
Skemp’s bag.
12: Deliberately so – Garou are tribal beings and tend to see things in very
simple terms. Bill wanted to show how a tribal, self-isolated and warlike society
might view the world it was born to fight.
13: Remember, *I* wrote most of the “we’re good guys” stuff in TechGuide while
having Doissetep destroyed by its own stupidity.
14: As opposed to popping off about things they haven’t bothered to read – an
eternal source of annoyance to me, and a chronic problem on newsgroups.
15: As I’ve already stated in other posts, the “TechNazi” thing predated me, and
came largely from Mark and Rob Hatch. I may have satirized our tendency to let
technology rule our lives (and society), but I never said, “All technology is
bad.” As several folks have already pointed out, *all factions,* even the
Dreamspeakers and Verbena, have featured members who use technology. The
Technocracy’s evils do not lie in science or tools, but in the use to which those
tools have been put.
Kristopher/EOS
> Yet without some kind of spiritual compass and seeking, we
> as a species are lost. Humans have an innate need to look
> beyond ourselves, and when we do not find what we want in
> conventional religious channels we tend to look in
> materialistic ones-–often with hollow, disastrous results.
> Like it or not, we are part of something bigger; whether
> you view that something as an entity some call “God,” a
> cosmic gestalt, an interactive pool of energy, or a giant
> sitcom depends on your perspective, but only a blind idiot
> (6) could deny that Creation is an interactive whole.
> Faith and spirituality give us insights at that whole, and
> despite their sad excesses (see above) they offer a better
> clue to our existence than raw materialism – and offer a
> better chance of long-term survival.
At this point, I have to take exception. I think I would
have let this go, and said nothing, were it not for the
blind idiot comment. I guess I'll have to seperate this
out into various points.
A) There are those of us...well, I may be the only one...for
whom faith is no longer an option. Personally, every
single thing I've ever had faith in has become, in the end,
a source of great regret, remorse, loss, and pain. Faith
has never been a positive thing in my life, and I flatly
refuse to make the mistake of faith again. I used to
believe in a lot of things...fate, love, and so on.
Never again.
B) Yes, I am a member of the human species, a citizen of a
nation, etc. I am NOT, however, part of some greater whole.
As I've said before, I am not from, going to, connected
with, or in any way part of God/Creation/whatever.
C) Spirituality...sorry, I've never had a spiritual moment or
experience in my life. If I had any reason to conclude that
souls exist, I'd probably also conclude that I don't have
one. After the events alluded to in A, I certainly don't
have anything of the sort. Maybe this is why Vampire
appeals to me more than Mage or Werewolf. There's something
about existing past one's own death that is eerily familiar
to me, and it holds a morbid fascination.
D) Creation/The Interactive Whole...in the end, we are all
alone, and most of this is about finding a way to deny that
fact. Humans are innately, instinctively social creatures,
and THE most frightening...no, terrifying thing for humans
is to be alone. I'm convinced that it's hardwired into the
human subconscious.
As an extension of this, much of religion/spirituality is
simply an appeal to justice. Humans like to believe that
there is some kind of univeral cosmic justice at play, which
there most clearly is not. Karma is bunk.
E) Even if there is something to your claim, there is no way
that it can be objectively demonstrated, and so you can't
really expect me to accept it, and then fairly call me an
idiot for not accepting it. It's not like you have some
kind of experimental/empirical way of demonstrating The
Great Whole.
F) That being said, I have been told by most of the people who
know me that I am the most ethical/moral person they know,
to the point where two of them often say that my morality
will be the death of me. I've lost several jobs simply
because I refused to bend the truth to serve the needs of
the company. I probably have the most restrictive
behavioral standards for myself of any of the people in
my life, and that includes neo-pagans, Christians, a Jew,
and so on...morality and spirituality/religion are about as
connected as you and I. As in, not at all.
G) I know this whole thing is off topic and sounds rather
arrogant, and I really don't care. I'm a tad offended by
the assertion that anyone who doesn't buy into the whole
spiritual thing is somehow an idiot and/or rampant
materialist.
Kristopher/EOS
Brian Thomas Habing
>A) There are those of us...well, I may be the only one...for
<snip>
> refuse to make the mistake of faith again. I used to
> believe in a lot of things...fate, love, and so on.
> Never again.
If you're over fifty I might believe you'll stick to this... if
not, I'd bet it won't last. Nothing against you and your convictions,
but just past experience with people in general... you could always
be the exception that proves the rule.
>B) Yes, I am a member of the human species, a citizen of a
> nation, etc. I am NOT, however, part of some greater whole.
> As I've said before, I am not from, going to, connected
> with, or in any way part of God/Creation/whatever.
Of course if the universe is set up in the way that say the Gita
suggests, then _you_ don't have a choice in if you're part
of the whole or not.
>G) I know this whole thing is off topic and sounds rather
> arrogant, and I really don't care. I'm a tad offended by
> the assertion that anyone who doesn't buy into the whole
> spiritual thing is somehow an idiot and/or rampant
> materialist.
They might understand better if you explained why you felt the
need to have the strict morals you do (in the part I snipped above).
>Kristopher/EOS
bh
Alistair J. R. Young
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> praised Shub-Internet thus:
> Alistair J. R. Young <avatar...@arkane.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <c1.2b7.2S9lzy$2...@chloe.arkane-systems.net>...
>> > First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
>> > Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
>> > right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
>>
>> I want to bang all their heads together, hold a few purges, and build
>> a third faction out of the bits, with the Order of Hermes, Sons of
>> Ether, Iteration X and the Progenitors making up the technical side,
>> the Void Engineers handling the Outside, and a new organisation
>> stepping into the New World Order's shoes as administrators, but with
>> a much different approach (see below).
> What would you do with the Cult of Ecstasy?
Ignore them. I don't think they'd make good meritocrats, but they
don't do anyone any harm, either. So if their philosophy makes the
Masses that bit happier than they would be otherwise, what the hell...
Alistair
--
Computational Thaumaturge, Deus Machinarum. -- Cerebrate of the Silicon Swarm.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
"All our systems are 100% relia
Chris Bell
Ratspaw <rat...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
news:37ddf0ec...@usenet.kornet.net...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 22:14:59 GMT, Fred Mensch <fme...@nait.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >And I believe very strongly in an athiestic, non-supernatural
> >spirituality.
> Describe, sir, if you have no objections.
>
> Ratspaw
Hm...sounds kinda like pure Thereveda Buddhism to me, where Gods aren't
really Gods!
--
Baptized in quantum fires,
reborn as incarnate gods,
drunk with fame, sacrificed on the altar of power
We are your heroes, your legends, your icons.
Beware. Your legacy is our future.
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
http://www.xsite.net/~argrath/intense.htm
http://members.xoom.com/Groovydood/kaiuwall.htm
Chris Bell
Terry Bogard was one of my first Mage characters, satirically based off the
the SNK fighting game character of the same name.
Phil, that stuff was so much classic insider stuff that I cut/pasted and
saved it.
Thanks to everyone for the interesting and well thought out responses.
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> writes:
>
>>A) There are those of us...well, I may be the only one...for
> <snip>
>> refuse to make the mistake of faith again. I used to
>> believe in a lot of things...fate, love, and so on.
>
>> Never again.
>
> If you're over fifty I might believe you'll stick to this...
> if not, I'd bet it won't last. Nothing against you and your
> convictions, but just past experience with people in
> general... you could always be the exception that proves the
> rule.
I'm 26. What does this have to do with anything?
>> B) Yes, I am a member of the human species, a citizen of a
>> nation, etc. I am NOT, however, part of some greater whole.
>> As I've said before, I am not from, going to, connected
>> with, or in any way part of God/Creation/whatever.
>
> Of course if the universe is set up in the way that say the
> Gita suggests, then _you_ don't have a choice in if you're
> part of the whole or not.
Luckily, the Gita has nothing to do with reality, especially
not in any demonstratable way.
>> G) I know this whole thing is off topic and sounds rather
>> arrogant, and I really don't care. I'm a tad offended by
>> the assertion that anyone who doesn't buy into the whole
>> spiritual thing is somehow an idiot and/or rampant
>> materialist.
>
> They might understand better if you explained why you felt
> the need to have the strict morals you do (in the part I
> snipped above).
Because, as far as I'm concerned, there are certain limits
at which actions become wrong because of the effect they have
on other beings, and those limits apply to everyone. Even to
gods, if they existed. Part of my objection to many religions
is they way they define their diety as inherently good, and
assert that anything their diety does is good, or define good
as the will of their diety.
As if.
Kristopher/EOS
Peter Miller
>As for value decisions, well, that's precisely one of the points
>in the game: winner takes all, and I really mean *all*. The faction
>that comes on top of the Ascencion war will be able to put its
>mark on *everything*, and this does not only include physical laws,
>but also history, societies, moral codes, and so on. In a Mage setting,
>there cannot be objective absolutes. So my answer to your second
>question is, that while both factions are not morally neutral,
>there is, however, no common scale to which their morals can be
>compared, and make one or the other "good" or "bad" in the eyes
>of an objective beholder because there are no objective beholders.
Only if you try to derive your morality from external absolutes. Internal
absolutes are relatively unaffected by paradigm - suffering is still bad,
for example, whoever is ascendant at the time, and one can make a moral
judgement unbiased by paradigm based on the amount of suffering present
under each system.
>On the ideals boosted by the factions, well, that's, personally, what
>makes me cringe the most in M:tA, that such a great idea that lies at
>the base of the Union is presented as having such dire consequences.
>The Union promotes equality, but, in the game's setting, has neglected
>liberty too much. The traditions do advocate liberty, but are indeed
>too elitist for their own good. Each side will, of course, see the
>other's faults though their own biased glasses, and the war of
>Ascension will go on.
>
>I think that, morally, you can tilt the balance by having one or
>the other side be ready to compromise in the name of Fraternity.
>The side that is willing to compromise its main ideal by balancing
>with the other using the third will get my vote.
I like this explanation. Very good. Very Gallic, too. :)
...
Ooh, I just realised. The Traditions are gonna win.
Peter
--
{Peter Miller <*> ICQ:37501548 IRC:Darkyoung Peter(at)wgp(dot)org}
{"The seething vortex of time, whose merest mention is paralysing."}
{Drop the Debt - Sign the petition--> http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/}
{rec.games.frp.storyteller IC:WGP&SV AIM:LordMiller http://wgp.org/}
Peter Miller
>Alistair J. R. Young <avatar...@arkane.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>
>> > Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
>> > right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
>>
>> I want to bang all their heads together, hold a few purges, and build
>> a third faction out of the bits, with the Order of Hermes, Sons of
>> Ether, Iteration X and the Progenitors making up the technical side,
>> the Void Engineers handling the Outside, and a new organisation
>> stepping into the New World Order's shoes as administrators, but with
>> a much different approach (see below).
>
>What would you do with the Cult of Ecstasy?
All manner of things.
Peter
Muah!
Peter Miller
>Basically moderinsim does offer the solutions, but
>we find them repugnant.
I have to point out to you that all of your examples were strawmen. Most of
those come under the heading of 'pointlessly weird shit' rather than
'solving the problems of mankind'.
>I'm not post-moderinst either. I don't believe our problems
>-can- be solved. I think that the inherently selfish nature
>of our species means that the best we can hope for is to
>live on in prepetual distopia and each person trying to get
>what little happiness they can.
>
>I think the term for me is "cynic."
Cynical or not, your assertion is unsupported. Human beings are not
inherently selfish; they derive their greatest satisfaction from the
happiness of others. They build communities, and are unable to function
effectively without the approval and affection of others.
People take the fact that they harm one another as proof of the inherent
cruelty and selfishness of mankind, but this is an irrational conclusion to
draw since it isn't supported by the available evidence. People also act
against their own best interests with equal frequency, but this does not
mean that they are inherently masochistic.
>> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
>> everyone, Socialist/Marxist, or more ancient practices?
>
>There is no polotical system that will ever produce a state
>that will not be found dissatisfactory by at least some of
>its inhabitants.
This is true, as far as it goes; however, the problem can be solved by
making a range of political systems available and constructing a metasystem
to ensure that they play nicely together.
Peter
Peter Miller
>> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
>> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
>> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
>> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
>> organization, etc?)
>
>Direct Democratic Libertarian Socialist Meritocracy
>with Government-Controlled Limited Market Economy.
>(If anyone really cares, I'll explain more.)
Meritocracy is the most pernicious form of government.
David Johnston
Well, who really cares if it's just a con-game in the end?
I mean everybody's doomed, there are no good guys, there's
no hope, it's just a matter of waiting around for the
inevitable annihilation of humanity. And in the World of
Darkness, it's worse.
Simon Marks
<sarta...@hotmail.com> uttered these immortal words...
>I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
>war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
>all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
>Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
>First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
>Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
>right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
>
It's hard to say. In RL I'm not convinced of "right" and "wrong" as
absolutes. They are more like societal(sp?) norms.
I would have thought this more apt in Mage with it's fluid morality.
>Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
>with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
>and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
>technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
>and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that return
>to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
>world as a whole?
>
Science and Tech do not have all the answers, but neither does
anything else. I suppose I believe in sociology.[shrugs]
Anything that makes the most number of people happy I suppose.
>Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
>everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
>on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
>by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
>organization, etc?)
>
Socialism and Marxism are about as far apart as Nationalism and
Xenophobia. However, I have more sympathy for socialism. It holds that
society is more important than the Individual, and thus makes the
greatest number happy. But I do understand some freedoms are reqd.
>My instinct tells me that most Technocracy boosters will have a bent towards
>both Modernism and Capitalism, but I could be wrong. The above questions
>are merely meant to spur discussion, not to prove a point.
Now, y'see. I would have said that Capitalism is quite specifically
oppsed to the Tech. Tech is all about conformity and regulation,
whereas Capitalism is quite the reverse.
>Last question (bonus points!)
>
>Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
>WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
>which is a human-politics nuetral game?
I really hope not....
>Now, I'll hide in the bunker, and watch the bullets fly.
>
{PING}
-Simon Marks
E-Mail Simon...@Hotmail.com
ICQ #36899670
------------------------------
"We could post it on the internet"
"No, we have to reach people who's opinions actually matter"
- Milhouse and Bart
Aaron Peori
> >Basically moderinsim does offer the solutions, but
> >we find them repugnant.
>
> I have to point out to you that all of your examples were strawmen. Most of
> those come under the heading of 'pointlessly weird shit' rather than
> 'solving the problems of mankind'.
(shrug) They are solutions. Not only that, they could work.
Sure we don';t have the science now, but that doesn't mean
we won't have them some time in the future. Unlike FTL
travel their is no reason to assume we can not genetically
engineer "perfect" humans for instance.
> >I'm not post-moderinst either. I don't believe our problems
> >-can- be solved. I think that the inherently selfish nature
> >of our species means that the best we can hope for is to
> >live on in prepetual distopia and each person trying to get
> >what little happiness they can.
> >
> >I think the term for me is "cynic."
>
> Cynical or not, your assertion is unsupported. Human beings are not
> inherently selfish; they derive their greatest satisfaction from the
> happiness of others. They build communities, and are unable to function
> effectively without the approval and affection of others.
Actually it's supported by a great deal of evidence. Humans
need other humans, this is true, but they need them for, and
only for, their own selfish desires. There are some people
who derive pleasure from being wipped, and some who derive
pleasure from helping others. But you will never find a
human being who does something merely for the sake of
satisfying a moral platitude. In the end, it is a selfish
motive that drives them. This selfish motive leads to the
corruption of our judicial, political and economic systems.
> >There is no polotical system that will ever produce a state
> >that will not be found dissatisfactory by at least some of
> >its inhabitants.
>
> This is true, as far as it goes; however, the problem can be solved by
> making a range of political systems available and constructing a metasystem
> to ensure that they play nicely together.
Sure, but that doesn't solve the problems does it? I mean, I
may be -forced- to play nive with others but I won't enjoy
it. Eventually I may even find enough people who are not
willing to play nice and start a revolution. It's happened
all throughout hostory afterall.
------------
Epsilon
Julian Mensch
>
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 22:14:59 GMT, Fred Mensch <fme...@nait.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >And I believe very strongly in an athiestic, non-supernatural
> >spirituality.
>
> Describe, sir, if you have no objections.
Well, there's a lot of examples in both RL and the WoD.
Imagine this, to be overly simplistic. A group of people
start gathering together. They are rationalists with an
experimental bent and ask, "ok, we may or may not believe
in God, but we do believe that since the Church is so
popular, perhaps it has some value aside from it's super-
stitionist beliefs." Or they simply come upon the paradox
of rationality: logic can deduce things, but it can't
create meaning. You can never prove absolutely with a
logical proof that X is good without starting with an
arbitrary definition of good. Therefore, to truly define
something meaningful facilities other than mere logic
are needed. Hence - spirituality. But believing patently
false (IMHO) things like the existance of angels and
demons doesn't help this goal of "finding meaning" at
all.
They then look at some of the qualities of the Church that
imply no belief in supernatural forces: the sense of a
spiritual community, philosopical teachings, faith in things
with believing in and so forth. Look at athiestic
spirituality as a way of learning about the universe and
yourself through intuition, natural social behabiour and
personal exploration. Yes, this sounds hopelessly new-agey
but it isn't meant to. Think about it like this: is belief
in a divine being alone _really_ spirituality? I find that
I could believe in God easily and still feel no need to
worship him in any way or do anything remotely spiritual
in regards to him. Likewise, I don't consider the wackos
that believe in vampires IRL very spiritual. Thus there has
to be some root of spirituality other then simply believing
(in my view) pointlessly stupid things. What might replace
the belief in the divine to be a pillar of spirituality? Lots
of things: exploration and understanding of human consciousness,
faith in the value of human life, self-knowledge and an effort
to "be all that you can be", altered states of being, an
exploration and understanding of dreams and the subconscious
on an intuitive level instead of a scientific one, trying to
understand _why_ people feel as they do about different things
on a base level and so forth.
There's lots of examples of athiestic spirituality in the WoD.
The Path of Death and the Soul, the Path of Power and the Inner
Voice, the Path of Self Focus, the Path of Honorable Accord, the
Path of Harmony, the views of the Cult of Ecstacy, the Iterator's
transhumanism ideology, pursuit of Golconda and so forth. Also,
the Mystic Path in Mage as it applies to Technocrats as of GttT
as another example. In real life, Theravada Buddhism, some
esoteric sorts of Hinduism and humanism are all athiestic
spiritualities. The creation of art by athiests is an expression
of athiestic spirituality.
This is completely off topic, and I hope it made some degree
of sense. And no, I don't believe in following Sabbat Paths
IRL; I was just giving examples. Two different athiestic
spiritualities can be as different as two thiestic ones.
-- Julian
Della
U do not need to believe in something (would it be in GoD/any kind of
spiritual belief or rationality and science) to be moral
the question is why ?
As u are an exemple of it
where from are u finding ur moral/ethical principles and why do u follow
them ?
old questions...
Della
http://www.altern.com/della
"What do you think is going on, anyway?"
Some horrible Wagnerian thing, I told him, full of blood, thunder, and death
for us all.
"Oh, the usual," Luke said.
Exactly, I replied.
Julian Mensch
> At this point, I have to take exception. I think I would
> have let this go, and said nothing, were it not for the
> blind idiot comment. I guess I'll have to seperate this
> out into various points.
>
[SNIP]
Far from my personal views but certainly valid and
appropriate. I agree that spirituality isn't essential
or the core of proper behaviour. For what it's worth,
I wish you joy and success in your life.
-- Julian
Göran Bräck
>Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
>right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
Well, the Traditions are *written* as the good guys, so there is really no
point in taking any other position. Never GM:ed Mage, though.
>Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
>with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
>and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
>technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
>and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither? Do you feel that
return
>to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
>world as a whole?
I don't agree with the definition. The problem with post-modernists is, IMO,
that they are reactive, rather than active. They are more interested in
disagreeing with the Modernists than in agreeing on anything else. Thus,
post-modernists can have more or less any opinion, as long as the modernists
oppose it.
As for myself, I'd say that I think science has the answer to most of
humanity's problems, but not all. Yet. Also, since I am not American, I feel
that the opposition "science vs religion" is not valid; I cannot see any
real difficulties for the two to peacefully co-exist, and even support each
other. However, it must be noted that on this side of the Atlantic, there
are very few fundamentalist protestants, and most people who claim "The Holy
Book is the word of God himself, and cannot be disputed" are Muslims.
Christians, as a rule, generally go for the "It has to be interpreted
allegorically, sometimes" argument.
>Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
>everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
>on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
>by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
>organization, etc?)
Since when does capitalism mean all that? Most capitalists are quite happy
to pay the taxes that pay the police for guarding their property.
Unregulated capitalism is impossible, except in a true anarchy. That being
said, I really think socialism is a bad idea. Socialism, when applied
practically, always means Big Government, which sooner or later means
corruption. If underpaid civil servants are to regulate the rich
businessmen, it will be advantageous for both of them to keep the bribes
coming.
Thus spoke the Swede, born and raised in the welfare state.
>Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
>WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
>which is a human-politics nuetral game?
Yup. No doubt about it. However, it is still just a game, not an accurate
description of the real world. I can live with role-playing political
statements I don't share if I like the game setting.
GB.
1. Knowledge is power
2. Power corrupts
3. Therefore, knowledge corrupts
Peter Miller
>Peter Miller wrote:
>> >Basically moderinsim does offer the solutions, but
>> >we find them repugnant.
>>
>> I have to point out to you that all of your examples were strawmen. Most of
>> those come under the heading of 'pointlessly weird shit' rather than
>> 'solving the problems of mankind'.
>
>(shrug) They are solutions. Not only that, they could work.
Solutions to what, though? They could work, but what effect would they have?
Why would this be desirable? You can call a world of drugged automota
'utopia' all you want, but unless we find it appealing it hardly fits the
definition, does it?
>Sure we don';t have the science now, but that doesn't mean
>we won't have them some time in the future. Unlike FTL
>travel their is no reason to assume we can not genetically
>engineer "perfect" humans for instance.
I'm not questioning the science, I'm questioning the logic. We can't
genetically engineer perfect humans because we'd need perfect humans to
begin with to tell us what characteristics to engineer into them. The
characteristics we choose will reflect our imperfections, and you'll just
end up with a new race of *differently* imperfect human beings.
>> >I'm not post-moderinst either. I don't believe our problems
>> >-can- be solved. I think that the inherently selfish nature
>> >of our species means that the best we can hope for is to
>> >live on in prepetual distopia and each person trying to get
>> >what little happiness they can.
>> >
>> >I think the term for me is "cynic."
>>
>> Cynical or not, your assertion is unsupported. Human beings are not
>> inherently selfish; they derive their greatest satisfaction from the
>> happiness of others. They build communities, and are unable to function
>> effectively without the approval and affection of others.
>
>Actually it's supported by a great deal of evidence. Humans
>need other humans, this is true, but they need them for, and
>only for, their own selfish desires.
It is not selfish to want food when you're hungry, or to want a hug when
you're unhappy, or even to want a job when you're unemployed, nor to want
other people to provide these things. It is uncharitable to consider people
to be selfish simply for having needs.
>There are some people who derive pleasure from being wipped,
This is a result of normal sex drive combining with the phenomenon of
passion by misattribution, whereby any sufficiently powerful emotional
stimulus is misinterpreted as arousal. Unless taken to extremes, it is
perfectly healthy. I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make, but
the fact that people can enjoy being beaten is simply a function of the way
our minds work. It says little about the ethics of mankind, good or bad.
