On Jan 10, 6:23 pm, Midjis <midwinte...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Day Brown" <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote :
>
> > active in their video games, but no with no humanity to interact
with.Well, I cannot speak to that point, having long since surrendered any
real
> humanity of my own.
>
> > How noble does it have to be, before you feel it is "civilized"?I have
never really judged civilisation by its nobility. Every culture is
> civilised in its own eyes - it is just that, through mine, civilisation
> does not really seem to mean much.
I dunno what to make of Azure's comment, which seems to come from a
different frame of reference. Likewise, Shakespeare implies the
question of just who gets to decide what the laws of Nature are, or
what defines 'civilization' or 'civilisation'. If there's an answer
that most of us can understand it will come out of the distillation of
history, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology... the various tools
of looking at different frames of reference. One of the other hints of
Shakespeare is that civilizations are always aware of other cultures
whereas barbarians need not be.
The Internet seems to be a new form of civilization; it receives more
input from more cultures than any other civilization ever. It reaches
back into obscure corners like my neck of Ozark woods, the tropics, or
the arctic. There are even inputs that represent themselves as extra
terrestial or other planes of being such as Azure's. I cant find much
common ground with Azure; I cant find ground period. Whatever Azure is
talking about, was not dug up out of the Earth I live on. But the Vedas
written here tell me there are other worlds.
Thus it seems that the more civilized we are, the more we are aware of
other civilizations and cultures. And... savagry.
|
