As larger projectiles tear through many lives in response to a horrific assault targeting innocent civilians, I remain sometimes tuned into the varying expressions and rationales.
Thuggery is basically screwing others over to get ahead.
Civility is basically respecting others to get ahead.
By those definitions, thuggery and civility always conflict with each other, but there’s no objective distinction (it’s all energy, at least according to mainstream physics).
At any moment in the competition for survival and “thrival”, do you choose to go thug or civil?
Do you mentally push people into their disadvantage by abusive reasoning, so you can gain more power for you and/or your loved ones, for “non-violent” example? If so for your loved ones, are you ultimately helping them out by such abuse, or doing the equivalent of charging with a credit card on behalf of you all (noting reality always collects full payment without possible escape, purely scientifically speaking)?
Because I have a very strong conscience for worst through best, my life has been defined by the strictest pursuit of civility (indirectly necessarily benefiting by thuggery against many plants and animals for food), and while that’s a challenging way to live (and my inevitable abuses must be self-challenging, so frankly indirectly destructive upon others), I find no difference in the net-resulting pain through pleasure from anyone else I know.
Stress is subjective, so one being’s horrible stress can be another being’s hardly noticeable stress, for prime example — I’ve seen people in deplorable living situations with a smile on their faces, and I’ve also seen rich people upset over relatively laughable stressors.
A french father explained to his son on mainstream news last night that flowers are the response to guns.
It was touching, beautiful, but sadly not entirely accurate.
Of course, we’re likely talking symbology here. The flower represents peace, while the gun represents war — but that’s overly simplistic (a misfit that can have ironically disastrous consequences).
Searching upon “poisonous flower” reveals their war-like capabilities, as does the natural competition among species outside of human influence. War is not limited to mankind’s technological drive, but represents the truth I echo from my last post — peace (energetic harmony) cannot exist without its balancing war (energetic dissonance) — both are relative (and energetically purely sinusoidal), so by any definition of peace, there must be a loser (individual or group).
Due to impossibility of actualized linearity within modulating energy, peace through war remains always temporary. Even the best application of meditative peace is temporary, and must be balanced out for reality’s undeniable stability, so meditate wisely.
It’s critical to stare into the metaphorical eyes of hideous truth to explore its depth and reason for being (responsibly tuning in with reality is always prudent for survival enhancement). I’ve done so for many years, and I once even found myself on top of a supreme metaphorical mountain peak where all I could see was literally horrible, because it defied my primary desire for all suffering to instantly, permanently, and painlessly end. Suffering (negative energy signature) is a part of reality — the ultimate system that factually never ends due to time being spatial.
From that, we learn that absolute peace is not a suitable goal, because Utopia is scientifically impossible (every positive stress is an opposite and equal negative stress).
We learn that success cannot be about getting rid of all negatives (achieve bliss), but maximally responsibly sometimes reducing positive stress to minimize negative spikes (amplifying neutrality, or what I like to call “balancivity”). In other words, in a world where too many people primarily press for positivity (ironically stirring up all of the negativity in the balancing process), a mature species understands the need to focus upon balance (which is stability — obviously necessary for survival).
That focus is imperfect, because balance is subjective and self-similar (fractal geometric) — e.g. the extremes of positive, negative, and balance must all be super-balanced for stability (and that super-balance is the balance extreme of a relatively greater sinusoidal current).
It’s all energy, so it’s all sinusoidal, and the sine wave (the sole pattern in literally all that you are and perceive) reveals not only a bipolar view (equidistant modulation between negative and positive extremes), but also a stronger “tripolar” view — balance is another extreme that’s equidistant from negative and positive extremes within sinusoidal modulation. That latter view is stabler, so sensibly should be embraced for better survival.
In layman terms, everything in moderation (including moderation).
Mutually assured destruction (balance of power) has historically demonstrated itself to be an effective balance (harmony). The greatest example was during the Cold War, where mutual serious nuclear weapons capability by the two superpowers of that era assured no launching of nuclear weapons due to the guarantee of at least both nations’ complete demise.
That assurance also pertains to gun ownership, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right for very sound reasoning within the United States (despite blatant mass rights infringement in the form of textured prohibition — i.e. outrageous need for government approval to become armed on biased grounds towards trying to limit craziness via gun violence at the expense of delaying or discouraging armed civilian defenders of justice that may be in the right place to promptly halt such craziness) — gun control is purely subjective. Prohibitions don’t work (there are even people sometimes successfully getting guns in prison), according to any concrete and final measure (questionable statistics to the contrary remain insufficient in justifying rights opposition).
Governments often strive for more control, and an unarmed masses assures them that control with no necessary respect for public safety (e.g. government oppression likely causing vastly more suffering than all crazy gun incidents — as history constantly demonstrates as a serious warning still too often ignored). You think the power to vote offsets that assurance? Who’s going to get in the way of a government tallying those votes however they deem fit for their benefit? Who’s going to stop the mainstream media bias towards government support to best continuously secure newsworthy information about tragic events (effectively state-run media)?
Somebody once stated that rights are defined by the barrel of a gun, and we should all say that might indeed makes right(s).
Not everyone has to own a gun, but if enough people voluntarily regularly and responsibly owned guns, then the public leverage can shift significantly during a crazy assault upon civilians, and likely become most effective to most promptly address government oppression. That assault is about the reward of control, but it only takes one armed defender (not necessarily even firing a shot) to save lives from mass shootings (e.g. in “gun free” zones insanely marked as fully unarmed to the glee of crazy control freaks — like shooting ducks in a barrel).
Instead of wasting resources to engage in the obviously failed war on some drugs (so treat drug abuse as the health issue it most certainly is), law enforcement should allocate at least one defender to each school and any other likely target. It’s amazing how even a crazy person obsessing over control understands mutually assured destruction.
The ultimate result is the muddying of flowers (peace, defense) and guns (war, offense) into their ultimately energetic flow, where we all find equality in our subjectively defined but purely energetic composition — seamless currents defying any actualized hard-line.
Choose your resonating side in a conflict? What choice do you really have, when no hard-line separates your decision from the energy influencing that flow?
“Just be” is apparently (I’m no expert on the subject) the mantra of eastern philosophy, but definition addicts mistakenly take that to mean just be passive. “Just be” reflects the purely seamlessly energetic nature of perception, so decisions towards activity or inactivity naturally flow inevitably in strictest accordance with reality’s undeniable need.
When you purely view reality at the energetic level, you flow through an energetic gateway into relatively better understanding (one that should ultimately have a glorious impact on science, technology, education, law, culture, and literally anything else you can think of — all for worst through best).
You then understand that loss is subjective and temporary (and inevitable to offset positive experiences), so you can behave more peacefully against the frustration and perhaps even anger that comes from trying unsuccessfully to reward a subjective energy signature (e.g. “me”, “you”, and “us”).
Reality is all energetic possibilities (everything) that together resonate to offset each other (nothing). There’s no relativity at the extreme of existence itself (you can’t exist outside of existence), so there can be no definition there (reality is an undefinable extreme, scientifically speaking).
Leave a Reply