DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2835--------------------------------------------------
Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 14, 2020, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I long subscribed to the idea that "natural methods" are needed
in order to fulfill our ideals. That it's impossible with "ideal
methods". Y'know, "we need sun and lightning in order to be
saviours".
But something always seemed wrong about that. Why are we
teaching that ideal methods = pacifism/enabling violence?
There's nothing "ideal" about that. Surely "ideal methods" means
aligning our idealism with our very being and how we interact
with the world. Genuine antiviolence should never feel violent.
We have an absolute, intuitive moral compass within us, so
should not listen to what others say to deride our actions or
lack thereof, nor should we ever let natural law and empiricism
override our compass, even for a second.
Why should we ever settle for less than ideal? It strikes me as
lazy, defeatist, cowardly, unradical, and corrupt, to compromise
with nature/the devil. I don't believe in double-think or
compromise. I believe in purity and simplicity, and I feel like
I'm staying truer to myself as a pure Sun type.
The wisdom of those "above time", according to Savitri Devi:
"Their action, like that of the Sun, lies essentially in their
personal radiation of power, beauty and goodness. What they do
is, of course, the integral reflexion of what they are, nothing
more; nothing different; nothing which is foreign to them, for
they are fully conscious of their being. And if they have any
substantial influence at all, it is, like that of the Sun, an
influence from above and from afar, characterised by its
absolute impartiality, its indiscriminate and impersonal
goodness. They do nothing to compell others — nothing, at least,
beyond certain limits, even if they live in the world. They know
they cannot force the evolution of things, nor suppress the part
played by Time in the lives of those who are still submitted to
its iron law. Again, like the Sun, they shine. If the seed is
alive, it will ripen sooner or later, never mind when, Violence
would only help to produce an artificial growth. And if the seed
be dead? Let it be!"
"His inborn reluctance to violence was too great — and too
deep-rooted — for him ever to accept the conditions of victory
in Time or "against Time"; to uphold, or even to stress any
manner of destructiveness."
"Morality — life in Truth, from the standpoint of the eternal
(that was Akhnaton's) — cannot be codified."
#Post#: 2847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 14, 2020, 11:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Why are we teaching that ideal methods = pacifism/enabling
violence?"
We are not. We are emphasizing that being forced to do
retaliatory violence is in itself non-ideal, even though it is
an ethical duty. As idealists, we should prefer to never have to
do retaliatory violence in the first place. A world in which
violence is ever initiated already cannot call itself an ideal
world, even if 100% of the initiated violence is successfully
retaliated against. We should not be satisfied with 100%
successful retaliation against initiated violence. We should
only aspire to a world without initiated violence.
#Post#: 2852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 15, 2020, 2:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> We are emphasizing that being forced to do retaliatory
violence is in itself non-ideal, even though it is an ethical
duty.
--- End Quote ---
Violence is never ethical. You're not just being forced to
commit violence, you're accepting the option by believing
yourself duty-bound. Any form of violence is repugnant to the
soul, and the soul above all is to whom we're duty-bound; not
victims/attackers.
What's the alternative to retaliatory violence? Resistance.
Loyalty to the inviolable spirit. I will neither be slaver nor
enslaved, violator nor violated. I will never be forced to
commit violence nor regard any heroic and pure actions as such.
I will not allow violence to be initiated.
#Post#: 2853--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 15, 2020, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"the soul above all is to whom we're duty-bound"
That is a copout, as you can then do anything you want and say
you are doing duty to your soul. Trump would probably say
something like that.
"What's the alternative to retaliatory violence? Resistance."
So you are just complaining about the word choice? OK, but I
would say that "resistance" is inadequate to convey the meaning
of what we currently call retaliatory violence. Resistance makes
it sound like if we encounter initiated violence, we merely
oppose it enough to prevent it from succeeding, but stop there,
instead of inflicting the maximum possible punishment on the
aggressor.
If you insist on an alternative term that does not include the
word "violence", I suggest "retribution". Throwing evil people
into hell is retribution, not resistance.
#Post#: 2854--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 15, 2020, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> That is a copout, as you can then do anything you want and say
you are doing duty to your soul. Trump would probably say
something like that.
