Posts
To accompany the other post:
"Doesn't the good book have something to say about killin', preacher?"
"Yyyes. But, it is somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps."
-Zoe and Shepherd Book, from the TV show Firefly
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Peace, and the need for War
I have a dislike for those who say things like, "Violence solves nothing", and similar naivete. People who proclaim peace to be the highest possible ideal, and honestly think that worldwide peace should be embraced, and that no violence, for any reason or end, should be pursued.
Peace requires war. This is not to say that "Might makes right" or "The strong should dominate the weak", or any similar things said by the proponents of the opposite side. Simply that, while people of peace build and beautify the world, people of battle make it possible for them to do so. The problem with a world of perfect peace is this: It only takes one nonbeliever in that philosophy, to destroy and dominate the rest. Without people willing to do violence, to fight and defend right, beauty, and tranquility, these things cannot last long.
Proponents of peace like to set Ghandi as the pinnacle to attain. However, I think it is incorrect to claim him as a model of nonviolence. He did commit violence. It was simply directed differently than what is the norm. He directed his physical violence inward, rather than outward. Outwardly, however, he did battle mentally and emotionally against his enemies, attempting to instill them with guilt, remorse, and other emotional pains. Sun Tzu, author of The Art Of War, would have admired his strategy.
Peace requires war. This is not to say that "Might makes right" or "The strong should dominate the weak", or any similar things said by the proponents of the opposite side. Simply that, while people of peace build and beautify the world, people of battle make it possible for them to do so. The problem with a world of perfect peace is this: It only takes one nonbeliever in that philosophy, to destroy and dominate the rest. Without people willing to do violence, to fight and defend right, beauty, and tranquility, these things cannot last long.
Proponents of peace like to set Ghandi as the pinnacle to attain. However, I think it is incorrect to claim him as a model of nonviolence. He did commit violence. It was simply directed differently than what is the norm. He directed his physical violence inward, rather than outward. Outwardly, however, he did battle mentally and emotionally against his enemies, attempting to instill them with guilt, remorse, and other emotional pains. Sun Tzu, author of The Art Of War, would have admired his strategy.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Burnt Bridges
**sigh**
So I finally sent out an apology this evening. One that I should have sent...hell, almost a year ago. I screwed over two friends, because I listened to a selfish twit, rather than what I knew to be right, and rather than to my own sense of honor and decency.
These friends had been good to me, even helping me out by giving me a cel phone and letting me join onto their plan. That way, I'd have communications. Then, a short time later, I committed myself to a relationship, with a selfish twit. And she pleaded with me to switch to her family's plan, and begged, and whined. I kept refusing her, telling her that I had made a commitment, these friends had done me a favor and I owed it to them to stick with the promises that I had made. But eventually she wore me down with her insistence that I take the easy plan, and that favors done for me don't matter. And so I sacrificed my honor, for her, and for ease.
I sent an apology tonight... but it was too little, too late. At least I can take some slight measure of comfort in knowing that I tried.
So I finally sent out an apology this evening. One that I should have sent...hell, almost a year ago. I screwed over two friends, because I listened to a selfish twit, rather than what I knew to be right, and rather than to my own sense of honor and decency.
These friends had been good to me, even helping me out by giving me a cel phone and letting me join onto their plan. That way, I'd have communications. Then, a short time later, I committed myself to a relationship, with a selfish twit. And she pleaded with me to switch to her family's plan, and begged, and whined. I kept refusing her, telling her that I had made a commitment, these friends had done me a favor and I owed it to them to stick with the promises that I had made. But eventually she wore me down with her insistence that I take the easy plan, and that favors done for me don't matter. And so I sacrificed my honor, for her, and for ease.
I sent an apology tonight... but it was too little, too late. At least I can take some slight measure of comfort in knowing that I tried.
Found this...
Rereading one of my books. I liked it. It's from "The Runelords", by David Farland. The character making the statement is known as Days, his position as part of an order of men dedicated to chronicling the lives of important people.
""Men who believe themselves to be good, who do not search their own souls, most often commit the worst atrocities. A man who sees himself as evil will restrain himself. It is only when we do evil in the belief that we do good that we pursue it wholeheartedly. ... I'm glad you question yourself. Men don't become good by performing an occasional kindly deed. You must constantly reexamine your thoughts and acts, question your virtue."
""Men who believe themselves to be good, who do not search their own souls, most often commit the worst atrocities. A man who sees himself as evil will restrain himself. It is only when we do evil in the belief that we do good that we pursue it wholeheartedly. ... I'm glad you question yourself. Men don't become good by performing an occasional kindly deed. You must constantly reexamine your thoughts and acts, question your virtue."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Religious does NOT equal moral
Random memory and thought struck me just the other day. Can't remember what triggered it, but this has been bouncing around in my head for a few days now. It strikes me as unbelievable how so many of the overly types equate religion and morality, and how so many of them fall short of what they preach.
