Pukko

Correct  (probably not so hard for any gamer active in '87   ) EDIT: Head over heels?

An all time favourite for me - probably one of the most advanced RPG's ever made (well, at least for the player - one have to eat, drink, sleep, discover different spells by testing different combinations of the elements, solve hard clues, EDIT: make sure to have a light source, find out effective strategies and weapons etc.), and also one of the favorite games of several BIS people. Actually it's one of the very few games I have ever finished; most games I just play halfways (if they are that good) and quit once I master them - but this game....... The first 'first person shooter'??

Not sure if that's  a question directed at me, for pointing out the only '1st' world 'problem' (at least probably meant to be concieved as a problem) I could find among those pictures (the overweight person (probably kid) with the caption "Generation XL in USA"). And indeed I think that is a problem, those kids have'nt got a very 'normal' life for sure - and probably not a very long one either. Like, and in contrast to, the starving '3rd' world kids on other pictures. But my rant is about that there surely are other kinds of problems in the 1st world caught on awardwinning pictures... About stereotyping impressions about 'their' problems - seemingly hopeless to solve, and reinforcing diverse ideas of why they are in the situation they are. Well, maybe it's a symbol of the '1st' world (maybe) going downhill to the extent that the journalists participating don't think that we can face anymore 'internal' problems. Otherwise I think you sum up the point I was trying to make here: And good luck to you in making a difference  Personally I dont give much money, partly because I dont have very much - but maybe I should... At present I try to make a difference in other ways however, but maybe............

I'm of to bed, but first I will present my candidate for: The Picture of the Year 2003: Now thats what I call a problem! Ps. credits to Ralphviggum for posting it in the Iraq thread Â

Not at all, those problems are very present indeed. In fact so present that I recon about 99.9% of '1:st' world people are in some degree aware of them - that is that they at least have seen pictures of starving/fighting Africans. Do you really think these pictures serve any real purpose in educating people (almost only from the '1:st' world) who sees them? Dont you think there are thounsands of just as good pictures of 'not so very popular'/taboo/'not really considered as problems' sides of our own society? - that further more could be signs of good journalism by bringing up something more relevant than old the stereotypes shown in those pictures? There are many ideas as to why the situation is like it is in Africa (and the rest of the 3:rd world)... Most commonly probably the rather rasistic/ethical/'us and them' ones, quickly explaining how they have put themselves in their position. I'm not going into why that might be here, but one cannot really claim that they have put themselves there all by their own, the '1:st' world is in many ways (concrete and abstract) resposible for their situation - and in several (more abstrect indeed) ways makes sure that they stay there. To be a little more controversal - do you think that there would be any rich/sucessful world without an poor/mediocre world? If you want 'us' to remain 'us', you got to make sure that 'they' remain 'them'. Tell me, can you find any dead - or even injured - '1:st' world people on those pictures? How come? Dont you think there is any awardwinning pictures of dead/injured/wild/deprived '1:st' world people around??

Well I can only feel sick and furious over the fact that this well monitored event only serves to widen the gap between the '1:st' world and the '3:rd' world. How many 'bad' pictures can you find from the 1:st world? An overweight American, and maybe some more (how many dead or injured?)... is that in practice all the problems in the '1:st' world? Since we dont see our 'own' problems, it all comes back to 'them' in the long run (to name very few: the invasion of Iraq, a number of aspetcs around the African povery etc.), often under the, at least temporary, name of 'success' and 'development'. This kind of bullshit mostly seves to strengthen stereotypes and "not so very valid difference-conceptions between 'different' humans"; serves to maintain 'us' and 'them'. It is not an unimportant event I recon, since very many 1:st world people probably bake these images together to a greater image of the 'reality' here on planet Tellus. One can read on the first page: "Our Mission: To encourage high professional standards in photojournalism and to promote a free and unrestricted exchange of information " Well, take your professional journalism and show it up where it belongs, I say. I really must say that I was naive enough to believe that the ones organising this thougth longer than their ass reach... Indeed it gives attention to '3:rd' world problems (and the Iraq images might serve a better purpose indeed- EDIT: since its based on such a new and concrete '1:st' world involvement), but how many of us do not already know that 'in Africa there lives primitive, lazy, crazy and violent brown beats'? I wont participate in any longer discussion about this (in practice an neverending discussion - that of differences), since I have'nt got the time to spare, but I recon quite a few might disagree.

