The Modern World

[Duke Malcolm]

I have been pondering recently, whilst in bed, in those long sleepy physics classes whilst my teacher cants on and on about coconut shies, on quite walks, about the Modern World : Its politics, its war, its art, its architecture, its mentality.

Firslte, a prime example of modern mentality was when Voluntary Euthanasia Society changed its name to Dignity in Dying. This change brought me to the question: why change the name? "Voluntary Euthanasia Society" is explanatory, simply, polite, and quite obviously a name of an society. "Dignity in Dying" might require some explanation that it is indeed the name of a society. It also does not immediately explain what they do: Dignity in dying could involve euthanasia, assisted suicide, dying in one's sleep, dying whilst having a good standard of living, dying whilst fighting. In short, it is open to innumerable interpretations, unlike the original name which cannot be mistaken for anything but a society campaigning for voluntary euthanasia to be legalised.
Hence, simplicity cannot be the reason behind the name-change. No. However, it could be done in the name of Modernity. It is a short title, with alliteration to make it more memorable and certainly more pronounceable (especially since the popular vocabulary in the past 70 years has decreased)
Other organisations have adopted a similar approach, going for names with single-word acronyms such as SPEAK and FETA (try and guess what they are for) or names to make the cause sound more noble but also fashionable, such as Fathers 4 Justice (the replacement of "for" with "4" is perhaps an attempt to make it more appealling to the youth).

Then there is the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament decided to build a new place to meet, in a modern style in the middle of the (I think) World Heritage Site of the Old Town of the City of Edinburgh. However, not much less than a Scots mile up the road was a building named Parliament House. This is where the Scots Parliament used to meet. Admittedly, it is in use by the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary, but building a new courthouse in Holyrood would have been less costly than a new parliament. Of course, Parliament could not settle for something grand and tradition to fit in with the surroundings. It went for concrete, plastic and glass and vastly huge. Not for beauty, tradition, keeping with the area but Modernity again.
The Imperial War Museum of the North has adopted a similar approach, with a building which symbolises something (nobody can be quite sure, except the architect). In previous times buildings might have ornate designs carved or painted on buildings to symbolise something, the pictures generally being known to the people who would see them most.

In days gone by, companies would call themselves after where they are based, what they do, or the founder. A quick perusal through the Stock Exchange listings brings up all sorts of names. And their logos. They spend millions of pounds re-branding themselves. In the name of Modernity.

Many products are made using plastic today which, in my opinion, clutters things up, but it is on almost everything. What did people do before plastic? What shall people do after plastic?

Most developed countries have a party-political system. However, this gives whichever party has a majority in parliament a stranglehold on affairs, especially if the members are more concerned with becoming ministers and such. Also, there is much onus on democratic reform. Why? Our executive is selected more or less democratically, and the chamber of parliament with most power also is. An upper house which is perhaps made up to be representative of the overall vote each party gets in an election is one thing, but having a whole set of elections is another. Another elected house puts an onus on its members to follow the party line, rather than challenge the executive. There is often complaints of the Upper House being undemocratic whenever something is voted down, but it is doing the job for which it is intended -- challenging the government, scrutinising prospective laws.

This is as much as I could be bothered to type.

So, your opinions?

[solypsist]

/disappointed,

i thought your thread was about this (http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=43&CFID=7807383&CFTOKEN=37288228):

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-01-06.jpg

[Duke Malcolm]

On second thoughts, here's a bit more...

Etiquette also seems to have disappeared. Fairly recently, too. If I hold the door for a girl (or indeed a boy) in my school, the younger ones are less inclined to thank me. The ones of my year and occasionally the year below and the teachers will add in a swift thanks. The younger children are also quick to blame other people for their mistakes. They have little grasp of fairness and justice. There is little use of manners, simple please and thanks. Courtesies of letting women go first and holding doors are gone. The youths do not care if they are are eating, they will talk anyway. Taking off hats and gloves whilst inside is no longer practiced. They expect the authorities to help them get by without doing anything themselves.

