Rinzai Did Nothing Wrong.

I hope you read this, Grimmi, though I shall abstain from "pinging" you. I just want you to know that I appreciate your kindness since it seems authentic, well-informed, and wise. My criticism rather was for those who grow *dependent* on that sort of sentiment. They either seek to emulate it as a form of flattery or try to go so far as to enforce it as a substitute for policy. They lack discretion and don't recognize those situations wherein "meanness" is appropriate instead, as though there were not countless errors worse than being "mean", such errors that can*not* be solved by kindness. They do not use kindness as a form of social currency or merit, but instead demand it unconditionally, which of course is a barbaric tendency. When others treat them less than kindly, they do not observe the error in themselves but rather in the critic; they assume that "harshness" is no more than "failure to be kind", instead of recognizing harsh...

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 tur...

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 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 ...

**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...

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...

[ 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 aggresso...

My optimism takes a hit each time I try to browse the Internet in search of arguments regarding anything of transcendental value. If I want to know the Metacritic score for some generic horror game, then I can find it in mere minutes. Yet if I aspire to find anything regarding what is Beautiful or Good or True, then instantly I’m met with a barrage of falsehood. Two examples that stand out most clearly both regard the gap between “subjective” and “objective” thought. Such crucial aspects such as feeling and morality, which ordinarily one would refer to as an absolute reality, (in practice even more so than in “thought”) have been reduced to “subjectivity” by therapists… and people actually follow this prescription without any indication of remorse or indignation. (Note how it’s “prescription”, not “description”, which we ’ ll get to later.) That this trend explains some of the more ridiculous assertions made by otherwise soft-spoken, sober people on the Internet would offer comfort on...

[Click here to read the reddit post to whom I am replying.] None of this was hard for me to understand. Spike's dream was that he could escape the consequences of his actions, and he tried to do this through a thoroughly absurd, amoral lifestyle, drifting aimlessly through space and barely scraping by on bounty hunter gigs without concern for any of the broader moral implications. Julia was someone whom he kept within his memory as though she might be safe there as a mental image; so, he had a "dream" of her which he could wander back to as a vestige of some love or meaning in his otherwise amoral, apathetic life. So, when she died, he woke up from the dream she represented. He beheld that he could not escape his past by looking to the future. So, he sought revenge on Julia's behalf and died a martyr, ridding the entire universe of Vicious and thus finding his redemption, represented by his star up in the skies. The Beatles quote about "the weight" one has...

"I'm glad you made this retrospective. Here are all my criticisms of it:   1. I knew you'd reference the work of B-Mask by the end of it. I did appreciate the Bentley voice; you had me fooled, but only for about three seconds. Yet the hours I had wasted watching Will's analysis might have been better spent had he not burdened his interpretation with his own pretensions, some of which I'm glad that you at least depart from, even if it's to the opposite extreme. (At least the Taurus/Capricorn dynamic proves to be a thing in fact.) 2. The part you both agree on, both between yourselves and with the likes of Zeke from Powercell , is that the central theme of the third game is "letting go" and disidentifying with one's past, both personal and cultural. I cannot overstress the fallacy in such a line of thinking, though I can't deny this theme was probably intended by the writers (which accounts for why the ending disappointed me, as well a...