WAR... what is it good for?

[-1-]

Fuck you, Nick. I'm so disgusted by your dishonesty and wavering position to please yourself. GO DO THAT IN PRIVATE!!!

prelude to war?

-Imp

That made me laugh and choke on my drink of water.

First casualty of humour warfare.

[Lacewing]

i.e. when the thug is invading your lands, the eggheads need to stop "thinking" (or trying to reason with) - and instead STOOP to the invader's level and kick their ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, you guys keep going back to this level/example... of "us and them"... and if "they" attack, we have to fight back... blah, blah, blah. Is it really so hard to simply consider how broader awareness could prevent the invasion in the first place... by being several steps ahead? I'm not saying that we've HAD this awareness in general up to this point... I'm just contemplating whether such a thing could be possible if we evolved beyond the primitive behavior we've come to know?

Even I have experienced this potential in my daily life... by being aware of someone's motives and path (even if they were a stranger, I could see it forming/coming), and then I was able to side-step them before they headed in my direction. I'm guessing that such a thing could be exercised on larger and broader landscapes... IF humans seek awareness over reaction and primitive aggression.

However, based on some of the responses here, it appears that it's quite a struggle for some to contemplate.

Not everyone on this Earth operates on such dense levels. Just look at the vast range of intelligence and awareness in humans. To me, that says that we don't have to have an attack/war mentality either. So, the fact that many men do, seems worth questioning... and pointing out that we're not as evolved as we might think.

[gaffo]

its not about "Evolved" we are animals.

now with nukes (which has in an irony (MAD) prevented ww3...........so far).

its not about "intelligence" - there are plenty of retarded kind souls and plenty of mean geniuses (Edward Teller anyone?).

its about man's nature - he DNA - it predates tech and outside of artifical changing - will mandate the need for "war for survival" of the tribe.

so war will always be with us.

...................


and you know you can always "Turn the cheek" while the other tribe just does not give a shit and rolls over you like Hitler and Franco did to the pleabs playing your game.

i.e. it take two to play your tango, of the other party is not interested in kumbia, then you'd better get down on his level and get mean before he rolls over you.

because he will!

[-1-]

i.e. when the thug is invading your lands, the eggheads need to stop "thinking" (or trying to reason with) - and instead STOOP to the invader's level and kick their ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, you guys keep going back to this level/example... of "us and them"... and if "they" attack, we have to fight back... blah, blah, blah. Is it really so hard to simply consider how broader awareness could prevent the invasion in the first place... by being several steps ahead? I'm not saying that we've HAD this awareness in general up to this point... I'm just contemplating whether such a thing could be possible if we evolved beyond the primitive behavior we've come to know?

Even I have experienced this potential in my daily life... by being aware of someone's motives and path (even if they were a stranger, I could see it forming/coming), and then I was able to side-step them before they headed in my direction. I'm guessing that such a thing could be exercised on larger and broader landscapes... IF humans seek awareness over reaction and primitive aggression.

However, based on some of the responses here, it appears that it's quite a struggle for some to contemplate.

Not everyone on this Earth operates on such dense levels. Just look at the vast range of intelligence and awareness in humans. To me, that says that we don't have to have an attack/war mentality either. So, the fact that many men do, seems worth questioning... and pointing out that we're not as evolved as we might think.

Let me paraphrase the proposition to fit your frame of vision, Lacewing.

"If we, the thugs, attack ourselves, the goody-goody-goody-shoes, and we, the thinkers, are in real fear of our lives, the we, the softie push-push plush toy aficionados will get up in arms, and push back our invading forces, and we will fight against us fiercely, not like some gumshoe chicken empirical idioms."

[Walker]

i.e. when the thug is invading your lands, the eggheads need to stop "thinking" (or trying to reason with) - and instead STOOP to the invader's level and kick their ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, you guys keep going back to this level/example... of "us and them"... and if "they" attack, we have to fight back... blah, blah, blah. Is it really so hard to simply consider how broader awareness could prevent the invasion in the first place... by being several steps ahead? I'm not saying that we've HAD this awareness in general up to this point... I'm just contemplating whether such a thing could be possible if we evolved beyond the primitive behavior we've come to know?

Peace through strength is the broader awareness that prevents attack, which is why the strong are more moves ahead, like in chess, like in Trump.

[Dontaskme]

Some answers can be found in the following dialog ..



http://nisargadatta.net/IamThat5.html

.

[Nick_A]

its not about "Evolved" we are animals.

now with nukes (which has in an irony (MAD) prevented ww3...........so far).

its not about "intelligence" - there are plenty of retarded kind souls and plenty of mean geniuses (Edward Teller anyone?).

its about man's nature - he DNA - it predates tech and outside of artifical changing - will mandate the need for "war for survival" of the tribe.

so war will always be with us.

