Heh.. agonistic as in

Post #18,157 by Ashton 11/13/01 8:30:24 PM Reply	Heh.. agonistic as in on alt.anything and elsewhere (but Never at ZiWE natch), the prolonged pro-forma contest of endurance* till last post: the grail, in cases where illumination has been subordinated to winning. Who says Greek tradition does not live! * save perhaps re umm OOP, say.. But I thank you for the excellent point. It indeed connects to the origins of many social concepts, though I'd wonder still re the personal attitudes towards cohorts, family. The overlapping ideas of compassion, magnanimity (which of courses ceases - whenever one attributes that to self; as with wisdom..). That is, then - personal theology of the time - whether dominated by flavors of Christianity or Pagan or other models: was there no personal concept akin to points raised by Scott, others in this thread? Surely hypocrisy was ever with us; the lip-service of niceness, smoothing-over (IMhO more visible in the intricacies of UK customs than Murican, since an outsider sees more of 'what often we do'). "You Must come visit again".. this after an exquisitely subtly-barbed exchange indicating more like, fuck off asshole .. as the actual intent. But again - you don't do this with intimates or: they aren't! Now of course if we go back even further ... do we not enter the world postulated by Mr. Jaynes? and can a one of us momentarily adopt That bicameral mind which - preceded all the Tower of Babel consequences? That which brought us to where we are today: post lingua -not so- franca? No wonder no one can 'splain this species; enigma wrapped in a quandary and often - tautology.. under analysis. :-\ufffd
Post #18,266 by tseliot 11/14/01 1:09:24 PM Reply	Honor ...was there no personal concept akin to points raised by Scott, others in this thread? Which points, specifically? Understanding of "personal" behavior in that age/place revolves around the embedding of the individual in an honor-hungry continuum: everyone had their superiors and their inferiors. You expected (and were expected by others) to bring honor to your local superiors and get honor from your inferiors. You fought for honor only with your equals. Nobody "had honor" outside of that embedding in a social group. Dishonoring your superior often took a lot of work to "recoup" the damage. Some patrons used the social tactic of forgiveness when dealing with a transgressing inferior; the idea being that they have so much honor it's not worth getting even over; therefore, they are ascribed more honor by the community. This could backfire, of course, just like it does for Microsoft every day. They are foolish because they try to claim honor they have not earned/been ascribed. OT a little bit, the word "shame" often comes up in the same discussion: in a lot of societies, shame is a good thing--"having shame" means knowing your place in the social hierarchy. It is the direct opposite of being a fool. Only we could take that concept and make it an evil to be abolished. ;) --------------------------------- A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas;...despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires." Jacques Servan, 1767
Post #18,362 by Ashton 11/14/01 9:19:07 PM Reply	Ah.. said well enough that I begin to feel the shackles of serfdom creeping upon me: imagine Billy as Laird! (Consequently.. who would not want to ride off and slay Infidels vs fawning over a Billy and his lieutenant Bally - at home?). No I cannot guess if that was a major incentive for Crusades - but it would have been mine. I must ponder and revise all recalled history - a cinch for the massively talented and humble.. Cheers, Ashton who - via some sort of reincarnation model - prolly died repeatedly at ~17, for insubordination :(

Welcome to IWETHEY!