Everyone busy? :-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

Quoting from message 
 posted on 24 Dec 2007 by Halla
 I would like to add:

> Everyone busy? :-)
> 
> 
Still lurking.

-- 
.ElaineJ.  Home Pages and FAQ of uk.food+drink.indian can be viewed at 
.Virtual.  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ejones/ufdi/index.html 
StrongArm  Under construction, FAQ, recipes, tips, booklist, links
.RISC PC.  Questions and suggestions please, email or to the newsgroup

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:27:49 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:e5cgn3le6or3b371vl2o7jpp691mcco5lm@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:48:00 -0000, "Jani" 
>> blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>>news:54udn3tqpdh4ls0qi2ild6ulm51ad66g8q@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:07:36 GMT, "AC"
>>>>  blethered:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Dr.Hal0nf1r£$" <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:YvadnYI_l7fh7-vanZ2dnUVZ8vOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> When interaction is dependant upon one's religious beliefs there's
>>>>>> something badly askew somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>Strikes me there's too much interaction based on religious belief. I 
>>>>>think
>>>>>I'd prefer all different religions ignoring each other rather than 
>>>>>blowing
>>>>>each other up and assassinating folk.
>>>>
>>>> I heartily agree. As long as the *people* don't have to ignore each
>>>> other; merely the religions.
>>>
>>>Depends how much religion is part of culture, really. And what else the
>>>social interaction is based on, rather than religion. Polo-playing, maybe 
>>>;)
>>
>> <shrugs> Price of bread, getting the messages in, schools, local
>> traffic issues, that sort of thing. I'd think most of the actual day
>> to day living that gets done has pretty much feck all reference to an
>> actual religion.
>
>*nods* Local community as the basis for cohesion, rather than individual 
>religion / type of job / favourite sport, etc.

Yep. I think we're very good these days at sticking to interest
communities rather than location communities. Then again I was
thinking the other day that we seem to have very nearly suceeded in
becoming proper seperate individuals - we have personal space, contact
with other individuals is negotiated on a case by case basis. Perhaps
that's just my perception though. :-) Certainly it is more likely that
people walk past one another and act like they are alone than it is
that they look at each other, smile, say hello, whatever. 

>
>
>> I have a grudging admiration for all those established religions
>> actually, the things they tell people to do aren't generally
>> *necessary*, life will go on without them, but the people who
>> subscribe to the religions don't feel right if they don't do they
>> things they're told they should. Most odd.
>
>Like rituals? 

Well yeah. But being superstitious about them, if you like - if one
does not follow the ritual set out for, say, welcoming a newborn baby
to the community then all kinds of nasty things are bound to happen as
a direct result, that sort of thing. A sort of rigidity of thought. 

>I guess that's partly having deeply-grooved behavioural 
>pathways, and partly not wanting to be 'different' from the community. Or 
>genuinely believing you'll go to hell if you don't do <whatever>, of course.

That's the bit that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Being
unable to deviate from those pathways, there being no give in them. 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:n1qln3hmrapqcmd29555r0e4hijbpc94oo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:27:49 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:

[]

>>>>Depends how much religion is part of culture, really. And what else the
>>>>social interaction is based on, rather than religion. Polo-playing, 
>>>>maybe
>>>>;)
>>>
>>> <shrugs> Price of bread, getting the messages in, schools, local
>>> traffic issues, that sort of thing. I'd think most of the actual day
>>> to day living that gets done has pretty much feck all reference to an
>>> actual religion.
>>
>>*nods* Local community as the basis for cohesion, rather than individual
>>religion / type of job / favourite sport, etc.
>
> Yep. I think we're very good these days at sticking to interest
> communities rather than location communities. Then again I was
> thinking the other day that we seem to have very nearly suceeded in
> becoming proper seperate individuals - we have personal space, contact
> with other individuals is negotiated on a case by case basis. Perhaps
> that's just my perception though. :-) Certainly it is more likely that
> people walk past one another and act like they are alone than it is
> that they look at each other, smile, say hello, whatever.

That *very* much depends on the location itself, I reckon. Both the 
son-thing and I, having moved around the country a bit, have a definite 
sliding scale of "places where they say good morning".
>
>>
>>
>>> I have a grudging admiration for all those established religions
>>> actually, the things they tell people to do aren't generally
>>> *necessary*, life will go on without them, but the people who
>>> subscribe to the religions don't feel right if they don't do they
>>> things they're told they should. Most odd.
>>
>>Like rituals?
>
> Well yeah. But being superstitious about them, if you like - if one
> does not follow the ritual set out for, say, welcoming a newborn baby
> to the community then all kinds of nasty things are bound to happen as
> a direct result, that sort of thing. A sort of rigidity of thought.

Nasty things probably *do* happen, simply because they're geared up to 
expect them.