I just made a quick browse to see any replies on my post, sorry if I missed any. It's late, I'm tired as shit and gotta get up in a few hours again. So just a quick answer here. Where is your proof? Don't make open ended assumptions without proof. Why should you concern yourself with our policy? I'm (glad) to see that you obviously approved of my statement that earlier US administrations did support, help Saddam in many ways, at several occasions. And also 'ignored their friend and ally's moral sidesteps' when he (Saddam) for example made his worst crime: gasing the 5000 Kurds in that village. But to you remarks: Proof about the threats of attacking Iran and Syria? Does the axis of evil ring a bell (in which Syria was not a part indeed)? Otherwise their (TBA) whish to attack those countries has been more or less opelny declared on several occasions, in their standard 'not so very shy' rethorics (I dont have time ot look for links now, but check out BBC and CNN from may to july this year and you should find some). Its also consistent with their strategy to 'stabilise' the middle east. And why should I concern with your foreign (I hope you know what that means, its not just 'interstate' within the USA.. ) policy? Well, your president do claims to be 'the leader of the "free" world'. I have not voted for him, he's rather 'the dictator of the world to me'. I have to take the consequenses for his actions in many ways: -More refugees from 'in worse condition than before TBA got involved nations' like Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. -A very likely destabilisation of the world, with WW3 possibly hangin around the corner. -And the fact that one still in our time can fool/buy big parts of the world with such cheap rethorics, lies and threats as TBA constantly spews out - that makes me feel so fucking sick... Good night, and may god countinue to bless America (because you surely need it) Â

LOL Â You surely mean "anti-the otherwise soon coming 'liberations' of Iran and Syria" or "anti-Bush administration foreign policy" bashing f**k fest? Regarding the capture of Saddam, I'm quite indifferent, unless we even start talking justice in the sense these people want (and more): Above quote from this article (in which no difference is made between civilian and military deaths, and US-involvement in several cases is left out): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm

  Found this when looking for something completely else. Ok, it's not exactly science, but an extremely hyper unlikely link between modern science and Islam. Seems like muslims dont need no new science to tell the truth of things, its all in the Quran already (check out the link for a better overview): http://www.geocities.com/speed_o....ult.htm Anyone dares to write those numbers in roman figures instead of the arabic? (and it should be in Km/h too )

 And the media will ofcourse see it as holding away information from the public, not   Its not at all that this flashes in neon about "civilian deaths are too high" Â

LOL, its hilarious how we can talk past eachothers. aint it? Its not really about creating an alternative science. Its about that those that feel oppressed (or their sympathisers) by these scientific discourses break them (the oppressive discourses, concieved as unjustified 'scientific thuths about them'; not science as a whole) down. But indeed feminists have in big parts managed to create alternative science, or at least they have had a massive impact on social sciences as a whole. Obviously there do can be a need to create aternative science for some social groups to make their voice heard. And the only thing that can stop that is probably conservative politics (not necessarily enforced by 'politicians' - their real power in modern western societies is very small. Rather the ones with discoursive power)), like cutting funding to some science forms for example. EDIT: Also, its not really necessary to change the name of something, just because you change its characteristics. We still call female humans women for example, even though the feminin character has changed quite alot in the last decades. Changing names in it self dont take away negative values from people, things and practicies. The miltiple taboo names of black humans for example have not exactly increased their human value or changed their (by the white man) concieved characteristics in it self, I would say. btw, more common synonyms to 'eurocentric discourse' is 'modernistic discourse' or 'enlightment discourses'. I just started to use since it better show its origin, even though it kind of diguises its age. And thats about the same as I wrote. Read about those postcolonial theorists (mostly immigrants) I wrote about who sits in USA and Europe? They are about as controversal scientists you will find. I did write "if conservatism should rule in a greater extent than presently"... I know quite well that the politics performed presently in the western world is'nt very extreme, not even in USA. But I fear that the need for more conservative politics is just around the corner. These controversal sciencies will probably not be less frequent in the future you know. Put that together with an increasingly hysterical western labour market, and possibliy growing terrorism; and its more than most voters tolerates I recon. EDIT: And I am not particulary worried about internal US conservatism. I'm primary terrified over the "preserve Pax Americana" foregin policy.... Europe is quite monocultural already (EDIT:and not only in its positive form) I recon, or rather the entire western world. But there is indeed many things that will have to be dealt with. I dont really promote a European state, or its like, neither do I oppose it by principle (since I still have hope that it can be to the better, even though that might change). I rather dont se anything stopping it in the long run (atleast in a 100 years perspective), its just its characteristics that are on stake IMO. EDIT: The reason I write this bullshit now is probably because I have an exminating seminar about it next week at the University. Sorry if I bored someone out, and its all good if I gave someone a good laugh.