>and some who derive pleasure from helping others.
>But you will never find a human being who does something merely for the sake
>of satisfying a moral platitude. In the end, it is a selfish motive that
>drives them.
If you consider a deep-rooted feeling of compassion for one's fellow man
selfish, that is true. But if you believe that, why would you continue to
consider selfishness a bad thing?
>This selfish motive leads to the corruption of our judicial, political and
>economic systems.
This is not logical. If you state that all motivation is selfish, including
the desire to help others and do one's duty, you cannot then claim that it
is selfishness which is responsible for corruption, since in that case
selfishness is just as likely to produce compassion and nobility as it is to
produce corruption. It becomes value neutral, by your own definition, and
the blame must be laid elsewhere.
>> >There is no polotical system that will ever produce a state
>> >that will not be found dissatisfactory by at least some of
>> >its inhabitants.
>>
>> This is true, as far as it goes; however, the problem can be solved by
>> making a range of political systems available and constructing a metasystem
>> to ensure that they play nicely together.
>
>Sure, but that doesn't solve the problems does it? I mean, I
>may be -forced- to play nive with others but I won't enjoy
>it. Eventually I may even find enough people who are not
>willing to play nice and start a revolution. It's happened
>all throughout hostory afterall.
No, I said *meta*system. A metasystem doesn't get the people to play nice,
it gets the *other systems* to play nice. When you have enough systems
available, the malcontents are always free to join a different one or start
their own. Some will prefer to overthrow the established order, but as long
as most can find a niche in some system, somewhere, they'll never be
numerous enough to be a threat to the overall metasystem.
Kristopher/EOS
>
> U do not need to believe in something (would it be in
> GoD/any kind of spiritual belief or rationality and
> science) to be moral the question is why?
"Because, as far as I'm concerned, there are certain limits
at which actions become wrong because of the effect they have
on other beings, and those limits apply to everyone. Even to
gods, if they existed. Part of my objection to many religions
is they way they define their diety as inherently good, and
assert that anything their diety does is good, or define good
as the will of their diety."
> As u are an exemple of it where from are u finding ur
> moral/ethical principles and why do u follow them ?
From within, and because I couldn't live with myself
if I didn't.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Socialism and Marxism are about as far apart as Nationalism
> and Xenophobia.
As in, not at all?
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Well, the Traditions are *written* as the good guys, so
> there is really no point in taking any other position.
Unless you disagree with it.
And remember, the worst monsters in human history believed
they were right.
Kristopher/EOS
egi...@connect.com.au
` First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
` Technocracy, or the Traditions?
I prefer to play either Technocracy sympathetic Tradition members or Tradition
sympathising Technocrats.
` Which faction do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are
` morally nuetral?
The factions _should_ be close to morally neutral. Their aims certainly are,
but the way they go about them is not presented that way.
` Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
` with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
` and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
` technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
` and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither?
Post-modernist, given that definition.
` Do you feel that return to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture
` will be good for the world as a whole?
Which ones? In general... No. Not a chance. I believe society would be better
off if it was more open minded about religion and mysticism and not reject
things out of hand because they hated how their parents forced them to go to
Sunday School, but that's a criticism of humanities knee-jerk responses more
than anything.
` Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
` everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
` on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
` by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
` organization, etc?)
I believe theoretically in Benevolent Dictatorships... (The theoretic part
being the benevolent dictator...) Failing that I believe in theoretical
socialism, but since it never works in practice I'll go with complete and utter
mercenary Capitalism...
In reality I'm a Rational Anarchist. I believe that if I want something done
I shouldn't wait for the government or anyone else to do it, but should do it
myself.
I also believe in culling of the population based on them proving they have
something to offer society.
` Last question (bonus points!)
` Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
` WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
` which is a human-politics nuetral game?
` Now, I'll hide in the bunker, and watch the bullets fly.
Vampire is all about human politics... Not any particular one, but rather about
_how_ politics is played. I don't believe Mage, on the other hand, is about
politics but rather philosophy which is (in practise) very different.
` Chris Bell
` sart...@hotmail.com
--
Evan ~ThunderFoot~ Gibson ~ nihil mutatem, omni deletum ~
May the machines watch over you with loving grace.
Fouletier, Jerome [MLV:0000:EXCH]
> "Fouletier, Jerome [MLV:0000:EXCH]" <jer...@europem01.nt.com> wrote:
>
> >As for value decisions, well, that's precisely one of the points
> >in the game: winner takes all, and I really mean *all*. The faction
> >that comes on top of the Ascencion war will be able to put its
> >mark on *everything*, and this does not only include physical laws,
> >but also history, societies, moral codes, and so on. In a Mage setting,
> >there cannot be objective absolutes. So my answer to your second
> >question is, that while both factions are not morally neutral,
> >there is, however, no common scale to which their morals can be
> >compared, and make one or the other "good" or "bad" in the eyes
> >of an objective beholder because there are no objective beholders.
>
> Only if you try to derive your morality from external absolutes. Internal
> absolutes are relatively unaffected by paradigm - suffering is still bad,
> for example, whoever is ascendant at the time, and one can make a moral
> judgement unbiased by paradigm based on the amount of suffering present
> under each system.
I most completely disagree with that point, on two different levels.
First, the view that suffering is bad highly depends on paradigm.
The idea of pain's or hardship's redeeming value is spread quite
wide and examples ae rife in history, from the catholic church's
former stand on childbirth to the ordeals of coming-of-age ceremonies
in many tribal societies. Not to mention all the moral stories where
the spoiled brat becomes a better man after being stripped of his
easy life and cast among the poor.
Then the idea of suffering itself also is dependent on paradigm.
Victorian gentlemen's thought on the lower classes conditions, for
example: "these people are so coarse that they certainly feel less
than us refined folk." Not to mention all the similar preconceptions
harbored by slaveholders towards the black. Of course, the victims
of said suffering didn't share these refined ideas, but, well,
their opinions didn't really count.
> >On the ideals boosted by the factions, well, that's, personally, what
> >makes me cringe the most in M:tA, that such a great idea that lies at
> >the base of the Union is presented as having such dire consequences.
> >The Union promotes equality, but, in the game's setting, has neglected
> >liberty too much. The traditions do advocate liberty, but are indeed
> >too elitist for their own good. Each side will, of course, see the
> >other's faults though their own biased glasses, and the war of
> >Ascension will go on.
> >
> >I think that, morally, you can tilt the balance by having one or
> >the other side be ready to compromise in the name of Fraternity.
> >The side that is willing to compromise its main ideal by balancing
> >with the other using the third will get my vote.
>
> I like this explanation. Very good. Very Gallic, too. :)
It's just what was explained to me a really long time ago about
why we had those three words printed and engraved just about
everywhere. It gets kinda hard to ignore.
Actually, in the rules, the Traditions are the ones doing the
compromission thing, but in my campaign, I've made the technocracy
just a little nicer.
> Ooh, I just realised. The Traditions are gonna win.
>
> Peter
Of course, since actually, in the "canon" world of M:tA, there is
such a thing as an absolute power setting rules for right and
wrong. This force exists in all games, actually.
It's called the Authors, and they're rooting for the traddies,
even though they're trying to be less unfair about it,
as Phil Brucato explained in this thread earlier yesterday. ^_^
And I thought that they had the Nephandi pegged for the winning spot ?
A++
J.
Ratspaw
wrote:
>create meaning. You can never prove absolutely with a
>logical proof that X is good without starting with an
>arbitrary definition of good. Therefore, to truly define
>something meaningful facilities other than mere logic
>are needed. Hence - spirituality. But believing patently
>false (IMHO) things like the existance of angels and
>demons doesn't help this goal of "finding meaning" at
>all.
You can't deduce it from theoretical starting principles, perhaps, but
it is perfectly possibly to induce it from observation. Deduction
gets most of the press but induction gets a lot of the footwork out of
the way in rationality.
And thanks for the 'splain. I understand what you meant better now.
Ratspaw
Ratspaw
>In reality I'm a Rational Anarchist. I believe that if I want something done
>I shouldn't wait for the government or anyone else to do it, but should do it
>myself.
You, Robert Heinlein, and my father.
Fouletier, Jerome [MLV:0000:EXCH]
> >(shrug) They are solutions. Not only that, they could work.
>
> Solutions to what, though? They could work, but what effect would they have?
> Why would this be desirable? You can call a world of drugged automota
> 'utopia' all you want, but unless we find it appealing it hardly fits the
> definition, does it?
Actually, yes and no. Look at Huxley's "brave new world," where
only one raised outside of the clone society can suffer from it.
To the ones part of it, it IS utopia, since their capacity
for judgement was altered to fit.
Hence the ideas I had Fred develop a long while ago about IT-X's
bright ideas for the future.
> >Sure we don';t have the science now, but that doesn't mean
> >we won't have them some time in the future. Unlike FTL
> >travel their is no reason to assume we can not genetically
> >engineer "perfect" humans for instance.
>
> I'm not questioning the science, I'm questioning the logic. We can't
> genetically engineer perfect humans because we'd need perfect humans to
> begin with to tell us what characteristics to engineer into them. The
> characteristics we choose will reflect our imperfections, and you'll just
> end up with a new race of *differently* imperfect human beings.
I quite agree with that. However, were we ruthless enough, we most
likely could engineer and raise humans free of suffering, which
was your point in another post.
Of course, the fact that I refuted that point seems to saw the
branch on which I'm sitting, but yet... What wouldn't I do for
a good argument ^_^
> >Actually it's supported by a great deal of evidence. Humans
> >need other humans, this is true, but they need them for, and
> >only for, their own selfish desires.
>
> It is not selfish to want food when you're hungry, or to want a hug when
> you're unhappy, or even to want a job when you're unemployed, nor to want
> other people to provide these things. It is uncharitable to consider people
> to be selfish simply for having needs.
That's quite correct, however, some needs do include wittingly or not
denying others the satisfaction of their own needs, for a host of
various reasons from scarcity of resources to sheer maliciousness.
I think that Aaron's argument on selfishness being prevalent, would
be sounder if we were to note that selfishness does provide an
advantage in most social structures.
And, also, the assumption of selfishness is at the very root of
Adam Smith's system for economy. (See below for what I think
is selfish.)
> >There are some people who derive pleasure from being wipped,
>
> This is a result of normal sex drive combining with the phenomenon of
> passion by misattribution, whereby any sufficiently powerful emotional
> stimulus is misinterpreted as arousal. Unless taken to extremes, it is
> perfectly healthy. I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make, but
> the fact that people can enjoy being beaten is simply a function of the way
> our minds work. It says little about the ethics of mankind, good or bad.
>
> >and some who derive pleasure from helping others.
> >But you will never find a human being who does something merely for the sake
> >of satisfying a moral platitude. In the end, it is a selfish motive that
> >drives them.
>
> If you consider a deep-rooted feeling of compassion for one's fellow man
> selfish, that is true. But if you believe that, why would you continue to
> consider selfishness a bad thing?
As neat as this line of reasoning seems to be, there is a confusion
of terms that leads to the absurd conclusion we see above. I propose
that a selfish behavior can be termed as having one's needs provided
for before or against the needs of others. Hence, it can only be
brought in evidence when there is a conflict of the needs of several
persons or groups.
In this definition, you example above makes the selfish/selfless question
moot, because it presents no conflict.
> >This selfish motive leads to the corruption of our judicial, political and
> >economic systems.
>
> This is not logical. If you state that all motivation is selfish, including
> the desire to help others and do one's duty, you cannot then claim that it
> is selfishness which is responsible for corruption, since in that case
> selfishness is just as likely to produce compassion and nobility as it is to
> produce corruption. It becomes value neutral, by your own definition, and
> the blame must be laid elsewhere.
See above on that... Selfishness provides those who are prone to
it with an advantage, that only can be offset by the application
of rules preventing the satisfaction of a need at the expense of
someone else's needs by applying punishment.
