Soren wrote on Jul 15
th, 2011 at 5:23pm:
You fellas have a horizon that extends for
decades. Well done. Alas, Epimenides goes back further.
Even before French deconstructinists (I know you'd find that hard to believe).
Epimenides, (flourished 6th century bce?), Cretan seer, reputed author of religious and poetical writings, including a Theogony, Cretica, and other mystical works. ...
For his reputed claim—cited by St. Paul the Apostle (Titus 1:2)—that all Cretans are liars,
Epimenides, a Cretan, is credited with invention of the paradox of the liar, in which a sentence says of itself that it is false, thus being true if it is false and false if it is true.Time is our Epimanides:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6
th, 2011 at 2:33pm:
How does this differ from conservatives in debate, or any other group for that matter?
Every group will push their barrow of what they consider right. This is especially the case when politics is involved. Politics is about winning, it's about crushing your enemy and rubbing their nose in the dirt, not debating, not discussing, not making concessions.
You're no different with your religious talk: you want to severely punish those who you believe are wrong (moreso than most on this forum, which is not unusual for religious types).
Time, Epimanides et al are not wrong. I myself have said that the only Anarchic gang worth belonging to is called General Public.
Our society is made up largely of gangs. Political parties, police, bikies, Nurses associations, antismoking lobbies, vivesectionists and animal rights groups all belong to a gang.
The object of a gang is to expand. It is run by and for the glory of the chief and the hierarchy. It wears uniforms, develops specialised languages, coerces its members. It is capable of 'spinning' its policy a full 180degrees, (Conservatives started off as conservationists). Gangs compete with other gangs for power and/or territory.
The opposite of a gang is a community, which is the at the heart of Anarchism. Communities are made up of diverse individuals, who have learnt to co-operate without surrendering their sovereignty to 'leaders'. Ideally communities should arrive at consensus decisions by compromise; regardless of and with a fine disregard for ideaology. They are free from coercion or usurped authority, though respect be given where deserved.
Hence, in this time where Anarchists call themselves by all sorts of prefixes, my comment.
Paradoxes, like the paradox of the liar, are things of beauty. It is only when you see and understand the different views that reasonable decisions can be made. The merely rational is chop logic, 'you can rationalise anything'. Reason requires a deep understanding.
Forum
Pages: 
