The Official Manwichpedia (Mutually Agreed Upon Terms)

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

The Official Manwichpedia (Mutually Agreed Upon Terms)

Postby TheKeeper » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:31 am

Just getting this up here, hopefully crispy or someone can sticky it.

This will be where the official definitions reside for those terms which are commonly used here in the Halls of Manwe.

There will be a second thread where terms may be submitted, discussed, and agreed upon, and expanded upon or modified.

We need suggestions as to how this will be accomplished, some sort of basic guidelines, however nothing that will be construed as overly rigid or exclusive. We should put these into the current thread that crispy has started. There will also be another thread devoted to discussing the terms themselves.

The dubious honour (Canadian/British spelling :D :wink:) of TheKeeper has been bestowed upon The Watcher. Her two incredibly talented and overqualified assistants, who have been granted equal access to the official definitions, are vison and Ethel. The spangly sparkly uniforms are on order.

My e-mail for those who so desire it is eplichta@wi.rr.com
User avatar
TheKeeper
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:09 am
Top

Postby TheKeeper » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:02 pm

Well, after reading through tons of suggestions, none of which were in any great consensus, here are the temporary rules.

Definitions will only be minorly edited for format and brevity where needed. All definitions will be cited and authors will be noted. Dates will also be included.

In order to be completely fair, all suggestions to the definitions will be included for the time being. Although this may make for some really long definitions for some terms, it also will ensure that everyone's interpretation is included. To continually bump off people who have previously contributed just does not somehow seem right. We will see where this goes.

Although there is no format currently in place, I would suggest that those who want terms submitted please indicate somehow within their posts that this is *their* definition for submission. It would help that the definition might be presented in such a way that makes it easy to copy and paste into the Manwichpedia (having been a copy editor in a prior life, I do not want to be editing anymore than I need to, since people often are sensitive about having their words changed about :D). Also, if one member is suggesting changes to his/her original definition, is it okay to just update the original listing? I will cite changes as seperate entries if this is a problem, I just thought it might be more consistent to include all clarifications within the original term by each poster, noting the dates that the additions have been added. Let me know.

This is just a general set of working rules to see where this whole thing goes. Obviously, with a number of diverse definitions for some of these terms, all this is intended to be is a sort of guideline, which people can refer to as they wish.

Please continue to let me know what you wish to see here. This is only something to put in place to get this thing going, which, alas, I have been remiss upon doing. (RL interference, but, I will make my best go at this :))
User avatar
TheKeeper
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:09 am
Top

Postby TheKeeper » Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:11 am

FASCISM

1.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:Fascism: authoritative governing style utilizing: censorship, propaganda, strict social control, economic control over the means of production, allows for individual property at the will of the state, the use of violence and subversion through methods like secret police, the idea of the state or nation over the individual and all individuals pursue the goals of the state, extreme nationalism and racial predjudice (people are divided into superior and inferior based on their national and racial origins).
submitted 22 Jan 2005

2.
Lord_Morningstar wrote:Fascism: a political ideology that is generally placed on the far right of the left-right political spectrum, although some dispute this. It first rose as a political force in the first half of the 20th century. It is not clearly defined, but generally emphasises the importance of the nation-state over the individual.
Fascism is, in many ways, easier to define based on what it opposes than what it supports. It is anti-liberal, anti-individual, anti-capitalism, anti-trade unionism, anti-intellectualism, and anti-collectivism. Fascists claim that Nation-States are naturally locked in a struggle for supremacy, and that weak nations will fall before powerful ones. Therefore, they argue that it is of the utmost importance that their country be made powerful in order to survive and triumph. Fascists tend to have clearly defined views on what is good and evil, and see their own nation as representing the forces of good. In this sense, Fascism has a strongly mythical quality.
Fascists believe that everything should be subservient to the state, including the economy, although they are not true socialists. In a fascist economy, businesses are organized into government run cartels or guilds where members must abide by cartel rules. While often appearing anti-union, fascist government will sometimes include unions in the industry cartels. This creates what is called "a partnership" of Government, Industry, and Labor.
Fascists believe that militarism should be glorified, and that people, reborn as ‘New Men’ willing to serve the state, should be ready to perform great acts of sacrifice and heroism. Above all, Fascists believe that the Nation State should be led by a leader who embodies its will and must be obeyed. Fascists claim that their ideology is not anti-democratic in this regard, as the leader as seen as understanding the needs of the people better than they do.
Fascism is generally manifested in the world in the form of Governments that utilise propaganda, censorship, violence, and other means of control on their peoples in order to establish the supremacy of the state. A cult is encouraged to grow around the leader, and ardent nationalism and sometimes, racism, is encouraged. Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy are the main examples of Fascist states, although some argue that Orthodox Communist regimes including Stalin’s U.S.S.R and Mao Tse-Tung’s China also fit the requirements. However, even though the appearance of these authoritarian regimes are similar, their ideological bases and motivations are somewhat different.