[Ianofsmeg16]

On second thoughts, here's a bit more...

Etiquette also seems to have disappeared. Fairly recently, too. If I hold the door for a girl (or indeed a boy) in my school, the younger ones are less inclined to thank me. The ones of my year and occasionally the year below and the teachers will add in a swift thanks. The younger children are also quick to blame other people for their mistakes. They have little grasp of fairness and justice. There is little use of manners, simple please and thanks. Courtesies of letting women go first and holding doors are gone. The youths do not care if they are are eating, they will talk anyway. Taking off hats and gloves whilst inside is no longer practiced. They expect the authorities to help them get by without doing anything themselves.
That one i can relate to, i once held the door open for 40 girls coming out of a p.e class, only one said thanks, right at the end. Etiquette is in danger of going the way of the dodo. An example of this is Text Speak wen peeps tlk leik dis all ov da tme u cnt tell wat dey r speekin. It gets worse than that of course but I can't bring myself to speak "txt talk". In school people make fun of my grammer, and becasue I pronounce my T's and such I might be able to be understood more than your average Joe Manxie, but it doesnt make me cool.
Gah! The lack of Etiquette and the decline of good British grammer just gets me so annoyed. It's almost crusade worthy :knight:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nice topic. :2thumbsup:

But I'd use 'post-modernism' as the overarching term to describe the prevalent mentality of our times.

Everything is text - you should 'read' that parliament building. In pre-modern days, buildings were build to look pretty. It's beautiful, therefore good and true. In the modernist era, a building had to true by having it's form follow after it's function, to ornament it would be decietful, a betrayal. In post-modern times, the form is the function. Post-modernist architecture is often an allusion to the past, with multiple associations and meanings. Often with 'quotes' of previous styles. The viewer or 'reader' is understood to be familiar with the quoted texts. One should deconstruct the building to appreciate it.

If I deconstruct your rant about disapearing etiquette, I do so by reading the subtext, the underlying, implicit tarin of thought. I can only understand it by and through being familiar with concepts like old-fashioned, feminism, gender-specific behaviour. What you call a 'courtesy', is another man's 'suppression'. That you would call holding a door for a woman 'a courtesy' is an allusion to a whole system of thought. In this fashion, language itself is the means of oppression.

Which means that language itself is the very key. There is no reality, only our perception of it. A perception that is formed through our concepts, our language. Hence that name change from Voluntary Euthanasia Society changed to Dignity in Dying. Aware of the perceptions, the set of texts of their audience, the society is now no longer associated with death, secrecy but with dignity. They achieve their goal - euthanasia being recognised as a dignified death - through language. This goal is achieved not through any objective actions of the society, but by their changing the perception of their actions.

Soly need not be disappointed at all, for this thread is about what that comic showed. Whether the conservatives in the third picture read the subtext of the headline correctly or not, they did deconstruct it. Correct only referring to the mind-set of that Daily Times (NYT?), as there is of course no objective correctness.

[/French post-modernist mode off :book: ]

Does the above make any sense at all?

[R'as al Ghul]

Does the above make any sense at all?

Very much. I agree with you.
Thanks for posting.
Your part about language immediatly reminded me of the often quoted
Lord Chandos by Hofmannsthal whose "words molder in his mouth like rotten fungi". Ever heard of?

[Avicenna]

On second thoughts, here's a bit more...

Etiquette also seems to have disappeared. Fairly recently, too. If I hold the door for a girl (or indeed a boy) in my school, the younger ones are less inclined to thank me. The ones of my year and occasionally the year below and the teachers will add in a swift thanks. The younger children are also quick to blame other people for their mistakes. They have little grasp of fairness and justice. There is little use of manners, simple please and thanks. Courtesies of letting women go first and holding doors are gone. The youths do not care if they are are eating, they will talk anyway. Taking off hats and gloves whilst inside is no longer practiced. They expect the authorities to help them get by without doing anything themselves.