--- End Quote ---
Yes, I can. I can refuse violence against my very being.
Spiritually, I'm 100% free. I only choose compassion because I
sincerely care about others, not because I'm being
coerced/guilt-tripped.
--- Quote ---
> So you are just complaining about the word choice?
--- End Quote ---
Words reflect values.
We should not allow violence to be initiated in the first place.
That's resistance. Retribution means violence has already been
allowed, its very existence accepted, even if only for a split
second.
--- Quote ---
> inflicting the maximum possible punishment on the aggressor.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Throwing evil people into hell
--- End Quote ---
Your solution to violence is to endlessly perpetuate it? Or do
"maximum possible punishment" and "hell" somehow not equal
eternal violence?
#Post#: 2856--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: guest5
Date: December 15, 2020, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> We should not allow violence to be initiated in the first
place.
--- End Quote ---
How would you accomplish this exactly without surveillance of
individuals at all times to ensure they do not initiate
violence? That does not sound practical to me, or ethical?
--- Quote ---
> Your solution to violence is to endlessly perpetuate it?
--- End Quote ---
Wouldn't violence end when individuals stop initiating it?
#Post#: 2860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 15, 2020, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> How would you accomplish this exactly without surveillance of
individuals at all times to ensure they do not initiate
violence? That does not sound practical to me, or ethical?
--- End Quote ---
Universal enlightenment.
--- Quote ---
> Wouldn't violence end when individuals stop initiating it?
--- End Quote ---
Yes, that's my point.
#Post#: 2862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: guest5
Date: December 15, 2020, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Universal enlightenment.
--- End Quote ---
Well, it's been 10,000 years since the dawn of civilization and
we still have racists walking the planet. In fact, it could
easily be argued racism is on the increase since 9/11/2000 with
the rise of the right, no? Islamaphobia has certainly increased
since that false-flag attack. I take it you operate under the
assumption you can teach people not to initiate violence and
racism?
--- Quote ---
> Yes, that's my point.
--- End Quote ---
"The sins of the initiator send your children into time and they
all show up together further down the line".
--- Quote ---
> Thus in the Avesta, some of the Tuiryas believed in the
message of Zoroaster while others rejected the religion.
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan
--- Quote ---
> Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
"Universal enlightenment" did not work at the dawn of
civilization apparently, when there were a lot less humans on
the planet, what makes you so sure you can pull it off now?
Lastly, we are in the "information age" and there were plenty of
rightists ready to vote for Trump and many still believe he won
the last election, this fact in itself does not bode well for
any concept of universal enlightenment either does it?
Could it not be argued also that had Aryans destroyed Turan at
the dawn of civilization "universal enlightenment" might have
actually occurred simultaneously with the Neolithic revolution
and that there would be at the very least no racists or
meat-eater among us and with in our very own DNA?
#Post#: 2873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 16, 2020, 4:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I take it you operate under the assumption you can teach
people not to initiate violence and racism?
--- End Quote ---
Nonviolence shouldn't need to be taught, but violence needs to
be untaught. I'm in favour of Aryanization because nature was
the original teacher.
Row, row, row your boat
gently down the stream
throw your teacher overboard
listen to her scream
--- Quote ---
> "Universal enlightenment" did not work at the dawn of
civilization apparently, when there were a lot less humans on
the planet, what makes you so sure you can pull it off now?
--- End Quote ---
I akin enlightenment to innocence and freedom. I know we dream
the same dream, and I won't see it clouded by despair which is
reflected in our use of language. I have faith in the guiding
light of an individual's pure idealism.
#Post#: 2875--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ideal Methods > Natural Methods
DIR By: SirGalahad
Date: December 16, 2020, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You are not being compassionate by refusing to commit
retaliatory violence. Quite the opposite. If someone is being
brutally attacked, the compassionate thing to do, would be to
put an end to the violence as quickly and as swiftly as
possible. You would be saving the victim, and also the
perpetrator by preventing them from accumulating more bad karma
and inflicting further suffering on others. Also, it's strange
that you quote Savitri Devi when she was specifically for an
"against time" approach, rather than simply being "above time".
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 9
DIR Next Page