> >Sure, but that doesn't solve the problems does it? I mean, I
> >may be -forced- to play nive with others but I won't enjoy
> >it. Eventually I may even find enough people who are not
> >willing to play nice and start a revolution. It's happened
> >all throughout hostory afterall.
>
> No, I said *meta*system. A metasystem doesn't get the people to play nice,
> it gets the *other systems* to play nice. When you have enough systems
> available, the malcontents are always free to join a different one or start
> their own. Some will prefer to overthrow the established order, but as long
> as most can find a niche in some system, somewhere, they'll never be
> numerous enough to be a threat to the overall metasystem.
But how would you enforce this set of rules? It does suppose a minimal
amount of willingness to cooperate, which can be enforced, or, more
accurately, forced, onto those whose disposition does not lead to
cooperation. The best enforcement being, of course, the one that
brings to willingness to cooperate instead of simple cooperation.
Very interesting, all in all, but quite far away from the original
discussion.
A++
J.
jbu...@my-deja.com
eosl...@net-link.net wrote:
> jbu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <37dcddd1$0$91...@news.net-link.net>,
> > eosl...@net-link.net wrote:
> >> Chris Bell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some
> >>> interest (NOT Flame war...the participants have been been
> >>> rather respectful, if heated. Bravo, all in the NG.) I'd
> >>> like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> >>> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
> >>>
> >>> do you think is 'in the right', or do you think both are
> >>> morally nuetral?
> >>
> >> that I find none of the groups actions sympathetic, but I do
> >> find the Technocracy's foundational ideals FAR more
> >> sympathetic than any of the others.
> >
> > Not only are you not a mage player, it sounds like you haven't
> > even read the book.
>
> Listen, jack, I've probably read more Mage material than just
> about anyone who has never actually played Mage. I've read
> both editions multiple times, plus at least half of the Mage
> splat books at least once. I have a borrowed copy of
> Ascension's Right Hand lying over there on the couch. I've
> read the player's guide half a dozen times. So next time you
> think you know anything about me, keep it to yourself,
> because you do not know.
It sure doesn't show. I'd suggest trying to absorb it next time.
>
> > That's a common trait among the Trchnocracy apologists, who
> > have made virtue of relying on "what everyone knows"
> > (usually wrong) rather than what's actually written.
>
> Oh, so you're a Canonite. Well, look, if you can't stand to
> have Canon questioned, or to see the Official Black Hat
> status of the Technocracy questioned, or the Official White
> Hat status of the Traditions questioned, then you'd better
> just killfile my ID, because I'm gonna keep right at it, jack.
Stop beating your chest. I take what's written down over ill-informed
opinions anyday. Since canon is what defines the Technocracy I don't see
what's wrong with using it, since it fits in with most of the other RL
groups with similar philosophies (the Qin Dynasty, for example). Unless
there's a RL Technocracy I don't know about. I've quoted the
Encyclopedia Brittanica more frequently. I esp. don't see what's wrong
with refuting claims about the material with the actual material itself.
>
> >>> Last question (bonus points!)
> >>>
> >>> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game
> >>> that was written by WWGS to make a political point,
> >>> similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire, which is a
> >>> human-politics nuetral game?
> >>
> >> Mage and Werewolf both, without a doubt, reflect the
> >> general ideological bent of one or more persons at White
> >> Wolf, even if they were never intended to, and the anti-
> >> rational, anti-modern, anti-science, anti-objective,
> >> pro-primitive, pro-spiritual, pro-subjective tone of both
> >> games makes that bent painfully clear.
> >
> > I guess the listing of scientist in the OoH character
> > concepts must have been a misprint in my book then.
>
> Ever heard the term "Token minority?"
It's one out of the three concepts presented. Remember what I said about
absorbing the material?
>
> Kristopher/EOS
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Simon Marks
Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> uttered these immortal words...
As in, By degree only.
There is a big diffrence between Nationalism (thinkning your country
is the best, and should always be put first) and Xenophobia (thinking
all other countries are degenerate, sub-human scum that should be
eradicated at any/all oppertunities). But at root they are the same
thing....
Brian Thomas Habing
>> As u are an exemple of it where from are u finding ur
>> moral/ethical principles and why do u follow them ?
>From within, and because I couldn't live with myself
>if I didn't.
Of course you obviously don't know you couldn't live with
yourself if you violated these. I mean at least there are
people who have claimed to talk to God/whatever, but you
haven't done these things to show you couldn't live after
doing so. (Plenty of other "moral" people however have
kept right on living with themselves.)
>Kristopher/EOS
bh
Brian Thomas Habing
>> If you're over fifty I might believe you'll stick to this...
>> if not, I'd bet it won't last. Nothing against you and your
>> convictions, but just past experience with people in
>> general... you could always be the exception that proves the
>> rule.
>I'm 26. What does this have to do with anything?
Most people say things in their "youth" (be it 5 or 35) that they
_think_ they have the life experiences to back up. Three or four
decades is far too little time to lay down absolutes with any chance
of really sticking to them.
>> Of course if the universe is set up in the way that say the
>> Gita suggests, then _you_ don't have a choice in if you're
>> part of the whole or not.
>Luckily, the Gita has nothing to do with reality, especially
>not in any demonstratable way.
Far more than the opinions of someone arrogant enough to blindly
dismiss that past experiences and/or current beliefs of billions of
people because he is so worldly and experienced. I'm not saying you're
wrong in what you believe, I'm saying you're being stupidly arrogant
if you're positive you're correct.
>> They might understand better if you explained why you felt
>> the need to have the strict morals you do (in the part I
>> snipped above).
>Because, as far as I'm concerned, there are certain limits
>at which actions become wrong because of the effect they have
>on other beings, and those limits apply to everyone.
But that doesn't really answer the question. Why care about these
other people anymore than say a dog or a tree? And do the rules of
compassion apply to other beings who choose to ignore them?
>Even to
>gods, if they existed. Part of my objection to many religions
>is they way they define their diety as inherently good, and
>assert that anything their diety does is good, or define good
>as the will of their diety.
>As if.
Why can't they be right? Because _you_ think so?
>Kristopher/EOS
bh
Della
Kristopher/EOS a écrit dans le message
<37df045e$0$11...@news.net-link.net>...
>Della wrote:
>>
>> U do not need to believe in something (would it be in
>> GoD/any kind of spiritual belief or rationality and
>> science) to be moral the question is why?
>
>at which actions become wrong because of the effect they have
>gods, if they existed. Part of my objection to many religions
>is they way they define their diety as inherently good, and
>assert that anything their diety does is good, or define good
>as the will of their diety."
I agree, but why do we instinctivly think that others deserve that respect ?
(to the point we need to negate the humanity of those we want to hurt or
kill, like consider them as "stranger" and not like us as a consequence)
i must add i do not wish to prove anything, i'm agnostic :)
>> As u are an exemple of it where from are u finding ur
>> moral/ethical principles and why do u follow them ?
>
>From within, and because I couldn't live with myself
>if I didn't.
that's saying u have a conscience, but why do we have one ?
>
>Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
>>> Not only are you not a mage player, it sounds like you haven't
>>> even read the book.
>>
>> Listen, jack, I've probably read more Mage material than just
>> about anyone who has never actually played Mage. I've read
>> both editions multiple times, plus at least half of the Mage
>> splat books at least once. I have a borrowed copy of
>> Ascension's Right Hand lying over there on the couch. I've
>> read the player's guide half a dozen times. So next time you
>> think you know anything about me, keep it to yourself,
>> because you do not know.
>
> It sure doesn't show. I'd suggest trying to absorb it next time.
If pretending that I don't know anything about the subject at
hand makes you feel better, by all means, continue to do so.
>>> That's a common trait among the Trchnocracy apologists, who
>>> have made virtue of relying on "what everyone knows"
>>> (usually wrong) rather than what's actually written.
>>
>> Oh, so you're a Canonite. Well, look, if you can't stand to
>> have Canon questioned, or to see the Official Black Hat
>> status of the Technocracy questioned, or the Official White
>> Hat status of the Traditions questioned, then you'd better
>> just killfile my ID, because I'm gonna keep right at it, jack.
>
> Stop beating your chest. I take what's written down over
> ill-informed opinions anyday.
Oh, so if we don't agree with you, we MUST be ill-informed, and
because it's written down, the Canon must be right and good and
wholesome. Oh no, the Canon Technocracy hasn't gotten to you...
> Since canon is what defines the Technocracy I don't see what's
> wrong with using it,
Um, it's poorly done? Oh wait, it can't be, it's written down.
> since it fits in with most of the other RL groups with similar
> philosophies (the Qin Dynasty, for example). Unless there's a
> RL Technocracy I don't know about.
No, but the Canon Technocracy isn't based on the Qin dynasty.
It's a demonized, warped charicature of a RL group of worldviews,
that didn't get anything near the politically correct, kid-glove
treatment that created any of the Traditions.
> I've quoted the Encyclopedia Brittanica more frequently. I esp.
> don't see what's wrong with refuting claims about the material
> with the actual material itself.
Because the actual written material is flawwed, and that's the
claim being made.
>>> I guess the listing of scientist in the OoH character
>>> concepts must have been a misprint in my book then.
>>
>> Ever heard the term "Token minority?"
>
> It's one out of the three concepts presented. Remember what
> I said about absorbing the material?
There are only three templates presented in the sum total of
all the tradition books?
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> Aaron Peori <tz...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >Peter Miller wrote:
>
>>>(shrug) They are solutions. Not only that, they could work.
>>
>> Solutions to what, though? They could work, but what effect
>> would they have? Why would this be desirable? You can call
>> a world of drugged automota 'utopia' all you want, but
>> unless we find it appealing it hardly fits the definition,
>> does it?
>
> Actually, yes and no. Look at Huxley's "brave new world,"
> where only one raised outside of the clone society can suffer
> from it. To the ones part of it, it IS utopia, since their
> capacity for judgement was altered to fit. Hence the ideas I
> had Fred develop a long while ago about IT-X's bright ideas
> for the future.
Bernard Marx certainly suffered from it.
>>> Sure we don't have the science now, but that doesn't mean
>>> we won't have them some time in the future. Unlike FTL
>>> travel their is no reason to assume we can not genetically
>>> engineer "perfect" humans for instance.
What is "perfect?"
>> I'm not questioning the science, I'm questioning the logic.
>> We can't genetically engineer perfect humans because we'd
>> need perfect humans to begin with to tell us what
>> characteristics to engineer into them. The characteristics
>> we choose will reflect our imperfections, and you'll just
>> end up with a new race of *differently* imperfect human
>> beings.
Everything is imprefect to someone...it's a matter of judgement.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> writes:
>
>>> If you're over fifty I might believe you'll stick to this...
>>> if not, I'd bet it won't last. Nothing against you and your
>>> convictions, but just past experience with people in
>>> general... you could always be the exception that proves the
>>> rule.
>
>> I'm 26. What does this have to do with anything?
>
> Most people say things in their "youth" (be it 5 or 35) that
> they _think_ they have the life experiences to back up. Three
> or four decades is far too little time to lay down absolutes
> with any chance of really sticking to them.
Considering what I have experienced, I'd say that I would be a
fool to engage in faith ever again. Exactly how many times do
you suggest that a child put his hand on a stove burner in the
hopes that it won't burn him?
>>> Of course if the universe is set up in the way that say the
>>> Gita suggests, then _you_ don't have a choice in if you're
>>> part of the whole or not.
>
>> Luckily, the Gita has nothing to do with reality, especially
>> not in any demonstratable way.
>
> Far more than the opinions of someone arrogant enough to
> blindly dismiss that past experiences and/or current beliefs
> of billions of people because he is so worldly and experienced.
> I'm not saying you're wrong in what you believe, I'm saying
> you're being stupidly arrogant if you're positive you're correct.