This might be the case in Europe, but not where I come from. Where I live, manners are very important and they are usually what you first judge a person by. That and their appearance. Children are taught to be very polite.

About the younger generation's lack of manners: perhaps the emphasis is on potential instead of looking at potential and also manners and all when admitting people to your school?

[Duke Malcolm]

There is no selection process when entering my school, since it is a State School. In a more illustrious public school, they can choose whomever they so wish, but in State Schools selection is mostly based on what Primary School one goes to and where one lives...

[Avicenna]

Duke. About the buildings being 'modernised':
- Modernisation should appeal to the younger generation in my opinion.
- Old limestone buildings were annoying: if you put them up 90 degrees from the position they were originally (ie originally 'portrait' and put 'landscape') the skin would exfoliate: it would peel off over time. Limestone is also a problem in the UK I think: many people want to conserve the 'natural' karst (limestone) landscapes, making it difficult to get stone out: large blocks of limestone are rare enough, with so much of it having been used already.

and you seem not to understand why plastic is used so much. Well, I think that plastic:
-is cheap
-is durable
-is light
-is resistant to weather
-is easy to manufacture

The other options are wood or stone.
Wood is:
-brittle (therefore breaks easily)
-in layers, and if part of a layer peels off you could easily cut yourself
-is harder to change the shape of
-is not water resistant

Stone is:
-brittle
-heavy
-hard to make into a shape: to make a stone jug, for example, you have to find a big piece of stone and chip it off. This wastes a lot of the stone and also, if a single mistake happens you'll have to start again.
-requires more energy to even transport to a factory

Anyway, not most products are made of plastic if you think about it. There aren't many plastic chairs, plastic tables, plastic wardrobes, plastic pipes, plastic windows, plastic beds, etc... Almost all materials are used depending on what they are like. The most suitable one is used for the job.

[Kanamori]

There is no reality, only our perception of it. A perception that is formed through our concepts, our language.

I can easily grant you that what is real and what we percieve to be real can be two very different things, but to claim that there is no reality because people disagree about it seems far fetched. Perhaps, I have mistaken how far you meant this to go, given that the context seems to be limited to language.


What you call a 'courtesy', is another man's 'suppression'. That you would call holding a door for a woman 'a courtesy' is an allusion to a whole system of thought.

I understand the gist of this, and I mostly agree. However, calling the door courtesy a form of suppression is inaccurate. Without holding the door open, the person in question only has the choice to open the door before they walk through it, as you hold it open, they may either walk through it, or open another door (or request that they may open it themselves, which would be more than a bit strange). Prior to the door being held open, if they wanted to walk through the door, they had to do the action of opening the door, afterwards, they had the choice of either commiting the extra action or not comitting it. Even when it is only men doing it for women, it cannot be called suppression, for they're more free than they were before. Whenever help is offered but not forced, it cannot be suppression.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I can easily grant you that what is real and what we percieve to be real can be two very different things, but to claim that there is no reality because people disagree about it seems far fetched. Perhaps, I have mistaken how far you meant this to go, given that the context seems to be limited to language.You're right, I went too far indeed. I'll retract my statement, and replace it with: 'There may or may not be an objective reality. In any case, it's existence can neither be proven nor showed.'
The best we can hope for, is inter-subjective coherence.



I understand the gist of this, and I mostly agree. However, calling the door courtesy a form of suppression is inaccurate. [...]
Even when it is only men doing it for women, Ah, but that is the whole point. Enforcement of gender-specific behaviour was the very suppression I was talking about.

[Vladimir]

Ah, but that is the whole point. Enforcement of gender-specific behaviour was the very suppression I was talking about.

I'm sorry you'll have to explain that one. How are you enforcing behavior upon someone if you aren't requiring them to perform or not perform a certain action? You're not slapping some poor girl's hand away from a door just so you can open it for her.

[Kanamori]

Ah, but that is the whole point. Enforcement of gender-specific behaviour was the very suppression I was talking about.

