you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't intend to tell folks what to think but rather that they should just think. Too many folks just feelz and act without thinking because our schools don't want critical thinkers out there as they'd be a threat to the establishment and realize "authority" is a joke.

    Peaceful change is nice. But it's not realistic. Many people are not nice or are trapped in systems like the military where you don't get a choice and are forced to do bad things. Many people want what others have or their resources and are willing to risk or kill for it, whether out of greed or desperation. And they have the monopoly on violence and/or political/economic full spectrum dominance and changing that won't come voluntarily. Peaceful change is a myth of propaganda.

    "They" let Gandhi take over India because there were many others that were much more violent vying for the same goal of independence. Their "independence" is an illusion, just as our Canadian sovereignty is.

    Just because I know this doesn't make me violent nor wish for it. Action, violent or peaceful, must strike where it counts. A million people protest marched in 2003 before the Iraq War. The media didn't cover it and it solved nothing. Occupy a factory and it affects the means of production and profit, like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take_(2004_film) .

    It's not just about how to behave, it's why. And to know why means one must think and reason. "Why to behave" is a far superior motivator than just following orders because I said so. Is this an other way?

    I haven't delved deep into philosophy since the 90s. I wish they had YouTube then. So I'm rusty. And I lost interest when I realized it was a lot of abstractions and semantics with a modicum of bullshit, like religion, though religion has way more bullshit.

    E-prime is intellectually a neat exercise, but I don't see the point in applying it to Zen or Existentialism. The word contortion trickery might be able to dance around is-ness but it doesn't affect nor negate nor disprove being. The words may change but the ideas will remain.

    I don't understand "evolution of no revolution". Nor how it relates to sarcasm.

    I like sarcasm as a wedge to make you think differently, often flipping convention on its head to look at it from another perspective, to see the absurdity of the flip as well as the origin, often by comparison.