EDIT : @ denoir Yeah, I would say that the world really do is getting a better and better place, though it works in mysterious ways  I have exaggerated quite much to get my point through indeed, and will continue with that a little more. The concept of eurocentrism is indeed relevant. Partly because through it a universal global reality is since long ago already implemented. Sure the Eurocentric in it self is not ours anymore. Its everone's on this planet. But this eurocentrism is nothing more and nothing less than endless amounts of scientifically proved truths (discourses) about all aspects of 'reality'. Ok, I repeat myself and I feel like I have got the basic message through. But these discourses continue to have a life of their own, and Europe, or the western world (dont think there really are any opposite of that quite sick concept, but we do all seems to have a good conception of what it means - maybe its the parts of the world that at a given time have a value comparable to Europes, maybe its therefore the 'civilised' world vs the 'uncivilised' ) continues to be a part of them. What I wrote in the parenthesis above is quite usable to continue from there. The Eurocentrism is a very alturistic phenomenon, the scientists that measured the cranium of different 'races' in favour to the white did it in all good intentions. They now could explain why we white people were so much 'better' (intelligent (a very interesting concept in it self - what do you measure in a IQ test? ) civilised, cultural etc. ), and added that to other science to get a better 'understanding' of how to treat and help those less cranium-fortunate. But the problem is that the Eurocentric reality is probably quite addicted to maintain Europe (and its equals - the western world) as superior. The likes of the cranium theory about intelligence is since long falsified (I think), but still lives on in our uncouncious - it lives on through other discourses influenced by it. It still is a part of human 'reality' whether we like it or not. And that reality, in its life of its own, continues to be consistent by maintaining the western world as the superior center of human reality. The Eurocentric lives, and uses its own survival strategies But at this time the inferior peoples (not of Europe-value) is able to discern the general eurocentric discourse, and is therefore forced to to get out of their now unjustified inferiority by deconstructing the discourses that defines them as inferior. However when deconstructiong these dicourses (that is, seriously questioning different scientific truths) they have to go through the western world. Because its very hard to sit in for example Ethiopia and and get deconstructive theories publicated globally (to deconstruct eurocentric discourses one have to ultimately act/communicate globally within the scientific (which in it self is eurocentric) sphere). Therefore most postcolonial theorists that dedicate themselves to this kind of intellectual stuff sits at American and European universities (no, the western world is no utterly evil ). And it is important to note that its not only 3'rd world people that work actively to deconstuct eurocentric discourses, feminist and queer theorists do it to. And its not without intellectual conflict between them. A good example is the problem with the western feminists; they produce (or at least produced) theories that put the white woman as superior to the black woman (and man) in many different ways. Its a good example of how the eurocentric phenomenon continues to reproduce itself, primary since it defines what is scientific knowledge and what is not. Its absolutely not impossible to do this kind of intellectual work; to deconstruct the eurocentric. It's as I wrote in my previous post a very present activity. But, and this is what I meant with it as being possibly dangerous: If the western world has problems to accept this new reality, when colored humans of all ethnicities and religions, women, gay and in some extent also children (through the likes of me) slowly rises and grabs hold of a grater human value (and thereby also new possibilities), then all kinds of new conflicts evolve - both within and from outside of the western world. Thats the reason why I fear militant conservatives like the Bush administration. The feminsits and gay revulutions within the western world is probably quite unlikely to become overly violent if conservatism should rule in a greater extent than presently. But the external threat is bigger. If the conservatives refuse to accept the changed reality (that is the constatly deconstructed eurocentrism) that comes with 'rising' non-westerners, global tensions will without doubt increase. Its not really relevant to speculate what WW3 would look like, but if one side dont have nukes, they will find out other ways to hurt their enemies. But maybe it will be a global version of the Israel/palestine conflict. The Bush administration is not exactly improving the odds of such global tolerance to become reality, and a radical change in US political culture is not very likely, or hopefully it is? But I do have have some hope that EU (which has grown a little humble by its knowledge of its centuries of mistreatment) can become a more tolerant part in the world. And accept a new reality that is basically (and ironically) the deconstruction of eurocentrism, whilst a 'new' Europe is evolving. The postmodern kinds of thinking is not exactly dissapperaring, but grows quickly (even though never under the very name of the dirty postmodernism, as I said earlier - it has many faces), and will potentially hinder the EU from becoming another classical superpower; Hinder the EU to unite agaist an external enemy, and instead make EU develop a much more complex 'national identity', that integrates it in the global community (possibly helping to create a positive kind monoculturalism that we spoke of earlier), instead of putting it in opposition to the surrounding world. I was also thinking about 'explaing' more how the eurocentric (discourse) can keep most of the world as inferior to the western world, but think that I have writtenquite some bit about that already, and now I must take a break. SHIT this post took an eternity to write - must be a little tired  And what bullshit dogma I have spewed out.... well, dont take it to serious Â

