The Ultimate Weapon
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Freedom's just another word
Search This Blog
About Me
- Marty
- Six arrests,
no convictions.
06=09.06.21@US Capitol
05=06.04.20@Buffalo City Hall
04=01.12.16@US Capitol
03=06.26.13@WhiteHouse
02=01.12.12@WhiteHouse
01=04.20.09@Orange County
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(112)
-
▼
January
(22)
- The nuclear impulse explained
- Five days later
- All the news that's fit to print
- Three Men
- Towards
- The coming problem
- The opposite of Open
- Sign outside the CIA
- God is pro-abortion
- Fair Play for Haiti
- I came, I saw
- Columbus
- The Kingdom of God
- Does the United States act like a Christian Nation?
- I never knew you
- Beautiful young girl
- Ignorance is an excuse
- If you want to make your mark
- The Jailer and the Jailed
- Forget the underpants bomber
- Energy Conservation
- Is This Art?
-
▼
January
(22)
Blogs
Links
- https://persistentvegetativestate.blogspot.com/search/label/$CLIMATE
- --- possible ---
8 comments:
How do we talk about nuclear weapons in ways that cannot possibly be true?
In order to figure out what the ultimate weapon is, you have to firstly figure out what "weapon" is.
If you have no desire to around whatever "weapon" is, then for you there is no ultimate weapon.
Q: What is a weapon?
A1: A weapon is something that can be used to change the mind or the behavior of a nonyou.
A2: An ultimate weapon, a weapon that cannot be improved upon, is one that has the minimum total cost.
Definition of "nonyou": a thing that impinges on your reality. Of necessity, something that you are not able to reason with under the circumstances, but can only reckon with.
Martin,
fascinating definitions. Changing Nonme is a lot more work, overall, than changing me (in my experience).
Moreover, changing me is the simplest way to change nonme (in my experience)
Posited: delineation of me/nonme may end up being more costly the the ultimate weapon
Posited: even the ultimate weapon will have higher total cost than simply changing me.
in the context of this discussion, the goal of the quest for the ultimate weapon is changing the other in the most effortless way - in the imagination, a brushing aside, of no consequence.
While changing oneself may be simpler than changing the world, few have taken the simple way. And of course the two ways lead to different places.
Both roads, one suspects, lead to complete destruction, and have destruction along the way on all sides, but of different things.
what do you mean when you say both roads lead to complete destruction?
On the one hand, where we are allowed to effortlessly obtain our will, it seems apparent that this will result in the massacre of all other peoples, and the destruction of environments and the world itself.
On the other hand, in order to respect all others and live in harmony with nature, we will need to destroy those impulses alluded to above, and die daily, as Paul puts it.
maybe there is a 3rd way, with no destruction involved.
Post a Comment