Unless there is a vast body of empirical evidence that I've somehow
missed, I'm certain that I'm as correct in this conclusion as I can
reasonably be. I've read parts of the Gita...it's...silly, and
there is no evidence to suggest that it is anything other than yet
another fanciful fiction of mythology.
>>> They might understand better if you explained why you felt
>>> the need to have the strict morals you do (in the part I
>>> snipped above).
>
>> Because, as far as I'm concerned, there are certain limits
>> at which actions become wrong because of the effect they have
>> on other beings, and those limits apply to everyone.
>
> But that doesn't really answer the question. Why care about
> these other people anymore than say a dog or a tree? And do
> the rules of compassion apply to other beings who choose to
> ignore them?
Because I would hope they'd have the same consideration for me
and others. However, once someone has proven to have none of
that consideration, I think they lose the right to expect it
towards them.
>> Even to gods, if they existed. Part of my objection to many
>> religions is they way they define their diety as inherently
>> good, and assert that anything their diety does is good, or
>> define good as the will of their diety.
>>
>>As if.
>
> Why can't they be right? Because _you_ think so?
No, because it's not about who or what you are, it's about what
you do. I don't care if you're a pauper, a prince, or a god.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>>> moral/ethical principles and why do u follow them ?
>
>> From within, and because I couldn't live with myself
>> if I didn't.
>
> yourself if you violated these. I mean at least there are
> people who have claimed to talk to God/whatever, but you
> haven't done these things to show you couldn't live after
> doing so. (Plenty of other "moral" people however have
> kept right on living with themselves.)
The instances in which I have violated them, or I even might
have violated them, still gnaw away at me from inside. I
know I couldn't because I can't.
Kristopher/EOS
Jerome Fouletier
> "Fouletier, Jerome [MLV:0000:EXCH]" <jer...@europem01.nt.com> wrote:
> >I most completely disagree with that point, on two different levels.
> >First, the view that suffering is bad highly depends on paradigm.
>
> Everything can be altered by paradigm, but that does not remove the
> possibility of aparadigmal truths. Newborn babies have no paradigm, but if
> you slap one it will cry. Until you add something to its belief system to
> make it think that suffering is good, it will continue to consider suffering
> bad.
How Rousseauist ^_^ But since you agree that everything can be altered by
paradigm, then there still are no moral absolutes. There's only one that
you consider more applicable, because it seems to be "natural". But moral
and ethics have very little to do with natural tendancies, which are
usually quite brutal.
> >The idea of pain's or hardship's redeeming value is spread quite
> >wide and examples ae rife in history, from the catholic church's
> >former stand on childbirth to the ordeals of coming-of-age ceremonies
> >in many tribal societies.
>
> But in all these cases, the suffering is weighed against something good -
> it's considered something unpleasant that must be overcome in order to
> achieve entry to heaven, or the tribe. In most cases, it represents a means
> of social control which involves increasing the perceived value of the
> reward by making it harder to achieve.
And indeed it may well be, but then you're shifting the definition of
suffereing. Is it, as you implied earlier, the expression of a response
from the limbic system (I'm going out on a branch speaking of limbic,
so let's say primitive part of the mind instead) or a social definition
of "hurt without ulterior benefits" ?
> Ultimately the idea is just an idea. In the words of the immortal Desty
> Nova, "It is more important to _feel_ than to _think_." We all know that
> suffering is a bad thing because it _hurts_.
The "all" part here is inaccurate.
Anyway, use suffering as the gauge of a moral
absolute and next thing you start arguing about what really hurts and if
said suffering is worthwile or not. So you're back in relative once more.
My point really, was not about the use of "less hurt = better" as a
base for a moral code, but the attempt into making it an absolute,
independant from paradigm. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't condone
the upholding of such a code, actually, I wuld most likely support
its spreading, but not at the attempt of making it an absolute.
> >Not to mention all the moral stories where the spoiled brat becomes
> >a better man after being stripped of his easy life and cast among the poor.
>
> In this case, it is not the suffering that brings the improvement but _the
> awareness that others are suffering_, and the resulting appreciation of his
> priviledged position.
Indeed, but since awareness is achieved via shared hardship instead of
mere sympathy, you can say that the good thing (awareness that others
are suffering) is brought by the experience of their condition (the
suffering itself). CQFD.
> IRL, such insights won't last - some take this as
> proof that human beings are ungrateful, but it's actually only and
> indication that we eithr have other needs or a predisposition toward
> learning and progress, hence an automatic dissatisfaction with the status
> quo regardless of its relative merits.
That's actually quite true with exceptions. I've seen both sorts of
reactions from well-to-do guys after their militarty service, for
example.
> >> I like this explanation. Very good. Very Gallic, too. :)
> >
> >It's just what was explained to me a really long time ago about
> >why we had those three words printed and engraved just about
> >everywhere. It gets kinda hard to ignore.
>
> It's an excellent model.
<grumble ON>
Yeah, I wish we wouldn't have forgotten it.
<grumble OFF>
> >Of course, since actually, in the "canon" world of M:tA, there is
> >such a thing as an absolute power setting rules for right and
> >wrong. This force exists in all games, actually.
> >
> >It's called the Authors, and they're rooting for the traddies,
> >even though they're trying to be less unfair about it,
> >as Phil Brucato explained in this thread earlier yesterday. ^_^
> >
> >And I thought that they had the Nephandi pegged for the winning spot ?
>
> Hypothetically, the Trads are going to win because of the Hollow Ones. They
> have the sense of community the Traditions so desperately need to unite
> them. They stick together despite their differences, (the writeup notes that
> they're dysfunctional) and if the Council lets them in then the Trads are
> going to get the idea sooner or later as well.
It's not so much the sense of community that the traditional trads lack,
but the idea of compromise and syncretism. However, the acceptation of
different systems of belief is quite threatening when your power over
reality precisely comes from the firmness of your own beliefs. But I
wouldn't deny that acceptance of difference without losing yourself
definitely is the way that the traditions are going to come on top.
Even "saving" the Union in spite of themselves.
How metaphoric, indeed.
J.
Jerome Fouletier
> "Fouletier, Jerome [MLV:0000:EXCH]" <jer...@europem01.nt.com> wrote:
> >Actually, yes and no. Look at Huxley's "brave new world," where
> >only one raised outside of the clone society can suffer from it.
> >To the ones part of it, it IS utopia, since their capacity
> >for judgement was altered to fit.
>
> But that society is not desirable to us now, as I said. I've never met
> anyone who didn't find it horrific.
You have, now ^_^ This society seems an abomination by contrast both
from our reader's reactions and from the reactions of a character we
easily identify with. But this hides the fact that all the other characters
are completely happy with the way things are.
> I have a good idea as to why, but we'll get to that in just a moment.
>
> >Hence the ideas I had Fred develop a long while ago about IT-X's
> >bright ideas for the future.
>
> Do tell.
Union of minds through the machine. Their reasoning places selfishness,
which stems from the very fact that we are individual, as the main
roadblock in Ascension's way. Amend individuality by merging with the
machine and, as a consequence, with the rest of humanity. Of course,
they say, we won't be human anymore, but is that a Bad Thing(TM)?
That's why I disliked the IT-X book so much. It never hinted at this.
> >I quite agree with that. However, were we ruthless enough, we most
> >likely could engineer and raise humans free of suffering, which
> >was your point in another post.
>
> Yes, we could, but lack of suffering doesn't imply perfection. That's only
> half of it.
There is no such thing as perfection, anyhow, since agreement on
what perfection is will be impossible to reach.
> Anything that expands the boundaries of what's possible is good, while
> anything that causes suffering is bad. Since more possibilities often mean
> more suffering, and less suffering often means less possibilities, this
> system is not absolute and the relative value of any course of action is
> more a matter of balance. Passing laws against mugging is a little bit
> wrong, because it decreases the options open to people, but it's a lot right
> in that it prevents more suffering and opens up the option of walking the
> streets in safety to those who might not be able to defend themselves.
> Morality ceases to be black and white or even shades of grey and becomes a
> matter of net gains.
I can't say I disagree here ^_^
> >Of course, the fact that I refuted that point seems to saw the
> >branch on which I'm sitting, but yet... What wouldn't I do for
> >a good argument ^_^
>
> <g> And I have refuted your refutation.
And ditto. so the debate goes on.
> >That's quite correct, however, some needs do include wittingly or not
> >denying others the satisfaction of their own needs, for a host of
> >various reasons from scarcity of resources to sheer maliciousness.
> >I think that Aaron's argument on selfishness being prevalent, would
> >be sounder if we were to note that selfishness does provide an
> >advantage in most social structures.
> >
> >And, also, the assumption of selfishness is at the very root of
> >Adam Smith's system for economy. (See below for what I think
> >is selfish.)
>
> Selfishness often works in terms of material and social gains, but it's an
> active disadvantage when it comes to meeting emotional needs. Since emotions
> are the cornerstone of the human experience, it's in our own interests not
> to be selfish. Of course, if someone doesn't understand the importance
> thereof, he'll act selfishly on the assumption that the material gains alone
> will make him happy. Then we need rules to keep him in line.
I also disagree about emotional needs. There is a very wide range of
emotional needs, and some do thrive on selfishness. I have seen many
an example in my not-that-long career. Unfortunately, there are people
for whom lordng over other people is a reward in and of itself.
> >> If you consider a deep-rooted feeling of compassion for one's fellow man
> >> selfish, that is true. But if you believe that, why would you continue to
> >> consider selfishness a bad thing?
> >
> >As neat as this line of reasoning seems to be, there is a confusion
> >of terms that leads to the absurd conclusion we see above. I propose
> >that a selfish behavior can be termed as having one's needs provided
> >for before or against the needs of others. Hence, it can only be
> >brought in evidence when there is a conflict of the needs of several
> >persons or groups.
> >In this definition, you example above makes the selfish/selfless question
> >moot, because it presents no conflict.
>
> Right. This is the definition I use, too, but in this case I was using an
> argument ad absurdum. Aaron's argument implied that even when helping others
> with no thought of extrinsic gain, the _motivation_ was basically selfish
> because doing so makes the individual feel good. I argued that if that is
> selfishness, then selfishness is no bad thing.
>
> If all three of us accept your above definition, that argument is moot, but
> it would require that Aaron abandon his position that people are basically
> selfish, since vast numbers of people regularly put the needs of others
> above their own - or don't take the opportunity to put their needs above
> those of others. Either way, my point is made.
I do actually agree with you in part. Absolutely selfish people seem
to be the exception rather than the norm. However, most people
exhibit, from time to time, selfish behaviors.
> >See above on that... Selfishness provides those who are prone to
> >it with an advantage, that only can be offset by the application
> >of rules preventing the satisfaction of a need at the expense of
> >someone else's needs by applying punishment.
>
> Right. Under your definition, selfishness leads to corruption, which has to
> be checked.
Indeed, but my point really is that selfish strategies lead to results
that are more beneficial, not because of flaws in the system, but
because the systems of rules can hardly be made more adaptable than
the human mind. There always are loopholes through which selfish
behaviors can corrupt the system to their advantage.
> >But how would you enforce this set of rules? It does suppose a minimal
> >amount of willingness to cooperate, which can be enforced, or, more
> >accurately, forced, onto those whose disposition does not lead to
> >cooperation. The best enforcement being, of course, the one that
> >brings to willingness to cooperate instead of simple cooperation.
>
> Remember, these aren't rules being imposed on people, but on the systems
> they belong to. Those systems will enforce rules in their own way, and one
> of the meta-rules should be the absolute right of anyone to leave any one
> system and join any other. People who don't like the way one system enforces
> it's laws will go elsewhere, and natural selection will likely prove you
> right.
So you are putting restrictions on how a system (let's call them societies,
shall we?) relates to other systems. But how do you enforce these rules
over the societies themselves?
> >Very interesting, all in all, but quite far away from the original
> >discussion.