...................


and you know you can always "Turn the cheek" while the other tribe just does not give a shit and rolls over you like Hitler and Franco did to the pleabs playing your game.

i.e. it take two to play your tango, of the other party is not interested in kumbia, then you'd better get down on his level and get mean before he rolls over you.

because he will!

Yes, war isn't caused by external conditions but rather these external conditions are the result of what we ARE. So war will always be with us.

[Walker]

i.e. when the thug is invading your lands, the eggheads need to stop "thinking" (or trying to reason with) - and instead STOOP to the invader's level and kick their ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, you guys keep going back to this level/example... of "us and them"... and if "they" attack, we have to fight back... blah, blah, blah. Is it really so hard to simply consider how broader awareness could prevent the invasion in the first place... by being several steps ahead? I'm not saying that we've HAD this awareness in general up to this point... I'm just contemplating whether such a thing could be possible if we evolved beyond the primitive behavior we've come to know?

Even I have experienced this potential in my daily life... by being aware of someone's motives and path (even if they were a stranger, I could see it forming/coming), and then I was able to side-step them before they headed in my direction. I'm guessing that such a thing could be exercised on larger and broader landscapes... IF humans seek awareness over reaction and primitive aggression.

However, based on some of the responses here, it appears that it's quite a struggle for some to contemplate.

Not everyone on this Earth operates on such dense levels. Just look at the vast range of intelligence and awareness in humans. To me, that says that we don't have to have an attack/war mentality either. So, the fact that many men do, seems worth questioning... and pointing out that we're not as evolved as we might think.

Do you understand this?

“Is this problem of violence out there or here? Do you want to solve the problem in the outside world or are you questioning violence itself as it is in you? If you are free of violence in yourself the question is, `How am I to live in a world full of violence, acquisitiveness, greed, envy, brutality? Will I not be destroyed?' That is the inevitable question which is invariably asked. When you ask such a question it seems to me you are not actually living peacefully. If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight - but that is not a problem; you will be shot. it is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known, Chapter 6
(1969)

[Lacewing]

Do you understand this?

“Is this problem of violence out there or here? Do you want to solve the problem in the outside world or are you questioning violence itself as it is in you? If you are free of violence in yourself the question is, `How am I to live in a world full of violence, acquisitiveness, greed, envy, brutality? Will I not be destroyed?' That is the inevitable question which is invariably asked. When you ask such a question it seems to me you are not actually living peacefully. If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight - but that is not a problem; you will be shot. it is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known, Chapter 6
(1969)

Yes. Do you? Do you see it as disputing what I said? If so, how?

[Walker]

Silly wabbit, of course I understand it.
I posted the quote.

So, what does it mean to you?

For your convenience:
https://selfdefinition.org/krishnamurti ... _Known.pdf

[Lacewing]

Silly wabbit, of course I understand it.

So, I'm wondering why you asked me? Which is why I responded: Do you see it as disputing what I said? If so, how?

I don't need to perform for you to show you how I understand something. Shall I send you stuff and ask you to explain how you understand it? Answer for yourself! And you can start with answering the questions I previously responded to you above.

[Walker]

Silly wabbit, of course I understand it.

So, I'm wondering why you asked me? Which is why I responded: Do you see it as disputing what I said? If so, how?

I don't need to perform for you to show you how I understand something. Shall I send you stuff and ask you to explain how you understand it? Answer for yourself! And you can start with answering the questions I previously responded to you above.

Jeese Louise, are a paranoid?

You wrote:
“Not everyone on this Earth operates on such dense levels. Just look at the vast range of intelligence and awareness in humans. To me, that says that we don't have to have an attack/war mentality either. So, the fact that many men do, seems worth questioning... and pointing out that we're not as evolved as we might think.”

So, explain the passage and your own level of operation can be shown rather than declared. Whatever it is, no problemo. There is no war or competition other than what you create.

[Walker]

Let's make it easy for you.

You say that you understand the passage.

Do you agree with it?

[Nick_A]

Walker

“Is this problem of violence out there or here? Do you want to solve the problem in the outside world or are you questioning violence itself as it is in you? If you are free of violence in yourself the question is, `How am I to live in a world full of violence, acquisitiveness, greed, envy, brutality? Will I not be destroyed?' That is the inevitable question which is invariably asked. When you ask such a question it seems to me you are not actually living peacefully. If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight - but that is not a problem; you will be shot. it is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known, Chapter 6
(1969)

This isn't so easy.

If Mr Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil

I'll stick with Simone on this one. What is so noble about turning the other way while your sister is being raped? On a larger scale what is so noble about hiding when your country is being attacked? Is there such a thing for you as non-violent violent defensive action?

[Lacewing]

...

Yes, of course I agree with the passage! Ultimately, there is no problem with anything.

So how does that have anything to do with what I said? I was not claiming anything as a "problem"... I was pointing out that we don't have to be a certain way, and there's nothing wrong with questioning that.

Do you see?