>>I guess that's partly having deeply-grooved behavioural
>>pathways, and partly not wanting to be 'different' from the community. Or
>>genuinely believing you'll go to hell if you don't do <whatever>, of 
>>course.
>
> That's the bit that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Being
> unable to deviate from those pathways, there being no give in them.

Hmm. A difference, perhaps, between someone who doesn't even think of 
deviating, and someone who finds that the ritual practices actually conform 
well to their personal "way of doing things"?

Jani

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:25:11 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:n1qln3hmrapqcmd29555r0e4hijbpc94oo@4ax.com...
[...] Certainly it is more likely that
>> people walk past one another and act like they are alone than it is
>> that they look at each other, smile, say hello, whatever.
>
>That *very* much depends on the location itself, I reckon. Both the 
>son-thing and I, having moved around the country a bit, have a definite 
>sliding scale of "places where they say good morning".

I imagine so. Also there's ways and ways of saying good morning, mind
you. :-)

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have a grudging admiration for all those established religions
>>>> actually, the things they tell people to do aren't generally
>>>> *necessary*, life will go on without them, but the people who
>>>> subscribe to the religions don't feel right if they don't do they
>>>> things they're told they should. Most odd.
>>>
>>>Like rituals?
>>
>> Well yeah. But being superstitious about them, if you like - if one
>> does not follow the ritual set out for, say, welcoming a newborn baby
>> to the community then all kinds of nasty things are bound to happen as
>> a direct result, that sort of thing. A sort of rigidity of thought.
>
>Nasty things probably *do* happen, simply because they're geared up to 
>expect them.

<nods> Like superstitions. Mostly, anyway. <g>

>
>>>I guess that's partly having deeply-grooved behavioural
>>>pathways, and partly not wanting to be 'different' from the community. Or
>>>genuinely believing you'll go to hell if you don't do <whatever>, of 
>>>course.
>>
>> That's the bit that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Being
>> unable to deviate from those pathways, there being no give in them.
>
>Hmm. A difference, perhaps, between someone who doesn't even think of 
>deviating, and someone who finds that the ritual practices actually conform 
>well to their personal "way of doing things"?

Well which came first though? Assuming a person who has been raised
with a particular set of rituals, that is, rather than one who has
chosen a set probably *because* they suit.


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:23ion3p7a17oddq0p5tuo82kevnh8fp685@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:25:11 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:
>
>>
>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>news:n1qln3hmrapqcmd29555r0e4hijbpc94oo@4ax.com...
> [...] Certainly it is more likely that
>>> people walk past one another and act like they are alone than it is
>>> that they look at each other, smile, say hello, whatever.
>>
>>That *very* much depends on the location itself, I reckon. Both the
>>son-thing and I, having moved around the country a bit, have a definite
>>sliding scale of "places where they say good morning".
>
> I imagine so. Also there's ways and ways of saying good morning, mind
> you. :-)

Oh aye. But the subtleties are usually within the community itself ;)

>>>>> I have a grudging admiration for all those established religions
>>>>> actually, the things they tell people to do aren't generally
>>>>> *necessary*, life will go on without them, but the people who
>>>>> subscribe to the religions don't feel right if they don't do they
>>>>> things they're told they should. Most odd.
>>>>
>>>>Like rituals?
>>>
>>> Well yeah. But being superstitious about them, if you like - if one
>>> does not follow the ritual set out for, say, welcoming a newborn baby
>>> to the community then all kinds of nasty things are bound to happen as
>>> a direct result, that sort of thing. A sort of rigidity of thought.
>>
>>Nasty things probably *do* happen, simply because they're geared up to
>>expect them.
>
> <nods> Like superstitions. Mostly, anyway. <g>

Heh. I was thinking more of those "OMG all these awful things have happened, 
someone must have cast a spell on me!!!" posts from people who ignore their 
own bad driving / lack of bill-paying / turning up for work three hours late 
/ etc as possible contributory factors.


>>>>I guess that's partly having deeply-grooved behavioural
>>>>pathways, and partly not wanting to be 'different' from the community. 
>>>>Or
>>>>genuinely believing you'll go to hell if you don't do <whatever>, of
>>>>course.
>>>
>>> That's the bit that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Being
>>> unable to deviate from those pathways, there being no give in them.
>>
>>Hmm. A difference, perhaps, between someone who doesn't even think of
>>deviating, and someone who finds that the ritual practices actually 
>>conform
>>well to their personal "way of doing things"?
>
> Well which came first though? Assuming a person who has been raised
> with a particular set of rituals, that is, rather than one who has
> chosen a set probably *because* they suit.

Well, I really meant the difference between the ones raised in it, and the 
ones who choose. As to the former - again, if it both feels comfortable 
because it's "grooved in", and it's what everyone else does, it's a bit 
difficult to step outside of it and look at how other people do things. Even 
if you do manage to observe it from outside, and it's not harming anyone, 
why would you change it?

Jani