>
> Good, keep going. Let's put as much distance between us and the original
> discussion as possible.
Awwww... I actually like exposing my Union sympathies ^_^
J.
Geoffrey Brent
<37e04afd$0$11...@news.net-link.net>...
> > Most people say things in their "youth" (be it 5 or 35) that
> > they _think_ they have the life experiences to back up. Three
> > or four decades is far too little time to lay down absolutes
> > with any chance of really sticking to them.
>
> Considering what I have experienced, I'd say that I would be a
> fool to engage in faith ever again. Exactly how many times do
> you suggest that a child put his hand on a stove burner in the
> hopes that it won't burn him?
Keeping away from stove burners because you've been
burnt once is a smart move. Refusing to touch anything
at all for fear of being burnt isn't. The real trick is to learn
how to recognise hot things before touching them.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are drawn to things that
glow a pretty red colour, so they end up going after
_precisely_ the things that are going to hurt them.
One of the reasons a lot of otherwise nice guys think
all women are heartless, hurtful monsters is that they
have very bad _taste_ in women and are drawn to
exactly that type.
It can be _good_ to lose faith now and then, believe it
or not, because it's a great opportunity to rethink your
attitudes from a distance. If you take the opportunity
to get your head straight and ask a few questions like
"why did that go wrong?" and "in hindsight, what danger
signs should I have seen?" your chances are much
better next time around. Romance is the obvious
example, but it works in other areas too.
Geoffrey Brent
Maccabeus the Mad
Pe...@SBC.wgp.org wrote:
> Meritocracy is the most pernicious form of government.
You will have to explain this one to me.
--
Maccabeus the Mad
Hammer of the Light
Maccabeus the Mad
eosl...@net-link.net wrote:
> A) There are those of us...well, I may be the only one...for
> whom faith is no longer an option. Personally, every
> single thing I've ever had faith in has become, in the end,
> a source of great regret, remorse, loss, and pain. Faith
> has never been a positive thing in my life, and I flatly
> refuse to make the mistake of faith again. I used to
> believe in a lot of things...fate, love, and so on.
>
> Never again.
>
No offense, Kristopher, and perhaps it's been said too many times...
But faith is one of those things you can't really get away from. I'm
not talking about "innate needs to believe", but rather about the limits
of perception.
When was the last time you distrusted causality? I'm sure causality has
shafted you before...it certainly has me.
Maccabeus the Mad
Brian Thomas Habing
>Considering what I have experienced, I'd say that I would be a
>fool to engage in faith ever again. Exactly how many times do
>you suggest that a child put his hand on a stove burner in the
>hopes that it won't burn him?
Maybe you are mistaking all circles lying flate for stove burners.
>Unless there is a vast body of empirical evidence that I've somehow
>missed, I'm certain that I'm as correct in this conclusion as I can
>reasonably be. I've read parts of the Gita...it's...silly, and
>there is no evidence to suggest that it is anything other than yet
>another fanciful fiction of mythology.
Does allegory, parable, analogy or fable mean anything to you? I never
said it was "literal truth". This is a thing a lot of people have
trouble with with all kinds of religious texts. They seem to think
it has to be literal truth or it is useless. (Newtonian Mechanics
for example isn't literally true... but it is still useful...)
>Because I would hope they'd have the same consideration for me
>and others. However, once someone has proven to have none of
>that consideration, I think they lose the right to expect it
>towards them.
So your default setting is to have some bit of faith that they
won't prove to be total bastards and abuse your considerations.
(Not stupid blind faith, but some measure of it anyway.)
>> Why can't they be right? Because _you_ think so?
>No, because it's not about who or what you are, it's about what
>you do. I don't care if you're a pauper, a prince, or a god.
I totally agree with you here. Which brings up one of the other
reasons a lot of people use to cling to atheism, the issue of
evil in the world. Of course it isn't necesarily evil if it is
only transitory. For example most children think there parents
are evil when they get grounded...
-bh
Brian Thomas Habing
>> Of course you obviously don't know you couldn't live with
>> yourself if you violated these. I mean at least there are
>> people who have claimed to talk to God/whatever, but you
>> haven't done these things to show you couldn't live after
>> doing so. (Plenty of other "moral" people however have
>> kept right on living with themselves.)
>The instances in which I have violated them, or I even might
>have violated them, still gnaw away at me from inside. I
>know I couldn't because I can't.
You are so strict on the rules of evidence for everything else,
why so loose here. You violated them before and are still alive.
Besides you're wanting to believe it, whats to say the gnawing
would become fatal. It would be like a doctor saying, "Well,
everyone whose ever had this for a few days suffered a lot,
so if it ever lasted longer than that it would have to be fatal."
-bh
Anders Gabrielsson
> I've been following the Technocracy rant-war with some interest (NOT Flame
> war...the participants have been been rather respectful, if heated. Bravo,
> all in the NG.) I'd like to run this past you all, respectfully, including
> Mr. Brucato and Mr. Heinig, if they deign to answer.
>
> First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
> Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
> right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
I don't have a strong preference for either, a priori. It depends on what kind
of
game I want to run/play in. I think the Technocracy is better for morally
ambiguous campaigns, where the characters have to worry if they really are
the good guys, or (if they have decided that the Technocracy isn't as good as it
claims to be) how to change things without getting killed. The Traditions are
better for philosophy and "fighting the good fight".
As to which faction is "right", it's not easy to answer. I think that the
Technocracy
has the right idea - helping all of humanity reach Ascension - but they've lost
sight
of that goal, and their methods are despicable (sp?). The Traditions are
appealing
in a "Do What Thou Wilt"-ish way, but I can't help but think that I'd hate to
live in
a world where everyone could do that kind of magic. It would be chaos.
> Second Question - Would you describe yourself as 'Modernist' (all problems
> with the world can be solved by rational application of scientific method,
> and technology will make us happier), 'Post-Modernist' (Science and
> technology do *not* have all the answers, especially to social questions,
> and pragmatic solutions must be sought), or neither?
Not all problems can be solved with technology, but the scientific method is
probably the best way there is to find solutions to the problems we have.
I don't understand what you mean with "pragmatic solutions" as opposed to
rational ones.
> Do you feel that return
> to ancient religion and mystical practices in culture will be good for the
> world as a whole?
Not in the least.
> Third Question - Do you hold that Capitalist ideals are the best for
> everyone (unrestricted competition, right to own property, no taxes, and so
> on), Socialist/Marxist (workers right, ownership of the means of production
> by the workers, etc) or more ancient practices (kingship, tribal
> organization, etc?)
Being Swedish, I'm rather fond of the wellfare state, which doesn't fit into
this
neat division. ;)
> Do you feel that, amongst other things, Mage is a game that was written by
> WWGS to make a political point, similar to Werewolf, as opposed to Vampire,
> which is a human-politics nuetral game?
It's easy to read in all kinds of political interpretations in the game, but
that doesn't
mean it was intended to be there.
Anders Gabrielsson
Richard A. Ayars
> > A) There are those of us...well, I may be the only one...for
> > whom faith is no longer an option. Personally, every
> > single thing I've ever had faith in has become, in the end,
> > a source of great regret, remorse, loss, and pain. Faith
> > has never been a positive thing in my life, and I flatly
> > refuse to make the mistake of faith again. I used to
> > believe in a lot of things...fate, love, and so on.
> >
> > Never again.
> >
>
With the exception of the faith in God, I can agree with having most
everything I had faith in ending badly. I've learned that you can only
depend on yourself and your family (usually).
Although I differ greatly in my approach to the feelings of other
people. While I attempt to 'get along' and not intentionally hurt anyone, I
have no problem with looking out for myself above all others. I am more
important than that person down the road, and my views show it. :)
And, before anyone asks, I'm 25.
X
"Love is an illusion..."
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Geoffrey Brent
<37E1826F...@DelaNet.Com>...
> With the exception of the faith in God, I can agree with having most
> everything I had faith in ending badly. I've learned that you can only
> depend on yourself and your family (usually).
In my experience, there are quite a few things and
people you can depend upon. The trick is working
out which ones they are.
Geoffrey Brent
ObGoth: "I can love my fellow man - but I'm damned if I'll
love yours."
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Kristopher/EOS <eosl...@net-link.net> writes:
>
>> Considering what I have experienced, I'd say that I would be a
>> fool to engage in faith ever again. Exactly how many times do
>> you suggest that a child put his hand on a stove burner in the
>> hopes that it won't burn him?
>
> Maybe you are mistaking all circles lying flate for stove burners.
>
>> Unless there is a vast body of empirical evidence that I've
>> somehow missed, I'm certain that I'm as correct in this
>> conclusion as I can reasonably be. I've read parts of the
>> Gita...it's...silly, and there is no evidence to suggest that
>> it is anything other than yet another fanciful fiction of
>> mythology.
>
> Does allegory, parable, analogy or fable mean anything to you?
> I never said it was "literal truth". This is a thing a lot of
> people have trouble with with all kinds of religious texts.
> They seem to think it has to be literal truth or it is useless.
> (Newtonian Mechanics for example isn't literally true... but it
> is still useful...)
In what way are religious texts useful, accept in an accademic
sense, for studying those who believe in them? At least
Newtonian Mechanics has some use.
>> Because I would hope they'd have the same consideration for me
>> and others. However, once someone has proven to have none of
>> that consideration, I think they lose the right to expect it
>> towards them.
>
> So your default setting is to have some bit of faith that they
> won't prove to be total bastards and abuse your considerations.
> (Not stupid blind faith, but some measure of it anyway.)
Actually, I don't have that faith...I just give them the benefit
of the doubt.
>>> Why can't they be right? Because _you_ think so?
>
>> No, because it's not about who or what you are, it's about what
>> you do. I don't care if you're a pauper, a prince, or a god.
>
> I totally agree with you here. Which brings up one of the other
> reasons a lot of people use to cling to atheism, the issue of
> evil in the world. Of course it isn't necesarily evil if it is
> only transitory. For example most children think there parents
> are evil when they get grounded...
Um...ok.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
"Couldn't live with myself" is this kind of thing called a
"figure of speech." It's the best way to describe the feeling,
but it doesn't mean that I literally would die.
Kristopher/EOS
Kristopher/EOS
>
> In article <37de6646$0$11...@news.net-link.net>,
> eosl...@net-link.net wrote:
>
>> whom faith is no longer an option. Personally, every
>> single thing I've ever had faith in has become, in the end,
>> a source of great regret, remorse, loss, and pain. Faith
>> has never been a positive thing in my life, and I flatly
>> refuse to make the mistake of faith again. I used to
>> believe in a lot of things...fate, love, and so on.
>>
>> Never again.
>>
>
>
> But faith is one of those things you can't really get away from.
> I'm not talking about "innate needs to believe", but rather about
> the limits of perception.
>
> When was the last time you distrusted causality? I'm sure
> causality has shafted you before...it certainly has me.
Not really. Causality isn't a matter of faith, to begin with,
and I can't think of a time I was "shafted" by causality.
Kristopher/EOS
cd skogsberg
>Alistair J. R. Young <avatar...@arkane.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><c1.2b7.2S9lzy$2...@chloe.arkane-systems.net>...
>> > First Question - Which do you prefer as a player and GM option...The
>> > Technocracy, or the Traditions? Which faction do you think is 'in the
>> > right', or do you think both are morally nuetral?
>> I want to bang all their heads together, hold a few purges, and build
>> a third faction out of the bits, with the Order of Hermes, Sons of
>> Ether, Iteration X and the Progenitors making up the technical side,
>> the Void Engineers handling the Outside, and a new organisation
>> stepping into the New World Order's shoes as administrators, but with
>> a much different approach (see below).
>What would you do with the Cult of Ecstasy?
A hat? A brooch? A pterodactyl?
/cd
--
"Ooh, I've always wanted a pterodactyl."
