Rinzai Did Nothing Wrong.

In common usage, “equity” is equal outcome whilst “equality” is equal opportunity, yet these were not supposed to be divorced from one another, since the latter is the end whereas the former is the means.   It’s natural to seek for equal outcome, since we wish for Others to be able to enjoy the same prosperity that we do. Yet demanding this prosperity for all, for it to come immediately, only leads to ruin, so we have to take a longer road to get to that Society which we desire.    So, although it’s natural to wish for equity, it’s logical to seek it by equality. Yet two extremes prevent us from arrival at this goal, both variations on the segregation between ends and means.   On one extreme, those who demand that we have equity, immediately, seek the ends by wrongful means, while those who settle for equality of opportunity but do not *take* this opportunity *for equity* (for that was all that “opportunity” referred to from the start) have taken proper means and turned them to imprope

We live within an age wherein the poor oppress the wealthy. How? By force of envy. Only look upon the bygone eras. Up until the 1600's, class was thought synonymous with character, except within the subtlest of dramas Shakespeare wrote. Yet character was of the utmost weight, and class was secondary, though essential to that social order which required character, and character itself required social order. In the centuries that followed, class and character became divorced from one another, and with decent reason. As the matter showed, the world was not without its share of noble-hearted peasants nor of wealthy bastards. Thus, the modern moral play was born as a response to the oppression of the noble poor by poor nobility, and audiences cheered for those whose wealth was in the spirit rather than in moneys, as the protagonists of such a quality upon the stage strove to ascend above the ruin of the slums, in opposition to the vile and perverse aristocrats who lorded over them. The

The holidays can be a disappointing time for many people, but my solace is in recognizing this: that we are under no real obligation to be "happy", yet, with one's commitment to a goal that's meaningful, authentic, and inspiring to others, one can find a source of sanctity in bringing joy to others, or, at least, providing them with opportunities for a more meaningful existence.   Envy is the enemy. If but one child is happy on a Christmas morning, I am happy, not because my family requires me to be so, but because I'm grateful for the joy which others feel, though I may not receive it by the avenues that they receive it by. It is in the deserving rather than receiving of a gift that one finds honour, and it is in giving rather than receiving that the joy of virtue reigns.   **[({R.G.)}]**

The theory of projection is a form of leveling, and, like all forms of leveling, it lowers standards. It would have us all believe that, given that we're all alike at heart, the proper answer to an act of evil is not hatred but acceptance of the same potentiality within oneself. Through "choosing" sympathy *instead* of hatred, one "becomes aware" of one's "potential" to commit the same offence, and, by so doing, one ensures two things: that one does not commit the same offence and that, devoid of hatred, one does not commit another in avenging what was done.   Yet even as I write this I am nauseated by the thought of so reducing all that's great and beautiful to that which is most base and vile, for to do so *is, in fact* to let the base and vile win, succeeding in its project which *is* base and vile *for the very reason that* it swallows all that's great and beautiful within its muck. Such is the attitude of envy, and it is divorced from

There is a passage in his novel *Nausea* where Roquentin witnesses a guard accost a pederast and, inexplicably, Roquentin then retaliates against the guard. Roquentin knew that this man was a pederast and, up until that point, he had rejected all this man’s attempts at friendship and camaraderie, yet nonetheless he rushes to the pederast’s defence within this passage in the later chapters. This is easier to understand if one reads *Being and Nothingness*, wherein Sartre makes a point that, when I hate one Other, I hate all of them, and, when I witness one man hate an Other, I perceive that I am hated, too, for, on some level, I must recognize that I am one of many Others, all of whom are hated. It’s a rather stupid argument, admittedly, yet I must just as well confess that I have felt a similar projection. Why I bring this up is that the stream last night produced in me this feeling. Ordinarily, I find that Grimmi and her Chat are kind and sentimental to a fault, and it is therapeutic,

Melonie, a lot of what you said is just a liberal perspective in alignment with the origins of “Woke” philosophy. Yes: Christians recognize that people will routinely fail to live up to their obligations and their duties; this is to your credit, since humility is recognized as virtue for that very reason. It is a rejection of the narcissistic notion that your moral obligations are entirely defined by *your* abilities and limitations, rather than the former being a transcendent which goes well beyond those limitations. Yet the purpose that this concept serves is obvious: that we must strive to better ourselves and take whatever opportunities we’re given to transcend those limitations. Those who take those opportunities have always held a higher standing in the World than those who passed them up, and with good reason. In societies wherein the virtues and the vices were objective, it was not a matter of the “individual” deciding who was to be judged, but rather everyone within the group

Light Yagami is innocent of any evil whatsoever. His endeavor is extremely principled and disciplined, and it is nothing but the culmination of a moral teleology made possible by the intelligent employment of technology. The Death Note is a blessing which is tantamount to Intervention, since it gives the user the ability to carry out an absolute necessity. This absolute necessity is binding upon individuals, regardless of ability, so one cannot absolve oneself of this responsibility by being powerless, and only by the acquisition of the necessary strengths can one fulfill this moral burden. Light does all of this. One must remember that the villains of this story are an accurate reflection of the villains in contemporary life. We recognize their villainy as not just being “crime” but as a violation of the Common Good. All pretense to a theoretical “equality” between those individuals who would commit such acts and those who don’t is utterly eradicated by the act itself. It follows t

There’s one last nail within the coffin of this theory of projection (*not* as it was formulated by the Jungian psychologists, but rather as it has been bastardized in service of a “moral ambiguity” in fiction).   As I have established, it’s ridiculous to try to say of every villain, in all situations, that he’s “nothing more than” a projection of the audience, and this is given the most obvious: that villains always must be based on real-life evils, and the Real World always has abounded with their sins and crimes.   Since such atrocities are not a universal human habit, only an extreme, it is sufficient that one has to witness them in Actuality to write them into fiction. There, the writing is informative; whatever biases the writer has, the audience can witness what is written with a moral objectivity instead of private bias. Any indignation would arise from the awareness of the wrong depicted, not some latent tendency within the viewer, since the knowledge of morality precedes all

My resolution for this year was “no excuses”. Now, within its final month, I find myself reflecting upon motivation, why so many people lack it, why this seems to be a problem which afflicts “intelligent” instead of “stupid” people far more often, and where it originates.   Like many intellectual excuses, it must surely have its origins in some philosophy that got too big for its own britches. There’s a concept in the work of Kant which I would hear a lot while I was a debater back in college, which is that “should implies can”. In a nutshell, this is the delusion that, so long as I’m not capable of doing something, I am under no imperative to do it. “I can only be required to perform that action which I can perform.”   That this delusion was not challenged but assumed to be a sacred truth can only be explained by thinking on the narcissism of debaters. Obviously, moral obligation goes beyond your individual ability. Life constantly presents you with impossible assignments which you’re

**Dear[est] Grimmi :** I was moved to hear you read about my Sun Sign. Maybe this will help you understand the basic mindset typical of it. The simplest summary of Pisces as perspective is the most self-evident: the interpenetration and interdependence of all beings. I am as responsible for those around me and for their well-being as I am for mine, and, so, “in turn”, the Other is responsible for my well-being every bit as much as I am. If the Other acts in such a way that harms me, I may bear the guilt and shame for that transgression, since I’d rather be inclined to feel the Other’s feelings of revulsion rather than to shut them out. Yet it is not the Truth that this is just, since I am only made to feel this same revulsion since the Other chooses me to be the scapegoat when I’ve been the victim, so as not to recognize his own transgression. This refusal to admit of one’s own moral failings is the source of that “philosophy” that says, “Take care of *your* self first.” It is delusio