The memory triggered was me being told that I could not be any kind of a moral person, because I wasn't Christian. And at the time, it was gotten second hand from someone who claimed to find the statement as offensive as I did...but who later said it themselves. And the original person to say it...was a reverend, who had also committed rape and child molestation. This person somehow thought they had anyplace to call me amoral, because I don't share the same religion that he apparently later adopted. Both of these same people also had no problems with lying to get what they wanted...and no problems betraying people who had done things for them, even encouraging me to do the same. I even ended up screwing over two friends who had done me a favor at the behest of these people, something that even now I feel guilty about.
No, I am not Christian. In fact, I follow no organized religion. I was raised Southern Baptist, but I left the flock early. I think I was eight; at a sleepover with a friend, I turned to him, and told him I couldn't think of myself as Christian anymore. My mother, and at least most of the rest of my family has never asked, probably don't need to, and they don't judge. Because they know I still have morals, and I have honor. And to those religious types who equate the two: I don't need the fear of a father-figure deity, or the fear of an eternal punishment in the afterlife, to make me so. I do it on my own, knowing in my heart what is right and what is wrong. And I act on it without needing the carrot of some ephemeral reward. Unique concept, huh?
The memory triggered was me being told that I could not be any kind of a moral person, because I wasn't Christian. And at the time, it was gotten second hand from someone who claimed to find the statement as offensive as I did...but who later said it themselves. And the original person to say it...was a reverend, who had also committed rape and child molestation. This person somehow thought they had anyplace to call me amoral, because I don't share the same religion that he apparently later adopted. Both of these same people also had no problems with lying to get what they wanted...and no problems betraying people who had done things for them, even encouraging me to do the same. I even ended up screwing over two friends who had done me a favor at the behest of these people, something that even now I feel guilty about.
No, I am not Christian. In fact, I follow no organized religion. I was raised Southern Baptist, but I left the flock early. I think I was eight; at a sleepover with a friend, I turned to him, and told him I couldn't think of myself as Christian anymore. My mother, and at least most of the rest of my family has never asked, probably don't need to, and they don't judge. Because they know I still have morals, and I have honor. And to those religious types who equate the two: I don't need the fear of a father-figure deity, or the fear of an eternal punishment in the afterlife, to make me so. I do it on my own, knowing in my heart what is right and what is wrong. And I act on it without needing the carrot of some ephemeral reward. Unique concept, huh?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A note on traditions...
“Traditionalists are pessimists about the future and optimists about the past” -Lewis Mumford
Maybe it's just being here in The South, but it seems that there is a lot of talk of tradition. And, most notably, it seems to come from people who have little or no idea what they're talking about, no knowledge of the history of the traditions they preach, and/or not enough backbone to stand up for what they preach. I also may be alone in this thinking, but it seems odd to follow a tradition that's only a century old, two at most, when the older tradition was the opposite.
Men's hair length, for example. Historically, longer hair has been more common in Western culture. Germanic, Norse, Pictish, American Indian, and Celtic warriors all had long hair. For some of these, it was even a mark of honor; if a warrior's hair was short, it signified dishonor, most often from running away from battle, or being beaten. Short hair was the mark of the inept and the cowardly. Later, long hair became symbolic of wealth and power. Simple farmers hacked theirs off, because they could afford niether the time nor the money to care for long hair, it became tangled, would get fleas or lice. The wealthy, the scholarly, people of prestige, on the other hand... You want to see traditional hair length? Pull out a dollar bill. George Washington. Long hair. Granted, it's a wig on there. But that means that not only did he wear long hair, but he PAID extra money for it. Unless you think the founder of the country and the first president couldn't afford one with short hair...?
Another is the concept of the "nuclear family". This one's even more recent. Historically, this is a very recent "tradition". This is the concept of the wife staying home, cleaning house all day, cooking dinner for her husband to come home to as he sits with his pipe after a long day of being the sole breadwinner. NEW concept. It is only recently that the middle class of Western societies have been wealthy enough to even attempt this. The older tradition was that everybody worked, at every aspect of the family's earning. The wife worked the field almost as much as the husband, and even the children worked the fields. Or, the children were sent away to apprentice to someone else, in which case they worked a forge, or a stable, or something similar. Even worse, I've only met one person who has claimed to believe in this life, and stuck to it. The others either had a home-based business, earning income for the family unit. Or, I have seen far too many of these hypocrites, who claim belief in this "tradition", yet while their live-in significant other works they...sit. They leave the housework for the last minute, if they do any, they leave even the childcare for their other to do when they get home. You want to claim this belief, and say you want to live this way? Try actually matching words to action. I know, weird concept.