-- Amy Gray
Anna Simpson
<maccabeu...@my-deja.com> told the tale thusly:
>When was the last time you distrusted causality? I'm sure causality has
>shafted you before...it certainly has me.
Please, elaborate.
>Maccabeus the Mad
love
Anna
*************************** Anna Simpson ****************************
Between the idea and the reality / Between the motion and the act
Falls the Shadow (T.S.Eliot)
******************* http://www.moglit.demon.co.uk *******************
Aaron Peori
>
> On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:36:00 GMT, Maccabeus the Mad
> <maccabeu...@my-deja.com> told the tale thusly:
>
> >When was the last time you distrusted causality? I'm sure causality has
> >shafted you before...it certainly has me.
>
> Please, elaborate.
I think he might be talking about the fact that we have no
proof that causality, for lack of a better term, exists.
---------------
Epsilon
Ratspaw
wrote:
>> >When was the last time you distrusted causality? I'm sure causality has
>> >shafted you before...it certainly has me.
>>
>> Please, elaborate.
>
>I think he might be talking about the fact that we have no
>proof that causality, for lack of a better term, exists.
We don't?
Ratspaw
Man is but a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed.
Kristopher/EOS
>
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:48:05 GMT, Aaron Peori
> <tz...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> When was the last time you distrusted causality? I'm sure
>>>> causality has shafted you before...it certainly has me.
>>>
>>> Please, elaborate.
>>
>> I think he might be talking about the fact that we have no
>> proof that causality, for lack of a better term, exists.
>
> We don't?
It depends on *exactly* what we're talking about. Cause and
effect, or a very narrow concept of causality that asserts
that cause and effect is so inviolate that absolutely nothing
can in any way even seem to violate it.
Kristopher/EOS
Peter Miller
>> >in the game: winner takes all, and I really mean *all*. The faction
>> >that comes on top of the Ascencion war will be able to put its
>> >mark on *everything*, and this does not only include physical laws,
>> >but also history, societies, moral codes, and so on. In a Mage setting,
>> >there cannot be objective absolutes. So my answer to your second
>> >question is, that while both factions are not morally neutral,
>> >there is, however, no common scale to which their morals can be
>> >compared, and make one or the other "good" or "bad" in the eyes
>> >of an objective beholder because there are no objective beholders.
>>
>> Only if you try to derive your morality from external absolutes. Internal
>> absolutes are relatively unaffected by paradigm - suffering is still bad,
>> for example, whoever is ascendant at the time, and one can make a moral
>> judgement unbiased by paradigm based on the amount of suffering present
>> under each system.
>
>I most completely disagree with that point, on two different levels.
>First, the view that suffering is bad highly depends on paradigm.
Everything can be altered by paradigm, but that does not remove the
possibility of aparadigmal truths. Newborn babies have no paradigm, but if
you slap one it will cry. Until you add something to its belief system to
make it think that suffering is good, it will continue to consider suffering
bad.
>The idea of pain's or hardship's redeeming value is spread quite
>wide and examples ae rife in history, from the catholic church's
>former stand on childbirth to the ordeals of coming-of-age ceremonies
>in many tribal societies.
But in all these cases, the suffering is weighed against something good -
it's considered something unpleasant that must be overcome in order to
achieve entry to heaven, or the tribe. In most cases, it represents a means
of social control which involves increasing the perceived value of the
reward by making it harder to achieve.
Ultimately the idea is just an idea. In the words of the immortal Desty
Nova, "It is more important to _feel_ than to _think_." We all know that
suffering is a bad thing because it _hurts_.
>Not to mention all the moral stories where the spoiled brat becomes
>a better man after being stripped of his easy life and cast among the poor.
In this case, it is not the suffering that brings the improvement but _the
awareness that others are suffering_, and the resulting appreciation of his
priviledged position. IRL, such insights won't last - some take this as
proof that human beings are ungrateful, but it's actually only and
indication that we eithr have other needs or a predisposition toward
learning and progress, hence an automatic dissatisfaction with the status
quo regardless of its relative merits.
>Then the idea of suffering itself also is dependent on paradigm.
>Victorian gentlemen's thought on the lower classes conditions, for
>example: "these people are so coarse that they certainly feel less
>than us refined folk." Not to mention all the similar preconceptions
>harbored by slaveholders towards the black. Of course, the victims
>of said suffering didn't share these refined ideas, but, well,
>their opinions didn't really count.
>
>> >On the ideals boosted by the factions, well, that's, personally, what
>> >makes me cringe the most in M:tA, that such a great idea that lies at
>> >the base of the Union is presented as having such dire consequences.
>> >The Union promotes equality, but, in the game's setting, has neglected
>> >liberty too much. The traditions do advocate liberty, but are indeed
>> >too elitist for their own good. Each side will, of course, see the
>> >other's faults though their own biased glasses, and the war of
>> >Ascension will go on.
>> >
>> >I think that, morally, you can tilt the balance by having one or
>> >the other side be ready to compromise in the name of Fraternity.
>> >The side that is willing to compromise its main ideal by balancing
>> >with the other using the third will get my vote.
>>
>> I like this explanation. Very good. Very Gallic, too. :)
>
>It's just what was explained to me a really long time ago about
>why we had those three words printed and engraved just about
>everywhere. It gets kinda hard to ignore.
It's an excellent model.
>Actually, in the rules, the Traditions are the ones doing the
>compromission thing, but in my campaign, I've made the technocracy
>just a little nicer.
>
>> Ooh, I just realised. The Traditions are gonna win.
>
>Of course, since actually, in the "canon" world of M:tA, there is
>such a thing as an absolute power setting rules for right and
>wrong. This force exists in all games, actually.
>
>It's called the Authors, and they're rooting for the traddies,
>even though they're trying to be less unfair about it,
>as Phil Brucato explained in this thread earlier yesterday. ^_^
>
>And I thought that they had the Nephandi pegged for the winning spot ?
Hypothetically, the Trads are going to win because of the Hollow Ones. They
have the sense of community the Traditions so desperately need to unite
them. They stick together despite their differences, (the writeup notes that
they're dysfunctional) and if the Council lets them in then the Trads are
going to get the idea sooner or later as well.
Peter
--
{Peter Miller <*> ICQ:37501548 IRC:Darkyoung Peter(at)wgp(dot)org}
{"The seething vortex of time, whose merest mention is paralysing."}
{Drop the Debt - Sign the petition--> http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/}
{rec.games.frp.storyteller IC:WGP&SV AIM:LordMiller http://wgp.org/}
Peter Miller
>> >Peter Miller wrote:
>> >(shrug) They are solutions. Not only that, they could work.
>>
>> Solutions to what, though? They could work, but what effect would they have?
>> Why would this be desirable? You can call a world of drugged automota
>> 'utopia' all you want, but unless we find it appealing it hardly fits the
>> definition, does it?
>
>only one raised outside of the clone society can suffer from it.
>To the ones part of it, it IS utopia, since their capacity
>for judgement was altered to fit.
But that society is not desirable to us now, as I said. I've never met
anyone who didn't find it horrific.
I have a good idea as to why, but we'll get to that in just a moment.
>Hence the ideas I had Fred develop a long while ago about IT-X's
>bright ideas for the future.
Do tell.
>> >Sure we don';t have the science now, but that doesn't mean
>> >we won't have them some time in the future. Unlike FTL
>> >travel their is no reason to assume we can not genetically
>> >engineer "perfect" humans for instance.
>>
>> I'm not questioning the science, I'm questioning the logic. We can't
>> genetically engineer perfect humans because we'd need perfect humans to
>> begin with to tell us what characteristics to engineer into them. The
>> characteristics we choose will reflect our imperfections, and you'll just
>> end up with a new race of *differently* imperfect human beings.
>
>I quite agree with that. However, were we ruthless enough, we most
>likely could engineer and raise humans free of suffering, which
>was your point in another post.
Yes, we could, but lack of suffering doesn't imply perfection. That's only
half of it.
Anything that expands the boundaries of what's possible is good, while
anything that causes suffering is bad. Since more possibilities often mean
more suffering, and less suffering often means less possibilities, this
system is not absolute and the relative value of any course of action is
more a matter of balance. Passing laws against mugging is a little bit
wrong, because it decreases the options open to people, but it's a lot right
in that it prevents more suffering and opens up the option of walking the
streets in safety to those who might not be able to defend themselves.
Morality ceases to be black and white or even shades of grey and becomes a
matter of net gains.
>Of course, the fact that I refuted that point seems to saw the
>branch on which I'm sitting, but yet... What wouldn't I do for
>a good argument ^_^
<g> And I have refuted your refutation.
>> >Actually it's supported by a great deal of evidence. Humans
>> >need other humans, this is true, but they need them for, and
>> >only for, their own selfish desires.
>>
>> It is not selfish to want food when you're hungry, or to want a hug when
>> you're unhappy, or even to want a job when you're unemployed, nor to want
>> other people to provide these things. It is uncharitable to consider people
>> to be selfish simply for having needs.
>
>That's quite correct, however, some needs do include wittingly or not
>denying others the satisfaction of their own needs, for a host of
>various reasons from scarcity of resources to sheer maliciousness.
>I think that Aaron's argument on selfishness being prevalent, would
>be sounder if we were to note that selfishness does provide an
>advantage in most social structures.
>
>And, also, the assumption of selfishness is at the very root of
>Adam Smith's system for economy. (See below for what I think
>is selfish.)
Selfishness often works in terms of material and social gains, but it's an
active disadvantage when it comes to meeting emotional needs. Since emotions
are the cornerstone of the human experience, it's in our own interests not
to be selfish. Of course, if someone doesn't understand the importance
thereof, he'll act selfishly on the assumption that the material gains alone
will make him happy. Then we need rules to keep him in line.
>> >There are some people who derive pleasure from being wipped,
>>
>> This is a result of normal sex drive combining with the phenomenon of
>> passion by misattribution, whereby any sufficiently powerful emotional
>> stimulus is misinterpreted as arousal. Unless taken to extremes, it is
>> perfectly healthy. I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make, but
>> the fact that people can enjoy being beaten is simply a function of the way
>> our minds work. It says little about the ethics of mankind, good or bad.
>>
>> >and some who derive pleasure from helping others.
>> >But you will never find a human being who does something merely for the sake
>> >of satisfying a moral platitude. In the end, it is a selfish motive that
>> >drives them.
>>
>> If you consider a deep-rooted feeling of compassion for one's fellow man
>> selfish, that is true. But if you believe that, why would you continue to
>> consider selfishness a bad thing?
>
>As neat as this line of reasoning seems to be, there is a confusion
>of terms that leads to the absurd conclusion we see above. I propose
>that a selfish behavior can be termed as having one's needs provided
>for before or against the needs of others. Hence, it can only be
>brought in evidence when there is a conflict of the needs of several
>persons or groups.
>In this definition, you example above makes the selfish/selfless question
>moot, because it presents no conflict.
Right. This is the definition I use, too, but in this case I was using an
argument ad absurdum. Aaron's argument implied that even when helping others
with no thought of extrinsic gain, the _motivation_ was basically selfish
because doing so makes the individual feel good. I argued that if that is
selfishness, then selfishness is no bad thing.
If all three of us accept your above definition, that argument is moot, but
it would require that Aaron abandon his position that people are basically
selfish, since vast numbers of people regularly put the needs of others
above their own - or don't take the opportunity to put their needs above
those of others. Either way, my point is made.
>> >This selfish motive leads to the corruption of our judicial, political and
>> >economic systems.
>>
>> This is not logical. If you state that all motivation is selfish, including
>> the desire to help others and do one's duty, you cannot then claim that it
>> is selfishness which is responsible for corruption, since in that case
>> selfishness is just as likely to produce compassion and nobility as it is to
>> produce corruption. It becomes value neutral, by your own definition, and
>> the blame must be laid elsewhere.
>
>See above on that... Selfishness provides those who are prone to
>it with an advantage, that only can be offset by the application
>of rules preventing the satisfaction of a need at the expense of
>someone else's needs by applying punishment.
