/lit/ - Literature

>>12050673
Interesting pic, I would counter with this one - the character means martial, but contains the logograms for ending violence - ahimsa, a prohibition of initiatory violence, a duty for retaliatory violence. The duty of an ahimsa is to stop wars by any means. It is more noble to end violence than it is to let the world be, regardless of what is happening. Different perspectives on life.
>i won't have to, because they're going to go on creating their own fucking wheels of Karmic Social Credit. how's the future looking for terrorism, riot, and the return of Unironic Fascism?
I agree that such things are on the rise. I also believe in preventing these things if at all possible.
>I'm not into Fuck You metaphysics
But you allow them to go on, you condone them by doing nothing.
>i think religion & mysticism are a counterbalance *against* tribalism
Oh I agree, that's almost always the intent behind the creation of a religion. The problem is when your in-group is your religion and the quality of individuals is ignored.
>calamity will happen anyways.
It wouldn't have to, if people realized the cause.
>the hate does not need your help.
I agree. I would say that I do not "hate," though I have fury toward those who initiate violence.
>read BttE
BttE? That's one of Girard's books, yes?
>every prevention leads to the next prevention.
So do nothing when someone attacks innocents? Do nothing as violence is done? Seems absurd to me.
>*a metaphysics of scarcity amidst superabundance.*
And my point is that even if there is a superabundance, if it is not infinite, it cannot support everyone's desires - some people want to think about how future generations will manage, to some people the future is as important as the present.
My goal is to reduce demand rather than seeking to increase supply, and I think you agree - you wish to do it through teaching people restraint. I think that method is futile, because even if you reduce every person to subsistence level consumption of their own free will, as long as the population increases, so too will consumption, without bound - at some point you have to address the question of population (which I claim unavoidably is a political question), because each additional person increases the strain on every other one, and forces all of the others to work harder to "get theirs."