“People are always talking about tradition, but they forget we have a tradition of a few hundred years of nonsense and stupidity, that there is a tradition of idiocy, incompetence and crudity” -Hugo Demartini
Maybe it's just being here in The South, but it seems that there is a lot of talk of tradition. And, most notably, it seems to come from people who have little or no idea what they're talking about, no knowledge of the history of the traditions they preach, and/or not enough backbone to stand up for what they preach. I also may be alone in this thinking, but it seems odd to follow a tradition that's only a century old, two at most, when the older tradition was the opposite.
Men's hair length, for example. Historically, longer hair has been more common in Western culture. Germanic, Norse, Pictish, American Indian, and Celtic warriors all had long hair. For some of these, it was even a mark of honor; if a warrior's hair was short, it signified dishonor, most often from running away from battle, or being beaten. Short hair was the mark of the inept and the cowardly. Later, long hair became symbolic of wealth and power. Simple farmers hacked theirs off, because they could afford niether the time nor the money to care for long hair, it became tangled, would get fleas or lice. The wealthy, the scholarly, people of prestige, on the other hand... You want to see traditional hair length? Pull out a dollar bill. George Washington. Long hair. Granted, it's a wig on there. But that means that not only did he wear long hair, but he PAID extra money for it. Unless you think the founder of the country and the first president couldn't afford one with short hair...?
Another is the concept of the "nuclear family". This one's even more recent. Historically, this is a very recent "tradition". This is the concept of the wife staying home, cleaning house all day, cooking dinner for her husband to come home to as he sits with his pipe after a long day of being the sole breadwinner. NEW concept. It is only recently that the middle class of Western societies have been wealthy enough to even attempt this. The older tradition was that everybody worked, at every aspect of the family's earning. The wife worked the field almost as much as the husband, and even the children worked the fields. Or, the children were sent away to apprentice to someone else, in which case they worked a forge, or a stable, or something similar. Even worse, I've only met one person who has claimed to believe in this life, and stuck to it. The others either had a home-based business, earning income for the family unit. Or, I have seen far too many of these hypocrites, who claim belief in this "tradition", yet while their live-in significant other works they...sit. They leave the housework for the last minute, if they do any, they leave even the childcare for their other to do when they get home. You want to claim this belief, and say you want to live this way? Try actually matching words to action. I know, weird concept.
“People are always talking about tradition, but they forget we have a tradition of a few hundred years of nonsense and stupidity, that there is a tradition of idiocy, incompetence and crudity” -Hugo Demartini
Friday, January 1, 2010
Positive Rage
There's a phrase or quote tossed around a lot, and it annoys me to hear it: "Those you allow to anger you, you allow to control you." There are variations. I counter this with: "The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough." -Bede Jarrett
Anger is a natural emotion, as much a part of the human makeup as is love, happiness, sorrow. The problem is not anger, but rather an overwhelming anger, one that burns unchecked. I admit I have problems with this as well. But sometimes, anger is not only to be expected, but is something that SHOULD happen. There are things that happen in this world, or even between groups as small as two people, to which the proper response IS anger.
Maybe the distinction is between unfounded anger...and a righteous fury. Because those who've spent much time around me know the difference. I laugh at insults, I have little or no shame. But I hate wrong. Mine is a righteous fury, because in retrospect, the main things I have gotten enraged over...have been, betrayals, lying. The seeming general specialties of the human species.
And in reference to the specific quote that started this: First, anger is natural; to say you do not feel anger, let others anger...that's an outright lie. Second, I'd like to meet the person who sees me at even my median rage, and thinks that anyone has anyh control over me right then. Thirdly, the only way you can even marginally apply that quote, is to repress your anger. And it will find other ways of coming out.
Anger is a natural emotion, as much a part of the human makeup as is love, happiness, sorrow. The problem is not anger, but rather an overwhelming anger, one that burns unchecked. I admit I have problems with this as well. But sometimes, anger is not only to be expected, but is something that SHOULD happen. There are things that happen in this world, or even between groups as small as two people, to which the proper response IS anger.
Maybe the distinction is between unfounded anger...and a righteous fury. Because those who've spent much time around me know the difference. I laugh at insults, I have little or no shame. But I hate wrong. Mine is a righteous fury, because in retrospect, the main things I have gotten enraged over...have been, betrayals, lying. The seeming general specialties of the human species.
And in reference to the specific quote that started this: First, anger is natural; to say you do not feel anger, let others anger...that's an outright lie. Second, I'd like to meet the person who sees me at even my median rage, and thinks that anyone has anyh control over me right then. Thirdly, the only way you can even marginally apply that quote, is to repress your anger. And it will find other ways of coming out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
