Re: WAR... what is it good for?
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 1:29 am
Since you agree with the passage, perhaps you can answer Nick's questions.
I think he disagrees with the passage.
I think he disagrees with the passage.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Fuck you. I realize that you're probably trying to save face, but you're not fooling anyone.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 1:34 am Oh, and see this little snarky shit...
Fuck you. I realize that you're probably trying to save face, but you're not fooling anyone.
Oh, and I see that you still haven't told me WHY you brought this up? Clearly, you're just throwing stuff out there. And now you're trying to get me to talk to Nick about it. I've already gone round and round with Nick and Ken and others about such things.
Are you going to be responsible for what you bring up and answer WHY... or are you going to scuttle into the shadows like a rat?
Dense, check. Attack mentality, check. Lack of evolution, check. Everything checks except we.LW 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.”
The principle of what J. Krishnamurti is saying, applied to your example:Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 1:07 am Walker
This isn't so easy.“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)
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?If Mr Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
Your interpretation of me is meaningless. I am not limited to your ideas. Why don't you apply those judgments to yourself?
If you follow your own advice and apply that judgment to yourself, you just might turn that frown upside down.
Yes, this is true. I have this book too. So why are you posting this here? Are you trying to invalidate my questioning of whether we have to have an attack/war mentality? Do you not see value in contemplating our potential predisposition with lower nature, instead of recognizing greater potential? I think Krishnamurti would honor such a thing.Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 10:03 am “Let us put it another way. We are always comparing what we are with what we should be. The should-be is a projection of what we think we ought to be. Contradiction exists when there is comparison, not only with something or somebody, but with what you were yesterday, and hence there is conflict between what has been and what is. There is what is only when there is no comparison at all, and to live with what is, is to be peaceful. Then you can give your whole attention without any distraction to what is within yourself - whether it be despair, ugliness, brutality, fear, anxiety, loneliness - and live with it completely; then there is no contradiction and hence no conflict.”
Jiddu Krishnamurti
- Freedom from the Known
Chapter 7
Well, accepting the premise that unconflicted violence is possible and using intellect/memory to determine how, then in discussing war, the dichotomy to resolve that will lead to peace through strength is the processing of incoming violence into conflict-free action, which can be interesting when the missile-launcher is hell-bent on conflict rather than open discussion of content and principles.Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 10:55 amYes, this is true. I have this book too. So why are you posting this here? Are you trying to invalidate my questioning of whether we have to have an attack/war mentality? Do you not see value in contemplating our potential predisposition with lower nature, instead of recognizing greater potential? I think Krishnamurti would honor such a thing.Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 10:03 am “Let us put it another way. We are always comparing what we are with what we should be. The should-be is a projection of what we think we ought to be. Contradiction exists when there is comparison, not only with something or somebody, but with what you were yesterday, and hence there is conflict between what has been and what is. There is what is only when there is no comparison at all, and to live with what is, is to be peaceful. Then you can give your whole attention without any distraction to what is within yourself - whether it be despair, ugliness, brutality, fear, anxiety, loneliness - and live with it completely; then there is no contradiction and hence no conflict.”
Jiddu Krishnamurti
- Freedom from the Known
Chapter 7
Remove the attack/war mentality/mode, and a broader view with more options/modes becomes possible. Imagine seeing/recognizing BEFORE you're in that limited-option response mode. Transforming energy BEFORE it turns into something you don't want. The attack/war mentality/mode welcomes and incites attack/war. Yes, this is on all levels... not just a physical battlefield (as I've said earlier in this thread).Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:16 am Well, accepting the premise that unconflicted violence is possible and using intellect/memory to determine how, then in discussing war, the dichotomy to resolve that will lead to peace through strength is the processing of incoming violence into conflict-free action, which can be interesting when the missile-launcher is hell-bent on conflict rather than open discussion of content and principles.
“BEFORE,” indicates functioning from preconceptions based on the known. Krishnamurti is acknowledging this and looking further.Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:43 amRemove the attack/war mentality/mode, and a broader view with more options/modes becomes possible. Imagine seeing/recognizing BEFORE you're in that limited-option response mode. Transforming energy BEFORE it turns into something you don't want. The attack/war mentality/mode welcomes and incites attack/war. Yes, this is on all levels... not just a physical battlefield (as I've said earlier in this thread).Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 11:16 am Well, accepting the premise that unconflicted violence is possible and using intellect/memory to determine how, then in discussing war, the dichotomy to resolve that will lead to peace through strength is the processing of incoming violence into conflict-free action, which can be interesting when the missile-launcher is hell-bent on conflict rather than open discussion of content and principles.
"Before" could indicate a lot of things. You appear to be placing certain definitions/limits on it, and assigning that to me. You clearly have no idea how I think.
The root of war is conflict. The human condition by definition is conflict between our higher and lower natures. To live without conflict is to have transcended the human condition. We deny the quality of consciousness necessary to reconcile this essential conflict so it must continue regardless of the finest speeches. It is the way of the world.Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 2:18 amThe principle of what J. Krishnamurti is saying, applied to your example:Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 1:07 am Walker
This isn't so easy.“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)
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?If Mr Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
If your sister is being raped, and you know that stopping it will get you shot, then you will be shot. You will be at peace because you suffered no conflict of thought between idea and action, and you choicelessly did what you had to do.
The root of war is conflict. No conflict, no war, no karma, no rebirth after the samskaras have been burned off, after the turntable’s inertia has wound down.