If suppression can be simply understood as limiting freedom, then the door example, or any case where help is offered, cannot be suppression. For, the help is an offer, it is up to the one being offered to accept or not. Even if it is not seen as help the man is not forcing it, and therefore not restricting freedom. Calling it suppression would be to change the meaning, and either one of us must change our definitions if an understanding is to be reached. Which defeats the purpose of some calling it suppression, since it would then lack the extra 'oomph' of partially being associated w/ restricting freedom.

This assumes an objective reality that is separate from our understandings though, where there is some thing existing independent of ourselves. It is problematic to say that there is no objective reality, since it seems to imply that there can be no common ground and therefore no basis for communication. At least, we cannot know that we have a basis for communication.

[discovery1]

I'm sorry you'll have to explain that one. How are you enforcing behavior upon someone if you aren't requiring them to perform or not perform a certain action? You're not slapping some poor girl's hand away from a door just so you can open it for her.

perhaps it is implying that the female is unable to take care of themselves?


Love your post Louis. Anyone here ever apologise for calling them 'yours'? I have.

[AggonyDuck]

I would hardly call holding a door for a woman a gender-specific behaviour. My own argument for this is, although I prefer to holding doors to women, I've also held the door for men and in several cases women have held the door open for me. In the most recent case an elderly woman held the door open for me, which truly was quite a pleasant surprise. :2thumbsup:

[Kanamori]

That is not a necessary quality, however. It could be bigoted thinking, it could be outright sexism, or it could even be that the man likes women more than men, but it cannot be called suppression. Suppression requires that one thing acts on another, and the person in this case is making an offer. An offer of something obviously cannot restrict freedom, since the offer is an addition of choice. The man may think that the woman is lesser than he, but it is still not suppression until it is forced. And it should not even be considered that walking through the door would be accepting the insult, were it one. For the man does not empower the woman; the woman empowers herself.

[Samurai Waki]

I make a habit of slamming doors in peoples faces if they don't say thanks... seems that most people learn their lesson after the first time.

[GoreBag]

Nice topic. :2thumbsup:

But I'd use 'post-modernism' as the overarching term to describe the prevalent mentality of our times.

Does the above make any sense at all?

Derrida to the rescue!

[Duke Malcolm]

Duke. About the buildings being 'modernised':
- Modernisation should appeal to the younger generation in my opinion.
- Old limestone buildings were annoying: if you put them up 90 degrees from the position they were originally (ie originally 'portrait' and put 'landscape') the skin would exfoliate: it would peel off over time. Limestone is also a problem in the UK I think: many people want to conserve the 'natural' karst (limestone) landscapes, making it difficult to get stone out: large blocks of limestone are rare enough, with so much of it having been used already.[QUOTE]

Buildings are rarely made from limestone here... And most modern buildings the younger generation are indifferent towars or dislike. There are the occasional nice ones, yes, but they are very occassional.

[QUOTE]Anyway, not most products are made of plastic if you think about it. There aren't many plastic chairs, plastic tables, plastic wardrobes, plastic pipes, plastic windows, plastic beds, etc... Almost all materials are used depending on what they are like. The most suitable one is used for the job.

All the chairs in my school are plastic, as are the tables (except the legs), and most piping most places is plastic (except in old places where it might be copper or something) and the windows of my house and the new ones in my school all have plastic frames...

[BDC]

I'd still prefer to live in a time when everyone showers regularly though. And with an abundance of good quality coffee, and without the smell of smoke.

Who cares about the rest? :p

[solypsist]

thank god i live in a time when i can be direct and forthcoming when dealing with people (without all the preamble) and they don't take offense and instead communicate just as straightforward to make sure we both understand each other.

i applaud living in a time (and place) where people appreciate the fact that i have things to do and places to be.

[GoreBag]

thank god i live in a time when i can be direct and forthcoming when dealing with people (without all the preamble) and they don't take offense and instead communicate just as straightforward to make sure we both understand each other.

In what time do you live?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wrong verb tense, GoreBag. He's Posting From the Beyond. (PFB for the acronym predisposed.)