I never wrote that monoculturalism necessarily must be negative. I have no alternative for when the humans of of planet 'unites'. The main problem lies in what you wrote about 'dominating culture'. Right now in our time, billions of people are (at least more or less) quite pissed of at the 'western world' (in 'essence'  Eurocentric) have defined their reality, and in ways are making sure they continue to be inferior. No questions asked, the European enlightment scientists and philosiphers have probably defined a little to much the universal truth about humanuty, one can say. The concept of discourses is very important here. Basically you promote an unquestionalble truth, and billions of people are forced to accept it and live after it, in thought and action. Example: The European scientists finds out the 'truth' about the black humans inferiority (categorised in far to many ways to write here), and the black humans are then forced to live 'up' to their inferiority - per definition (a definition that is produced in Europe during the colonisation for example). They (inhabitants of Africa) becomes the definition of them (the black humans), and think of themselves in that way. They are imprisoned in the discourse about the black humans. And the positive thing about postmodern (relativistic) perspectives is that they can with its help break free from the dicourse, rise up and claim their human value. This is very much happening globally right now, and the G21 at the last WTO meeting is probably very influenced by postmodernism, through postcolonial theory. Put it like this. We live in a very dangeous time if we Eurocentric westerners continue trying to maintain the old Eurocentric worldorder. This is why I am utterly frightened of the Bush administration (USA is very Eurocentric). More Eurocentric conservatism and WW3 is inevitable. There are billions of peolpe that are 'waking up' and won't tolerate anymore Eurocentrism enforced upon them. The only thing I hope for is that the western world swallow its pride, and meets, welcomes, the rising peolpe of the world to reach to ultimately reach the 'same level' as we are on. As it is has been, the western world very much contains the 'non-westerners' in their inferiority, to big parts through the 'not so very alturistic' Bretton Woods institutions. EDIT Forgot the most important in my answer. I do think (and hope) that the humans on our planet will live in harmony under quite monocultural conditions ultimately. But it will take centuries to get that close together through mutual understanding (and deconstruction of hte bloody Eurocentrism). In the meantime we better try our best to construct 'cultural borderlands' where we can meet. EDIT III In its most concrete sence, cultural borderlands ike this forum (but the problem is that its quite western-centered (eurocentric) Thanks alot Acecombat and python3 for hangin around). EDIT II the reason why I brought up monoculturalism at all was that in our Eurocentric times, anything like it have a real bad taste. Pheew, there's no limit of all the shite that could be written about this, but I will have to continue in this post.. Can just hope it makes any sense  Its probalby very much so (that its the social scientists that try to make some point). I'm not to well into Quantum physics as you might remember from my thread about it over a year ago. But I have nothing agaist it, its rather very faschinating - understaning that its impossible to really understand (and thats also a view held by you physicists yourself I have read on several occations; the really deep essential understanding just is'nt there, like it was with the good old concrete particle physics) I VERY much is indeed. And it has been a problem for 100's of years of social science (even if it has not been concieved as a probelm on a grand scale until the last decades). Most of our social sciencies are deeply 'corrupted' by this positivism, and thats the whole fundament of the still (populary considered as) quite extreme and taboo postmodernism. Therefore the shite I really write about in these posts is that the 'scientific truths' that these centuries of positivistic social/cultural sciencies have produced - our social reality - is VERY problematic. Look, I'm not extremely extreme in these ways of thinking, but there are many problems (read scientific truths) to deal with/deconstruct (something that is generally best kept within the academic world, to avoid general peoples 'sense of reality' to be even more of an acute, and real, problem than it already is). I hope that I have already answered this to some extent above (and below). Once again I failed to make something clear. I primary meant that positivism is dying within social sciencies, like I wrote above. But there do IS a BIG problem in exactly defining where the line goes between natural science (hard) and social science (soft). Its rahter comletely impossible. But as you might remeber, do consider the bloody amoeba (a quite natyral oriented positivistic social science) psychology as deeply problematic. But one can't generalise psychology as a whole, I know; there really are some positive things around there too But put it like this: Quantum physics really do is about as far from social science as one can get, and as I said - I have no problem with it (well, exept for 'understaning' it that is ) Â