More Information

Wikipedia Article on Fascism
Wikipedia Article on Fascist Symbolism
Lyrics to the Propaganda Song, Horst Wessel Lied, as an example of Fascist propoganda

References

Barry, N. 2000, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, 4th edition, Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Heywood (2003) Politics: 2nd Edition Palgrave Foundations, Houndmills.
Heywood, A. 1998, Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Palgrave: Houndmills.
Leach, R. 1993, Political Ideologies: An Australian Introduction: 2nd edition, Macmillan: Melbourne.
Vincent, A. 1992, Modern Political Ideologies, Blackwell, Oxford
updated 11 Feb, 2005

3.
Denethor wrote:Fascism: an extreme right-wing, and not particularly coherent, ideology, characterised by violent, militaristic nationalism, submission to "the leader", and obsessive opposition to the legacy of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution (fascists hate (classical) liberalism, socialism, communism, trade unions, individualism, democracy, scientific rationality, intellectualism, and have views directly contrary to "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality"). Like more traditional conservatives and reactionaries, fascists play up the role of the state in preserving society from "corrosive outside influences", and champion "traditional social values", particularly with respect to the role of women and homosexuality. Unlike other reactionaries, however, fascists attempt to harness the support of the mass population in pursuit of their agenda, and extensively utilise propaganda in pursuit of this goal. In terms of economics, fascists normally attempt to harness (non-liberal) capitalism in the interests of the state; the result is, not surprisingly, a war economy scenario (those industries that have no direct bearing on the war effort/future war effort are largely left alone, though the crushing of trade unions and the application of the "leadership principal" usually has the effect of strengthening the bosses' hand).
submitted 23 Jan, 2005
Denethor wrote:Just to add this, from the online Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Besides totalitarianism, a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a rightist mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. This strategy is variously called Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [2] (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0813636.html), all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders, often in ways chosen to minimize the power of labor unions. Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of an imminent Socialist revolution [3] (http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/f-italy.htm), finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment. In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners. The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists. Fascism also met with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the lumpenproletariat.

expanded 23 Jan, 2005

4.
hamlet wrote:Fascism: it evolved out of socialism, and that some of it's most prominent qualities include a central dictatorial style ruler; violent suppression of vocal, political, and intellectual dissent; government controlled industry and media; extreme submission of the individual to the state*; a general aim toward the militaristic and nationalistic by both industry and society.

*I say "extreme submission of the individual to the state" because except for true anarchists, all political theorists believe in submission to the state to a certain extent. Even in a democracy, once the rules have been established (by the king, by the president, by the people, by the grand high potatoe of many eyes) it is generally accepted that individual citizens are under the authority of civil leaders and government authorities. The true measure of difference is, instead, the varying degree in which people believe it is the citizen that serves the state, or the state serves the citizen or some combination thereof.
submitted 23 Jan, 2005





[/quote]
Last edited by TheKeeper on Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:14 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
TheKeeper
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:09 am
Top

Postby TheKeeper » Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:13 am

MARRIAGE

The EllipticalDisilluion wrote:Marriage: bond between two people who wish to publically express their love and devotion to each other. (This definition is limited to the social form of marriage, ignoring all other grammatical usages of the word.)
submitted 22 Jan 2005

LalaithUrwen wrote:Marriage: traditionally, the social, physical, legal, and spiritual union of a man and a woman; it is a covenant relationship of two souls into one.
updated 25 Jan 2005
Last edited by TheKeeper on Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
TheKeeper
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:09 am
Top