Right. Under your definition, selfishness leads to corruption, which has to
be checked.
>> >Sure, but that doesn't solve the problems does it? I mean, I
>> >may be -forced- to play nive with others but I won't enjoy
>> >it. Eventually I may even find enough people who are not
>> >willing to play nice and start a revolution. It's happened
>> >all throughout hostory afterall.
>>
>> No, I said *meta*system. A metasystem doesn't get the people to play nice,
>> it gets the *other systems* to play nice. When you have enough systems
>> available, the malcontents are always free to join a different one or start
>> their own. Some will prefer to overthrow the established order, but as long
>> as most can find a niche in some system, somewhere, they'll never be
>> numerous enough to be a threat to the overall metasystem.
>
>But how would you enforce this set of rules? It does suppose a minimal
>amount of willingness to cooperate, which can be enforced, or, more
>accurately, forced, onto those whose disposition does not lead to
>cooperation. The best enforcement being, of course, the one that
>brings to willingness to cooperate instead of simple cooperation.
Remember, these aren't rules being imposed on people, but on the systems
they belong to. Those systems will enforce rules in their own way, and one
of the meta-rules should be the absolute right of anyone to leave any one
system and join any other. People who don't like the way one system enforces
it's laws will go elsewhere, and natural selection will likely prove you
right.
>Very interesting, all in all, but quite far away from the original
>discussion.
Good, keep going. Let's put as much distance between us and the original
discussion as possible.
Peter
Peter Miller
> Pe...@SBC.wgp.org wrote:
>
>> Meritocracy is the most pernicious form of government.
>
>You will have to explain this one to me.
It's simple, actually. _Any_ system of government will have shortcomings,
right? A theocracy will fail the heretics and atheists, a plutocracy will
fail the poor, a democracy will fail certain minorities or unpopular groups
and so on. One need only look at the meritocratic subsystems within our
society to see how they fail those who don't fit their definition of merit -
to take an obvious example, look at what schools have done to high-IQ
dyslexic students in the past. Recent research has shown a very high
proportion of dyslexics in our prisons in the UK, many of them quite bright
- but as they were told all through school that they were stupid, and didn't
get the help they needed to get qualifications, when they left they were
caught in a cycle of poverty which eventually caused them to turn to crime.
I'm not arrogant enough to believe we can produce a society that makes _no_
such oversights.
Which brings me to the reason why meritocracy is pernicious. If you have
meritocratic subsystems within a society, people can escape one where
they're underappreciated, at least in principle. If the _whole society_ is
meritocratic, there is simply no respite. If you don't measure up, you are
to be considered worthless. They might put it more politely than that, but
it makes no difference. The pernicious thing is that meritocracy is
automatically seen as having a kind of moral superiority to other forms of
government - that is, implicit in the term is the assumption that those who
deserve it will be rewarded, and thus that those who are rewarded will
deserve it. It's difficult to argue against that assumption, unless you
realise that there are many equally valid standards of 'merit' and that one
culture cannot hope to cover them all.
Anna Simpson
told the tale thusly:
>>Actually, yes and no. Look at Huxley's "brave new world," where
>>only one raised outside of the clone society can suffer from it.
>>To the ones part of it, it IS utopia, since their capacity
>>for judgement was altered to fit.
>
>But that society is not desirable to us now, as I said. I've never met
>anyone who didn't find it horrific.
Me, mostly. I mean, I haven't read it for a long time so I
daresay there were some bits I didn't like, but 'horrific', no.
>If all three of us accept your above definition, that argument is moot, but
>it would require that Aaron abandon his position that people are basically
>selfish, since vast numbers of people regularly put the needs of others
>above their own - or don't take the opportunity to put their needs above
>those of others. Either way, my point is made.
I think that the vast majority of people will put their own needs
above those of most other people every time.
People will often go out of their way to help people they know,
or alleviate real actual suffering they can see and empathise
with, but the other 99.99999% of the world can whistle for it.
If people weren't basically selfish, we could get rid of income
tax and just ask peole to make a monthly donation from their
salaries. The government could even suggest the amount they need
to keep the health services, education, social security, police
etc running. People could give a little bit more if they wanted
a better service. Remember, these are services that the people
giving the money would themselves benefit from.
Hands up everyone who thinks this is a workable way to run a
country.
>Peter
love
Anna
*************************** Anna Simpson ****************************
Lords and ladies lie in stone, hand in hand from long ago,
Though their hands are cold, they'll love forever.
******************* http://www.moglit.demon.co.uk *******************
Kish
Anna Simpson wrote in message <37e3ba3a...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>If people weren't basically selfish, we could get rid of income
>tax and just ask peole to make a monthly donation from their
>salaries. The government could even suggest the amount they need
>to keep the health services, education, social security, police
>etc running. People could give a little bit more if they wanted
>a better service. Remember, these are services that the people
>giving the money would themselves benefit from.
>
>Hands up everyone who thinks this is a workable way to run a
>country.
It isn't. But that doesn't mean all people are basically selfish...it means
most rich people are basically selfish. It's not selfish to keep money you
need, or even to want your money spent on positive things within your value
system rather than what your government says it gets spent on.
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.com
Mike Shannon
there aren't more Mages awakening because the Tech's influence have turn
many into drones that lack the 'spark' to see beyond their pitiful pointless
lives.
--
Mike
Kish <kis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7s0jbu$gip$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Jason Corley
: In WoD though I would think most people are basically selfish and maybe
: there aren't more Mages awakening because the Tech's influence have turn
: many into drones that lack the 'spark' to see beyond their pitiful pointless
: lives.
And people wonder why I don't like the WoD setting for Mage.
--
"Dullness marked the beginning of our tale, dullness marked the thread of
it, and dullness more than permeates it's end altogether we've all had a
dern dull time of it, ain't we? Yezza." ----Geo. Herriman
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
Kristopher/EOS
>
> Anna Simpson wrote in message
> <37e3ba3a...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>> If people weren't basically selfish, we could get rid of
>> income tax and just ask peole to make a monthly donation
>> from their salaries. The government could even suggest
>> the amount they need to keep the health services,
>> education, social security, police etc running. People
>> could give a little bit more if they wanted a better
>> service. Remember, these are services that the people
>> giving the money would themselves benefit from.
>>
>> Hands up everyone who thinks this is a workable way to
>> run a country.
Hand conspicuously absent.
> It isn't. But that doesn't mean all people are basically
> selfish...it means most rich people are basically selfish.
> It's not selfish to keep money you need, or even to want
> your money spent on positive things within your value
> system rather than what your government says it gets spent
> on.
"Eat the rich," heh? I can't find the exact numbers, but
if you **stripped** the richest 1000 people in America of
**everything,** it would run the US government for
something like a month or two.
And in the mean time, the economy has collapsed.
Kristopher/EOS
Kish
Kristopher/EOS wrote in message <37e4485c$0$11...@news.net-link.net>...
>"Eat the rich," heh? I can't find the exact numbers, but
>if you **stripped** the richest 1000 people in America of
>**everything,** it would run the US government for
>something like a month or two.
What does that have to do with what I said?
Christopher Adams
>> if I didn't.
>
> that's saying u have a conscience, but why do we have one?
Does there have to be a why? Taking a purely scientific view (which I rarely
do), perhaps the "conscience" is an outgrowth of survival of the species.
Without a conscience, our intelligence would enable us to destroy ourselves over
petty differences; less intelligent animals also engage in these differences,
but are largely limited to the use of their physical weapons - claws, teeth, et
cetera - to contest these disputes.
Humanity, on the other hand, being possessed of the intelligence to create more
and more efficient tools of destruction, may have developed a conscience in
order to prevent us - on the whole, of course, since there are bleedingly
obvious exceptions - from destroying each other. The little part of us that says
"If I do this, I won't be able to live with myself" is Nature's way of
preventing humanity from destroying itself.
I just think it's a pity that we rarely apply our conscience to the way we treat
other species.
--
Christopher Adams
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
The stage but echoes back the public voice,
The drama's laws the drama's patrons give
For we that live to please, must please to live.
- Samuel Clemens
Anna Simpson
<kis...@mindspring.com> told the tale thusly:
>Anna Simpson wrote in message <37e3ba3a...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>If people weren't basically selfish, we could get rid of income
>>tax and just ask peole to make a monthly donation from their
>>salaries.
>>Hands up everyone who thinks this is a workable way to run a
>>country.
>
>It isn't. But that doesn't mean all people are basically selfish...it means
>most rich people are basically selfish.
Unsurprisingly, the Govermnent doesn't get most of it's taxes
from rich people, unless you want to qualify everyone who has a
job as rich.
>It's not selfish to keep money you
>need, or even to want your money spent on positive things within your value
>system rather than what your government says it gets spent on.
But do you honestly think that enough people would voluntarily
donate enough of their income to support education, health
services, infrastructure programs, all the services they _use_ if
the law didn't say they had to?
Do you really think that if there was no taxation system, people
spending money on 'positive things within your value system'
would _work_?
> Kish
love
Anna
*************************** Anna Simpson ****************************
Soon there would never be moonlight again. Theirs was the last
great riding, and the best; eighty lances against the Corbie's Nest.
******************* http://www.moglit.demon.co.uk *******************
Anna Simpson
<ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> told the tale thusly:
>Humanity, on the other hand, being possessed of the intelligence to create more
>and more efficient tools of destruction, may have developed a conscience in
>order to prevent us - on the whole, of course, since there are bleedingly
>obvious exceptions - from destroying each other. The little part of us that says
>"If I do this, I won't be able to live with myself" is Nature's way of
>preventing humanity from destroying itself.
If you say 'a conceince may have developed to prevent us from
destroying our close acquaintance group - which was likely to
contain relative - and is applied by default in different
circumstances in modern times' and you'll keep the evil
selfish-gene reductionist Progenitor-loving Darwin-Nazis out here
happy.
>Christopher Adams
>A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
love
dch...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
: spending money on 'positive things within your value system'
: would _work_?
Nope. People have conflicting value systems.
aetherson
"Kish" <kis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Anna Simpson wrote in message <37e3ba3a...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >If people weren't basically selfish, we could get rid of income
> >tax and just ask peole to make a monthly donation from their
> >to keep the health services, education, social security, police
> >etc running. People could give a little bit more if they wanted
> >a better service. Remember, these are services that the people
> >giving the money would themselves benefit from.
> >
> >country.
>
> It isn't. But that doesn't mean all people are basically
selfish...it means
money you
> need, or even to want your money spent on positive things within your
value
> system rather than what your government says it gets spent on.
Please, let's cut the class warfare crap. This has nothing to do with
selfishness.
It's the volunteer's dillemma (which is, for those of you who know one
term but not the other, the more-than-two-players version of the
prisoner's dillemma). The volunteer's dillemma is a game-theory term
for a type of situation in which a player's choices always seem better
when he refuses to "play nice," but the result of everyone not playing
nice is an unsatisfactory conclusion (that's the very simple
explanation, of course).
It's been shown again and again and again and again that when you put
people in a prisoner's dillemma or volunteer's dellemma situation, most
people defect (don't "play nice," that is). You could label that
selfishness if you like, but it's really more of a cynical view of the
odds that everyone else isn't selfish. And, in any case, it's
certainly not limited to one socioeconomic class.
Mike (aetherson)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Richard A. Ayars
Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>
> I just think it's a pity that we rarely apply our conscience to the way we treat
> other species.
>
Funny. I have more of a conscience when it comes to animals and such than I do
concerning my fellow man...
X
Brian Thomas Habing
>I just think it's a pity that we rarely apply our conscience to the way we treat
>other species.
Depends on what you mean by applying our conscience to the way we treat
other species. Do you mean the endagered species act and ASPCA, or do
you mean treating them with the same concern we presumably treat
individual people (in spite of the obvious ways they differ)?
-bh