Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA25926 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:22:27 +0100 Message-ID: <3ACA3B58.F9D77350@clara.co.uk> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:06:33 +0100 From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk> Organization: University of London X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: taboos References: <E14j0vU-000GsE-00@gaea> <002901c0bbb0$f2000660$b902bed4@default> <3AC8E1B1.33BCD878@clara.co.uk> <001101c0bc77$1fa65b20$0307bed4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Kenneth, thanks for these comments
Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> << Yes, of course, but how in a subliminal way would we know if we
> were to make do something we normally do not !?
> We have to be open minded for the ad, no !?
> So, if it was subliminal how would/ could it work !?
> What would be the result and on the other hand IMo still, the free will is
> excluded in such attempts_ your free will is indeed subverted, but you
> don 't know do you !?
> So, in other words, how would you know if your free will gets subverted
> by some ads if those ads were presented to you in a subliminal way !?
> There is a twist and turn here....!!
The individual can't know that it is happening. That's where the power of the
myth takes hold. It's the fear of losing control. Did you ever see the film
Invasion of the Body Snatchers? The interesting part of subliminal advertising
is the anxiety is evokes in people, rather than whether it works or not.
> > One difference concerns a view of the state as protector that
> > is a natural and spontaneous view for Europeans, but this view of the
> state's
> > role is controversial in common law systems.
>
> << That is maybe an argument that goes in a general way, but if we take
> the Belgium situation in more detail, I think you have to reconsider your
> ideas.
I'm just at the stage in my reading where the differences are starting to become
apparent. A problem will be how much of the detail to work in. One of the
dichotomies in legal theory is between theory's view of real life and real 'real
life'. Even between legal theory and 'real laws' this is a problem. In legal
theory there are many basic propositions about reality that are widely accepted
amongst theorists but which are contradicted in reality. These have to be the
starting point as a comparativist because that is the academic community I am
in, but also because they are the public myths each system has about
themselves. I'm interested in how public myths survive in societies even when
they are contradicted by empirical evidence. An example - the American
self-myth about themselves as the most democratic nation in the world - but
there is evidence to suggest they aren't a democracy at all, at least in the way
they see themselves. Outsiders can see a society's contradictions, which those
within a society cannot.
But stark theoretical oppositions are just theoretical, reality will always
throw up contradictions. The challenge is to show the common law elements of
civil law and the civil law elements of common law. Precedents are said to be
important to common law but not so much to civil law, but it seems in reality
the opposition is not so stark, precedents are important, for example in France,
but they are treated in a different, less open way. Everyone knows its the
reality, but its not talked about so much, its not a part of their self-myth.
And there are differences in this regard amongst different European countries.
When you compare the two systems then, in a global way and find similarities,
you have to ask, 'what then does it mean to be a common law, or civil law
system, if distinctions between them are blurred? Are the terms meaningful?
Another important concept is the distinction between public discourse in the
legal profession and private reality, national myths, as it were, contrasted
with the beliefs of real citizens. Canada prides itself on being a thoroughly
democratic country, but there are very strong indications that it's legal system
reflects a strong authoritarian trait, that might be necessary to revert to
should there be a separation crisis. Legally, its democracy is a bit of
chimera. But this authoritarian trait is not discussed, because it's not a part
of the national myth.
> Of course, this is a personal view but IMO a common one in Belgium.
> The general view is that the state is not our protector, it tries to be, but
> on
> the contrary, the state works against us. All of the scandals, murders etc
> did and does undermind the states power. That is why, IMO we the Belgium
> people are all hyper- individualists in a certain way and on the other hand
> very
> modest, conservative, afraid, suspicious and underhanded. Of course, there
> is a difference between the Flemish side and the French speaking half of
> the country... and that can answer your second part concerning the cultural
> attitude towards the nature of truth.( See below)
>
I'll save this for future reference, its a good summary against which to weigh
some of the more general statements that are made about Civilian values.
Usually, characteristics like "afraid, suspicious, underhanded" don't form a
part of a national self-myth. A joke Canadians sometimes make is that we have
no national identity...nervous laughter usually follows.
Even though, you describe yourselves as hyper-individualists, are you so when
compared to North Americans, or would you just like to think you are?
Belgium's part of the European social market, and the role envisaged for the
state in health care, education , minimum wage, unemployment benefits etc is
very collectivist, when compared to the US.
> The Flemish side is catholic, conservative and right winged, the French
> speaking half is social in nature and therefor more left winged, more open
> but also more unquiet, more mischief makers,...at least the politicians.
> And, IMO those two opposite belief systems play like you said a different
> role towards truth and therefor the state 's truth.
> And....not for nothing are " les compromis Belges " famous throughout the
> world....even Canada have learned from us....Quebec, you know...
>
I'd like to read a good Belgian political history from about 1800 on. The very
little I know strikes a strong chord with Canadian reality. Two languages, two
nations, differing values, constitutional monarchy...bilingual legislation.
Could you recommend one? I could read one in French, but would all French
language histories of Belgium be one-sided?
> In addition, Vincent and I did have also a discussion about American
> Nationalism, maybe you can have a peek there....
> The second area concerns cultural attitudes towards the nature of truth as
> manifested in the each legal system.
I'll look for this, thanks
Best wishes,
Douglas
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 22:25:14 BST