Postby TheKeeper » Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:15 am

THEFT

1.
Aravar wrote:Theft: the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it permanently.
submitted 22 Jan, 2005

2.
RELStuart wrote:Theft: the taking of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive without consent or privilege.
Of coure then you have all the theft crimes: (Criminal law) Larceny, Larceny by trick, Ebezzlement, Uttering, Robbery, False Pretences, Forgery, Receiving stolen property, (and maybe burglary should be on this list) (Tort law) Trespass to chattals, Trespass to land, and Conversion. Each of these has a specific meaning in reguards to stealing the property of another.
submitted 26 Jan, 2005
Last edited by TheKeeper on Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TheKeeper
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:09 am
Top

Postby TheKeeper » Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:24 am

LIBERALISM

Lord_Morningstar wrote:Liberalism: a political ideology, or collection of related ideologies, that is centered around a belief in individual autonomy and limiting the power of the state. It is generally placed in the centre of the left-right political spectrum, and is the dominant ideology of the Western World today. It originated in the 19th Century, as a movement opposed to absolute Monarchy, Aristocratic privilege and powerful Clergy. It comes in three main forms.

Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism: Classical Liberalism is the original form of liberalism that existed in the 19th Century. It is largely based in the philosophies of John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Classical Liberals believe that individual autonomy is best attained when people are free from outside interference. Classical Liberals argue that the Government’s only purpose is to ensure that citizens are protected from harm. Beyond that, the Government is overstepping its bounds. Classical Liberalism ceased to be a major political force during the first half of the 20th century with the rise of the Welfare State and the spread of Socialism. Classical Liberals continue to exist today, and they include the Libertarians of the United States and Canada. Many modern liberals believe that classical liberal Governments would not sufficiently protect the rights of individuals.

Neo-Liberalism: Neo-Liberalism is based in the works of the political economists Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) and Milton Friedman (1912-), and it first came to political prominence in the 1980s. It is the dominant form of Liberalism in the world today. Neo-Liberalism is essentially a softened application of classical liberal principles to the modern world. Neo-Liberals accept safety-net welfare systems and some Government regulation of the economy and personal conduct. Neo-Liberalism rose chiefly in opposition to socialist and welfarist Government policy. Neo-Liberals often work with conservatives and neo-conservatives in modern Governments, as the ideologies share common ground, especially in economic matters. Neo-Liberalism is often associated with global capitalism and free market economic policy, although it still remains a valid and comprehensive branch of liberal thought. In Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, the term ‘liberal’, when used on its own, generally refers to neo-liberalism.

New Liberalism: while classical liberalism and neo-liberalism are focused around a concept called negative liberty, new liberalism is based in positive liberty. While negative liberals believe that individual autonomy is best guaranteed by removing restrictions on individual conduct, positive liberals argue that, in some cases, affirmative action is needed. This can be economic, in the form of welfare services, or social, in the form of programs to aid minority groups. New Liberals argue that a person is not fully free unless they have the capacity to exercise their freedom. New Liberalism draws from the works of the political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002). New Liberals are typically in opposition to conservatives and neo-conservatives. The term ‘liberal’, when used in the United States or Canada, generally refers to New Liberalism.

More information

Wikipedia Article on Liberalism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Liberalism
The LockeSmith Institute on Classical Liberalism
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty
The F.A Hayek Centre
Wikipedia Article on Rawl’s argument for New Liberalism
Turnleft.com: New Liberal Website

References

Barry, N. 2000, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, 4th edition, Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Heywood (2003) Politics: 2nd Edition Palgrave Foundations, Houndmills.
Heywood, A. 1998, Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Palgrave: Houndmills.
King (1987) The New Right Macmillian, UK.
Leach, R. 1993, Political Ideologies: An Australian Introduction: 2nd edition, Macmillan: Melbourne.
Vincent, A. 1992, Modern Political Ideologies, Blackwell, Oxford.
submitted 22 Jan, 2005
User avatar
TheKeeper
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:09 am
Top

Postby TheKeeper » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:20 am

RELIGION

1.
Rooty wrote:Religion (taken from dictionary.com): belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
submitted 27 Jan, 2005