You know that 1) and 2) are alternatives, right? And no it's not monoculturalism as it talks about integrating different cultural systems into a common one. This perspectice inplemented in its most 'positive' form still defines monoculturalism. Even if there would be no 'dominant culture' (which is extremely unlikely in the closest centuries, remember Eurocentrism? ) it still means that all different 'cultures' (as in essetially specific and separate) that all cultures are melted together into one monoculture. This is a very essentialistic view when applied on social phenomenons, aka positivism; a perspective that has mostly been eliminated from social/cultural sciences during the last decades. Ok, you are probalby quite aware of this denoir, and I dont think it really applies to you in any grater extent after reading most of your other posts here. But I'm still surprised to be reading this from you. I would call the opposite of essentialistic - 'reflexivistic'. Indeed relativistic if you want. In natural sciences the essentialistic view is quite acceptable (and I recon that you denoir are 'aware' of postmodern-quantum physics; I dont knom much about it, but recon its primary a postmodern experiment to push the limits. On the other hand I think ordinary quantum physics seems all relativistic enough already). Nah, it comes from the tragic fact that people that deal in social and humanist studies don't have a first clue about physics. It's nothing special. It sounds profound when you say that an observer inevitably affects the process being observed. But you know what? First it's quantum mechanics only, and second it's very trivial Maybe I did not make it clear, but i wrote about the example of postmodern quantum physics to show the possibly pathetic sides of postmodernity; as I felt sure that that is where you have primary experience of the not always so 'successful' postmodern thinking. With that in mind, what do you think about the rest? But we dont necessarily share half assed essentialistic scientific thruths about these laws of physiucs when they are translated (at least methodologically) into social/cultural sciences either, do we? Did you get my idea about the problematic distictions between natural science and social/cultural science that I almost focused the entire post around? Natural scientists, like the social scientists writing about quantum mechanics, always seems to have a hard time changing fundamental (methdological) thinking when crossing the line between 'hard and soft' science. And the dying positivism is probably some kind of evidence for that; essentialistic thought dont hold in the long run (and now I'm not talking about paradigm changes). Sorry if I sound offensive, but this is a very delicate issue, that is hard to communicate. Peace Â

