Here's the next section of my new book. Two things I'd better say about it. First, this represents my life's work. Second, it's about 550 pages long. Third, by the end of the book I prove everything that anybody who believes in being themselves and trying to get along with other people will ever need to know to construct an irrefutable arguement to justify their way of life to anyone who has a problem with it. Of course, most people who have a problem with it probably aren't going to listen to them anyway, but that doesn't prove that I'm wrong, just that they're ignorant. Anyway, I'm just about finished my rough draft, so I'm interested in getting any feedback from anyone who's interested in giving it.
My only request is that you not try to concinve me that I'm wrong about anything, because I can pretty well garuntee you that you'll be wasting your time, and I wouldn't want that. Without having read the other 549 pages of this you can't possibly formulate a conclusive arguement about what I am or am not considering. Feel free to *ask* me if I've thought of things though, and to tell me why you're asking. If you don't agree with something I say now I might need to clarify it or rearrange its presentation in the book or something.
Thanks,
Dr K.
***
The Big Problem: There are a number of philosophical questions that people have wondered at for all of known human history. How can people find peace within themselves? How can people find peace with each other? How can societies find peace within themselves? How can societies find peace among themselves? Can a structured code of morailty exist separate from all religions and cultures? How can the global community build one sustainable culture?
This last question has taken on particular significance in the past decade. Over the course of the past 90 years, we have had World War I, followed by the Great Depression, followed by World War II, followed by the Cold War, followed by the War on Terrorism. Five global conflicts in the past 90 years, two of which were characterized by worldwide violence, two of which were characterized by the threat of worldwide violence, and one of which came about as the result of worldwide violence and ended with more worldwide violence. In between, there have been two brief periods of peace, each of which lasted about 10 years. In other words, of the past 90 years, 20 have been characterized by general peace, and 70 have been characterized by global conflict.
This is bullsh*t!
By definition, all conflict results from someone not having something they want. The end of the Cold War was supposed to bring with it the end of global conflict, because democracy and free trade would reign supreme and everyone in the world could finally be happy. As became all too evident on the fateful morning of September 11th 2001, everyone in the world isnt happy. Im not just talking about the fact that terrorists couldve committed an act of war against the United States, Im also talking about the fact that Americans responded by trying to fight fire with fire. Obviously we have to protect ourselves and the free world as a whole, but theres a difference between protecting ourselves and smiting our enemies down with great wrath and vengeance in an attempt to wash out blood with blood. All the revenge in the world will never change the course of history.
Ladies and gentlement of the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy, do you realize that the political objectives of the War on Terrorism depend on our own governments making us live in fear every bit as much as the terrorists want us to live in fear? If we choose to participate in the fifth global conflict of the past 90 years, weve lost already, because global conflict no longer depends on large armies or nuclear stockpiles. The only thing anyone needs now in order to destroy the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy, is to make everyone stop being happy.
As long as everyone in the free world goes on seeking revenge, there will always be conflict. All the terrorists have to do to win is to keep people unsatisfied and unhappy. If the people of the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy make their happiness depend on getting even with the terrorists, then in order for the terrorists to win, all they have to do is to evade capture. We (and by that I meanwe) of the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy have to completely erase terrorism from the world in order to win. Winning on those terms is impossible, because the greatest weapon of the enemy will always exist within every single one of us (or, us). In order to defeat that, we would have to erase the very *idea* of terrorism from the world.
My only request is that you not try to concinve me that I'm wrong about anything, because I can pretty well garuntee you that you'll be wasting your time, and I wouldn't want that. Without having read the other 549 pages of this you can't possibly formulate a conclusive arguement about what I am or am not considering. Feel free to *ask* me if I've thought of things though, and to tell me why you're asking. If you don't agree with something I say now I might need to clarify it or rearrange its presentation in the book or something.
Thanks,
Dr K.
***
The Big Problem: There are a number of philosophical questions that people have wondered at for all of known human history. How can people find peace within themselves? How can people find peace with each other? How can societies find peace within themselves? How can societies find peace among themselves? Can a structured code of morailty exist separate from all religions and cultures? How can the global community build one sustainable culture?
This last question has taken on particular significance in the past decade. Over the course of the past 90 years, we have had World War I, followed by the Great Depression, followed by World War II, followed by the Cold War, followed by the War on Terrorism. Five global conflicts in the past 90 years, two of which were characterized by worldwide violence, two of which were characterized by the threat of worldwide violence, and one of which came about as the result of worldwide violence and ended with more worldwide violence. In between, there have been two brief periods of peace, each of which lasted about 10 years. In other words, of the past 90 years, 20 have been characterized by general peace, and 70 have been characterized by global conflict.
This is bullsh*t!
By definition, all conflict results from someone not having something they want. The end of the Cold War was supposed to bring with it the end of global conflict, because democracy and free trade would reign supreme and everyone in the world could finally be happy. As became all too evident on the fateful morning of September 11th 2001, everyone in the world isnt happy. Im not just talking about the fact that terrorists couldve committed an act of war against the United States, Im also talking about the fact that Americans responded by trying to fight fire with fire. Obviously we have to protect ourselves and the free world as a whole, but theres a difference between protecting ourselves and smiting our enemies down with great wrath and vengeance in an attempt to wash out blood with blood. All the revenge in the world will never change the course of history.
Ladies and gentlement of the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy, do you realize that the political objectives of the War on Terrorism depend on our own governments making us live in fear every bit as much as the terrorists want us to live in fear? If we choose to participate in the fifth global conflict of the past 90 years, weve lost already, because global conflict no longer depends on large armies or nuclear stockpiles. The only thing anyone needs now in order to destroy the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy, is to make everyone stop being happy.
As long as everyone in the free world goes on seeking revenge, there will always be conflict. All the terrorists have to do to win is to keep people unsatisfied and unhappy. If the people of the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy make their happiness depend on getting even with the terrorists, then in order for the terrorists to win, all they have to do is to evade capture. We (and by that I meanwe) of the free democratic world where everyone is supposed to be happy have to completely erase terrorism from the world in order to win. Winning on those terms is impossible, because the greatest weapon of the enemy will always exist within every single one of us (or, us). In order to defeat that, we would have to erase the very *idea* of terrorism from the world.
daevric:
I'm sold, as if I wasn't already. Though I'll warn you, I'm not even going to be content as a gunner, should more ships be available to captain. I'm interested to see where the rest of this is going and if I agree with the rest of it as I have so far. I guess we'll see when it's published.