2.
Tuor, wrote:Religion: a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I found a rather interesting trail using Websters.com:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

(aside)
conscientious: governed by or conforming to the dictates of conscience.
Main Entry: con·science: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.
submitted 27 Jan, 2005
Religion: defined by one's relationship with God.
expanded 29 Jan, 2005

3.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:Religion: humanity's personal relationship to the unknown or unknowable.
updated 08 Feb, 2005

4.
TheFiend79 wrote:Religion: a system of beliefs regarding the interaction of the supernatural and the natural world.
submitted 27 Jan, 2005

5.
Lord_Morningstar wrote:Religion: An organised system of beliefs, consisting of judgments about the nature of the metaphysical and/or supernatural world (that which cannot be proven or disproven), and recommendations about behaviour based upon those judgments.
My proposed definition of a religious position is as follows: a belief about the nature of the metaphysical or supernatural world.
Atheism, Deism and Pantheism can be religious positions, but they lack the moral/ethical/legal element that IMHO is necessary for a belief system to be considered a religion.
In essence, I’ve settled on these essential characteristics:
1) Judgements about the metaphysical/supernatural world. This excludes utilitarianism and other political and philosophical positions like it. In a sense, it also excludes pantheism.
2) Judgements about correct morality and behaviour. Excludes Deism, Pantheism and Atheism.
3) A certain basis in subjectivity and faith.
updated 29 Jan, 2005

6.
yovargas wrote:Religion: a system of behavioral or moral codes believed to bring humanity towards some divine or infinite state.
submitted 28 Jan, 2005

7.
MariaHobbit wrote:Religion: a group of people who share a theory concerning the nature and possibility of non-physical phenomena for which there is no scientific proof.
updated 01 Feb, 2005

8.
theredweasel wrote:Religion: an organized set of unfalsefiable ritualistic beliefs/belief about the nature of the universe and our place within it. Often, this involves a relationship between a God and the individual that worships it, witch-craft (or whatever the heck they call it) being an exception to this along with buddhism and a few others that I can't think of off-hand. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. This doesn't include any kind of rituals for starters. But it could possibly be argued that it is a world view in that it relates to the nature of the universe and our place within it - that our existence is secular.
submitted 30 Jan, 2005

9.
NoetherianRingBearer wrote:Religion: “the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern,” that is, concern with what is truly ultimate, what is taken with unconditional seriousness. In response to a student’s request to clarify his definition, Tillich once replied, "If people tell you, 'I have no ultimate concern,' which all of you have probably heard, then ask them, 'Is there really nothing at all that you take with unconditional seriousness? What, for instance, would you be ready to suffer or even die for?' Then you will discover that even the cynic takes his cynicism with ultimate seriousness, not to speak of the others, who may be naturalists, materialists, Communists, or whatever. They certainly take something with ultimate seriousness. "[4]

Lest this definition be construed so broadly as to encompass every human obsession, Tillich insists that genuine religion clearly distinguishes what is ultimate from what is merely secondary, including its own teachings, practices, and institutions. Thus “true religion” guards against self-idolatry by being always self-critical, retaining a sense of modesty and humility about its own claims, and remembering that the actual state of religion is not the same as the transcendent possibility to which religion points.

When religion itself becomes the object of unconditional loyalty, fanaticism develops. Believers are no longer concerned with the ultimate beyond all religious symbols, but rather with the symbols themselves. Such religions become demonic, constricting and destroying human life, rather than enlarging it. In such moments religion betrays itself: heretics are burned, crusades are launched, inquiring spirits are quenched. Those consequences are what Tillich calls the shame of religion. They are the moments when religion “forgets its emergency character” as provisional vision that spans the distance between human life as it is and as it could and should be. When that vision is realized, the means to its fulfillment, religion as such, will no longer be needed.

For example, in the New Testament vision of the perfect city, the New Jerusalem, there is no temple for there is no gap between God and his people that needs to be bridged, no further chaos to be ordered by creative power. There will then be no more troubled waters, for in the vision of the new earth, “the sea was no more” (Revelation 21:1).

