Rinzai Did Nothing Wrong.

I thought I recognized this jerk and then I found this joke. Let’s read his famous quote, the very definition of a sin, made darker and more blatant by the irony of ignorance and of denial: “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” Let us paraphrase that, shall we? “Why’s it murder that I killed those people? It’s the State that’s killing me for doing so!” “Why is it rape I had my way with her? It is the prison system that rapes me!” “Why is it torture that I hurt those people to get what I wanted? What is greater torture than to be denied?” “Why is it crime of war we bombed that country? *Our* country does not recognize their independence!!” Go ahead and tell me, once again, that it’s not *greed* that you are sitting, like a bloated dragon-hoarder, on the wealth you stole — I’m sorry: “earned” — with no intent to benefit your fellows. Go ahead and tell us it is *we* who are r

Let's return now to this boring question of the "function" of the "intellectual", as represented by an intellectual who seems to hate his fellows: " Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas — the intellectuals — have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on balance, made those around them better off or worse off is  one of the key questions  of our times. The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, during the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that  intellectuals have on balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place.  Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers, or apologists among the leading intellectuals — not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where i ntellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted. ... intellectuals are people  whose end produ

There is a bizarre and enigmatic passage in his novel *Nausea* wherein Jean-Paul Sartre, the Marxist-existentialist, describes a man who is revealed to be a pedophile and properly harassed by a librarian. The passage is at first absurd because the narrator, who knows this man to be a pedophile, well in advance, proceeds to beat the poor librarian, as though the latter had no cause to denigrate the pedophile. It is a very odd phenomenon, yet sadly not uncommon; even Sartre’s once friend and rival in philosophy Albert Camus wrote how he would not justify an act of murder given vague, intrinsic feelings of compassion for “the stranger” (who became the subject of a novel by this latter writer). Yet more recently I have discovered *why* it was that Sartre, at least, felt such a vague compassion for a man who, in all other segments of his narrative, he stubbornly refuses to accept as equal, brother, comrade, fellow socialist or humanist, etc.: Sartre’s chief (and laughable) mistake is that h

"Don’t lecture me on personal responsibility; you have none of your own. You never owned up to your actions nor their meanings nor their consequences; even in this moment, you refuse to make amends to those you hurt, though they were in your charge, by your consent and your false charity.   You treat me as if I were totally responsible for my own happiness and sorrow, though it’s not my focus, and it seems to be a weakness only if it were my fault and only motive. Yet am I the only one responsible for my well-being? Was it I who authored my own misery? Should I pursue it, taking your example, seeking nothing else? Perhaps were I an egoist; the Devil always wants us to take pride in selfish aims but never their effect on Others. I refused to make myself the focus of my enterprise, and even at this moment I am seeking more than what is owed to me, since Others have a greater need than I do. Yet this seems unthinkable to you. How am I then the author of this sorrow? What have I done

The Heart of every Narrative is Choice. Choice makes or breaks a Hero; it distinguishes the Hero from the Villain and conflicting Villains from each other. Choice is truest to the heart of Life, since nothing is more intimate and precious to the Soul than its free will to make itself that which it wills.   Choice is refusal to assimilate. The most intimidating villains are not people but collectives, from the Borg to SEELE. Their drive is to reduce us to one form: amorphous, undistinguished, and egalitarian. Equality is just another form this villain takes, in actuality. Equality is yet another evil that purports itself to serve the Good by offering escape from conflict, insecurity, depression, loneliness, inferiority, and shame.    Equality, however, is a lie. It tries to make us tolerate those things we do not wish to tolerate as individuals. It wants us to embrace all difference regardless of the value of that difference, a value which results in difference of value. When it cannot

Lalo Salamanca is the perfect mirror for Saul Goodman.   He’s detached and cavalier, ambivalent to consequence and implication. He is extraverted, jovial, and charismatic, hiding his depravity behind a smile. He warms up to his adversaries, putting on a show of genuine enthusiasm even as he plots against them. He endears himself to them through favours, all the while employing them to serve his ends. While other characters employ some tactics of this nature, they are often “strong and silent”, “Stoic” types. Gustavo Fring is clearly meant to mirror Walter White: a calculating man of principle and an idealist who insists on quality and order. Lalo Salamanca is the polar opposite. His passions are not principles. He is not motivated by an underlying sense of Justice or ambition; all of that is merely rationale for instinct. Similarly, Jimmy does not care about the Law nor what it means. His brother Chuck embodies the ideal of Law, and Jimmy only flatters Chuck in an attempt to get ahea

[I should preface this by saying that I have not played *The Last of Us*, nor do I mean to. I have found the recent trend in Naughty Dog, since the conclusion of the *Jak and Daxter* trilogy, to be quite hostile to my tastes, and with regards to how divisive this most recent franchise is I think I know where I would stand on that divide. All that I know about its narrative I’ve gleaned from sparse accounts by other gamers, and these tales were skewed to such extremes that gleaning any objectivity was an achievement. What you are about to read is commentary on the story as it was conveyed to me, yet not as it had been interpreted by those who have conveyed it. Yet such is the power in a story: that it causes me distress upon first hearing, bringing me to tears of sheer despair and shame, yet with the passing of a year I’ve found a finer clarity than I had had before I heard it, and with courage I can criticize the critics, though I love them nonetheless and all the more.] While the Drin

[ I’ve written at some length  upon this, yet the message may be muddled, to some minds, by the emotion. Here’s  a summary of why I do not watch *Attack on Titan*. My dedication goes to Pedro/Spyke for being understanding; you inspired me to write this when I woke from nightmares.] In the first place, that first episode remains the single most egregious act of violence I’ve ever seen in any form of media. Considering that animation is supposed to be amusing, (this was made by “Funimation”) I was shocked by just how horrid the depictions were, as if to use the art form to exaggerate and to manipulate all human sensibility and agony. Yet that first episode was not enough to stop me from continuing to watch it. Why?  Because it was effective. All the blood did serve one function: that it drew a thick red line between the black and white. There was no ambiguity, no coming back from what I’d witnessed, and that was the point: I never would be capable of humanizing the aggressors nor dehuman

"I'll admit: I wanted to support this video . I wanted to support this channel. I have always liked your calm, collected feedback when you worked in groups with Gary, Drinker, AZ, etc. I should have noticed, though, that my approval of your commentary was proportional to just how many people you had shared a stage with. As a group, your Fellowship produces very moving content which inspires hope in people all over the globe. However, that is not your personal agenda, and I see that now.   Don't get me wrong: I too would love to find a critic who could formulate a system which would work for making Art effectively. Yet as I see this wish reflected in your rant, I cannot help but to consider, maybe to conclude, that it's a Faustian temptation. Lived experience within the World requires people to be practical, emotionally self-aware, and open to diverse perspectives. This is why a group or team is often quintessential to success in an artistic enterprise, including so