I have not read the article about Muslim science yet (or the last posts here), but have printed it out and will read it later. But now I instead post a probably quite long and controversal (or indeed for some pathetical, but this kind of reasoning may contain more substance than meets the eye at first) post. I primary felt the need to write it after reading the quotes from denoir below, and thought about PM'ing him instead since this can be quite personal. But I'll do my best not to be offensive in writing a post anyway, since I recon this can be of some value for others too. This is about the definition of MONOculturalism I'm afraid. The word mulitculuralism sounds good, but in practice the western world is very monocultural. Or rather our entire planet is presently very monocultural through what is usually called Eurocentrism - indeed a 'dominant culture'. And I'm afraid that kind of ideal is the very core of rasism, and also the core of the very 'alturisitc' reasoning (or defence/excuse) behind the colonisations. It all comes down to 'essentialism'. To view cultures as of an essential character, like this culture is like this and that culture is like that; like cultures are 'real' - that you could almost 'take' on them. Instead of viewing cultures as 'processes'; blurry, constantly changing phenomenons based on constantly evolving social interactions. Europe have more or less defined the global reality (read Eurocentrism) through the modernity project (to big parts the scientific victory over religion (the 'enlightment' ) discussed on the last pages, starting mid 16ht century). This Eurocentrism have produced gigantic amounts of 'scientific truths' about the 'cultures' that our plantets humans lives 'within'. One can argue that this eurocentrism has contained many non-western cultures in their evolving processes. But not only has it stopped different cultures own 'natural' processes, it has more importantly changed them into something else, by promoting the scientific truths about them as being inferior, uncivilised, natural people to the degree that they have been forced to look upon/concieve themselves in that way. That in contrast to Europes superior, civilised and 'cultural' people. This is also where the alturistic parts of colonisation comes in, to help those poor undeveloped people to develop. But as we all know, that has not been practised in reality; the Europeans and their 'western' colonies have been very addicted to keep their superiority. Some may argue that it is human nature to preserve ones superiority when opportunity is given, I don't. Don't agree on everlasting dogmas about human nature that is, as hopefully will become clearer below. I know that many things that I have written in the piece obove is exaggerated and incorrect, but gives a general picture without spending too many hours typing. And that will do as a background, from now on I will write about science, from the still quite taboo 'postistic' perspective. This is a very essentialistic view when applied on social phenomenons, aka positivism; a perspective that has mostly been eliminated from social/cultural sciences during the last decades. Ok, you are probalby quite aware of this denoir, and I dont think it really applies to you in any grater extent after reading most of your other posts here. But I'm still surprised to be reading this from you. I would call the opposite of essentialistic - 'reflexivistic'. Indeed relativistic if you want. In natural sciences the essentialistic view is quite acceptable (and I recon that you denoir are 'aware' of postmodern-quantum physics; I dont knom much about it, but recon its primary a postmodern experiment to push the limits. On the other hand I think ordinary quantum physics seems all relativistic enough already). In social/cultural sciences it is not (feminism for example is in its core quite much a postmodern scientific phenomenon, questioning the man's essentialistic superiority). I would therefore claim that the essentialistic/positivistic scientific contributions (read dogmas) to the social/cultural field are no better than the old cristianity. Maybe even worse. But we still do live in a time when essentialistic thinking is reality. In such a time I have to agree that it can even be selfdestructive to 'question the universal'. But I'm afraid its even more selfdestructive to follow it in the long run - because the mind is fixed. It is very important however when talking about relativism or more generally the postmodern angle, that it is about value relativism. The fact that postmodernism is often concieved as 'reality' relativism is thar in the long run it is often impossible to separate 'values' from 'reality'. Take feminism for example (and no, I dont support more extreme feminsits), questioning the 'reality' of the man's superiority over women. It has been scientifically proven many times, but in the long run its very value-laden. Or why not the white man's superiority over the 'coloured', and everyone else - it has been scientifically proven many times. The distinction between natural science and social/cultural science is also very blurry, but as I said - essentialistic thinking have got at least some 'worthyness' in natural sciencies, while in social/cultural sciences it has about none. Even 'universal' values like 'human rights' are in a global perspective very problematic. In my conception it is not as dangerous or impossible with a more refelxive approach towards social/cultural issues as many believe. Take this forum for example, sharing different views and reflecting over them is often the very core, especially in threads like this one. An IMO utopical society strongly influenced by reflexive thinking is probalby also characterised by 'ineffective communication'. But that need not to be a problem with the technological base we now have (and continues to develop, creative developing is also very reflexive), but rather a nessecity for humanity to survive itself IMO. We now live in a very essentialistic time, characterised by 'effective communication'. Effective through the use of fixed value laden binary oppositions like white/black, man/woman, rational/irrational, developed/simple, productive/lazy and to some extent even still good/evil etc. Or more more 'correctly', we probably now live in a breaking time between the essentialistic and relativistic/reflexivistic. Maybe one even can believe that its a natural evolution step. All living creatures probably needs some structure and comfort with the world around them, as a basis of some kind of identity. Religion was, and still to some degree is, fundamental for this. In the 'secular world' essentialistic science has taken that role instead, and developed society quite a bit too. Now I would argue that the next step is towards a more reflexivistic/relativistic world. Utter wisdom has been said to be to realise that there are no 'reality'. Maybe mankind is about to grow collectively wise enough for that in our time. But to live in the breaking point between the essentialistic and relativistic/reflectivistic thinking hurts alot, thats for sure. And thats also probably a big reason why we in our time have problems to cope with our 'reality' - burnout, displacement etc. This reflexivism/relativism is IMO what the general (since it has many faces) taboo perspective (and impossible to really define) of postmoderrnism is about. I remember at the last WTO meeting the G21 (21 '3rd world countries' united) standing up and demanding to be takien seriously. IMO postcolonial theory has probably a big part to play in these nations rising from their earlier essentialistic inferiority (essentially incapable, lazy, undeveloped). They have in some way deconstructed the disourses that tells them to keep low and shut up (not because the western world has really told them to, but because they temselves lived within these western essentialistic discourses that tells them that they are incapable etc. ). And thats an example that gives me hope  Über and out Pukko

When reading this thread I come to think about some interesting stuff that Mattias Gardell (brother to the Swedish almost 'national gay' Jonas Gardell) told on a lecture the other week. According to him the burkha in Afghanistan is no older than 100 years. It was introduced as a gift by a prince (or equal) to his wifes as a status symbol, and later more and more other women started using it. My speculative addition ---> Today it might however have lost some of its original function and symbolism, and been reduced to an conservative and traditional 'principle'. But when you look at it, its no cheap rag they are wearing, but a rather exclusive piece of clothing - that furthermore can fill an function during hot or cold weather. The stereotype of ones enemy men oppressing their women is a very old alienation strategy. From a Muslim occidentalist point of view the western men can be seen oppressing their women by having them wear makeup, doing pornography and putting in silicon in their bodies. Gardell (might have been an other lecturer, not sure) also told about an interview he made with an New age promoting woman in Stockholm. Once she had seen an individual dressed in a burkha type clothing in the subway. She then went over to tell her not to hide herslef, to become the free person she was. When Gardell (or whoever) then asked how she could be so sure that the woman in the subway really tried to hide herself and not the other way around, she just went quiet. And lastly mr Gardell seemed to like talking about mr Kadhafi of Lebanon, and they had obviously met on at least one occation. He told amongst many other interesting things about what Kadhafi had done that he decided (and thereby once more breaking the Majlis al-sura) that also women should be allowed to marry up to 4 men, under the condition that she can treat them equally...

29, ex aircraft maintenance engineer (mostly helicopters), now studying (have read some behavioral science, now studying 'the dimensions of globalisation', and will probably suffer through 'economical history' next) to get a broad base for eventual postgraduate studiues - probalbly with a quite a postmodern touch, focusing on adulthood/childhood discourses.

Yup, I recalled to check the size just in time before pushing that nasty 'add post' buttun, but I was lucky  And ofcourse I figured that that would please you mods enough not to lock the thread  I walked over to my brother to watch it, but unfortionally I forgot my binoculars, and he had none. Maybe it would have been better with binoculars, but as it was now I became a little disappointed. There was almost no red color at all, and I  thought it would be quite nasty looking... like this -->  Not sure if it really was a lunar eclipse I saw some years ago, that I wrote about in my second post above. It do not seem to have been any real eclipse around that time.. maybe it was something much nastier.. hmmm.. something big and red...  Â

Permission to dig up na old thread? Â It's time for a new lunar eclipse in 5 hours Its passing maximum on 02.18 CET, and is visible in these areas: More info: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/04nov_lunareclipse2.htm

Speaking of Reaganism, I would like to promote the Mein Kampf IIâ„¢ website here again: http://www.newamericancentury.org Start out with looking at the short Statement of Principles (from 1997). Here you will see big parts of TBA's members, like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz signing in agreement: Also take a look at the document: Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (from 2000). Interesting parts here are: - First column page 1 (the need for an enemy, the statement that USA has won 3 wars in the past century and an introduction of the ever repeated Pax Americana). - Figure on page 2 (the differance between the cold war and the '21st century'). - Top left on page 51 (the need of 'a new pearl harbour' to enforce the policy).

Dont mind me but i see an face in that picture... Just check my edited one out... I puted line's on the holes so you can actualy see an face in it ( if you haven't seen one in the original ) but what does this mean? see the faces here Ha! Check this one out from october 13:th: Happy Halloween Also from the above one really understand that the Bush administration really must launch an attack on the sun as part of their war on terror. The sun is without doubt a liar and deciever, it possesses weapons of massdestruction that could wipe out the USA in a matter of minutes, and most importantly it do not constitute any internationally recognized state - its not even a member of one! -, and can therefore not be seen as anything else than a terrorist, and a really EVIL one (just look at the image above, and think about its low morals) Evidence of the sun possessing and even use weapons of mass destruction (btw, I think the sun has turned the same 'face' as on the picture above when launching this very present attack): http://w1.315.telia.com/~u31505828/Hos/seit_00304_fd_20031030_0934.gif

I have been flying the FsFrance Concorde with FS2004 in the 2 latest flights of my 'WorldWide Tour' (which I primary do to improve my awful geographical knowledge, Started from Saddam International to Kabul, Islamabad, some Indian ariport at the roots of Himalayas, Singapore, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Mauritius and Cape Town - will continue through most of Africa, South America and over to East Asia again). It is a little buggy in FS2004: approach autopilot (autoland) don't keep the height, and it seems to behave a little wrong in Mach 1 transition and high altitude mach 2 acceleration. But FsFrance will release a new version soon: http://fsfrance.webdynamit.net/forum....6b6894a The Concorde in your first link is only AI, and I have no idea why new vfr scenery should be necessary. But the FsFrance Concorde is really beautiful and well made (at least with Pedro Oliveira's 'project concorde 8.3' patch - you need to replace some lines in config flies to get it to work at all, and also if you are a lamer like me who want to fly with GPS instead of that INS), and will probably not be worse with the new version Â

Hello, just popping in to post an arcticle. Dont know if you have discussed this lately, but here it is: Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros? and a follow up: Khristenko: Euro Switch Is Inevitable I remember a few posts here before teh war about oil being traded in euro as a major reason for the war against Iraq. Now this is not what TBA planned for, or is it just that?

Annan seems to continiue standing up while others bend over for the Bush administration: http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....3549550 Maybe there still is some hope in avoiding an all TBA resolution?

 ooohh the irony  After clicking Avons not-quite-right-link (points to an NK bomb article) and finding the named article under topstories - I really had a good laugh. Up came a fullscreen popup ad showing a flash video from reuters seemingly exclusive advertiser. Click back and forth to 'top stories' and see for your self: http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....3548422 Edit: The light version: And on topic, I agree with the previous posters.