For Tillich the specific object of “ultimate concern” is the ultimate power of being itself to sustain what is against the threat of non-being. Here the modern theologian is one with the ancient myth-makers who told of the original chaos which continually threatens the order of the world, symbolized usually by the endlessly shifting seas on the fringes of the formed creation. (link to Tillich provided by kushana.)
submitted 30 Jan, 2005

10.
LalaithUrwen wrote:Religion: a system (often organized) of beliefs, which may and often does include rituals, centering on the supernatural, transcendent, infinite unknown; that focus is typically (but not always) centered primarily on a supernatural being or beings, and one's special relationship to aforementioned transcendent being(s).
updated 07 Feb, 2005
User avatar
TheKeeper
Petitioner to the Council
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:09 am
Top

Postby Rooty » Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:55 am

May I ask a rather obtuse-sounding question? (two, actually)

Why the heck is this here?

Not a single term has been reduced to a concept upon which we all agree. In fact, more than one of your terms have multiple concepts attached to them that are fundamentally opposed.

So, what is the point of this?

--Rooty
User avatar
Rooty
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:44 pm
Top

Postby Wandering but not lost » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:22 am

I agree Rooty.

I frankly feel my definition of marriage that i used in the gay marriage thread several times is more accurate:



"a male dominated institution that traditionally is between a man and a woman of the same race, religion, social class, and nation. Historically marriage has been a union with little actual consent from the two individuals being married. Generally marriage has been arranged by the families of the man and the woman (sometimes without the two being married actually meeting in person until the actual wedding) for financial or political gain wherein the male couples the wife and then assumes complete dominance over her rights and actions. The addition of love as a necessary precursor to marriage has only been a modern occurance."
User avatar
Wandering but not lost
Mariner
 
Posts: 5022
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby TheEllipticalDisillusion » Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:15 pm

Rooty, since you have only recently returned to posting here you may have missed the Manwichipedia experiment.

It started here in this thread: http://forums.tolkienonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=85506 when Xhen and others protested Cerin's use of the word fascism. Someone suggested we create a Manwe dictionary. This set the experiment into motion. There was a thread discussing the nature of the dictionary, but I didn't include it in my links.

These two links are where some of the terms posted here were discussed. You're right, we never came upon agreed terms, which is why everyone's submitted definition was posted.

http://forums.tolkienonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=85695
http://forums.tolkienonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=85635
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Mariner

 
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:42 pm
Top

Postby Alys » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:58 am

Is there any interest in continuing this or shall we just let it go?
User avatar
Alys
Moderator
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2001 9:52 am
Top

Postby truehobbit » Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:58 pm

I think trying to find "mutually agreed upon terms" here is a rather Sisyphean task! :D ;)

But maybe Watcher, vison and Ethel should decide what's to become of their project. :)
User avatar
truehobbit
Mariner


 
Posts: 9280
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:01 pm
Location: in love
Top

Postby Alys » Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:21 pm

Oh absolutely! I'm not doing anything hastily ;)

Oh and I didn't mean delete - just unsticky :)
User avatar
Alys
Moderator
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2001 9:52 am
Top

Postby The Watcher » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:54 pm

truehobbit wrote:I think trying to find "mutually agreed upon terms" here is a rather Sisyphean task! :D ;)

But maybe Watcher, vison and Ethel should decide what's to become of their project. :)


What will be will be. It seems to be sort of a non-project for now, and I will leave it in any willing volunteer's hands as to what should be done with it.

RL for all of us that originally signed on for the task is demanding a bit of a toll as well. If Manwe was some fierce pit of debate over such things, maybe I could see the point.........:)

For what it is worth, definitions are not always absolute in every case. There are many shades of meaning conveyed within the majority of them, much of it derived from the context itself of where the term was used originally in the post. That makes such things on this type of board an always open agenda, since the terms wanting to be defined have no clear boundaries.

Maybe TP would like the mantle. :)
User avatar
The Watcher
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2000 11:47 am
Top

Postby JewelSong » Thu May 29, 2008 10:11 pm

Hobby, as far as I know, the NHS will pay for IVF up until the woman is 55. The 40-year-old comment was in reference to adoption and only for some agencies.

I'd like to see some follow-up on this story by the Sun (or, since they apparently got it wrong, but some more reputable newspaper.)
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4633
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top


Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests