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 tur...

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...

**[10:40-11:22:]** "*But I've said in my reviews that so many of the supposed 'heroes' in* Rings of Power *are evil, and the show doesn't seem to realize it, and it seems like the showrunners genuinely don't understand what Evil is, themselves. Tolkien's world was black-and-white; there was Good and Evil, and they were battling. But not this one. Not in *Rings of Power*.  [...]  Sauron was evil. And yes: you can have good people who fall to Evil, but **they are good or evil;** there is no 'anti-heroes'*." ** Disparu.  [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHQ0pLK1SBg]** That sums it up, and it resolves a problem plaguing modern writers that I've tackled with great force and perseverance: moral ambiguity in place of genuine discernment and complexity. If there is an objective moral truth, then one can't say that "we are all the devil, deep within even the purest Soul," since it is in one's choices and one's actions that one...

Tolkien was not a Fascist, but his anti-Fascist politics were nonetheless as playful and escapist as his stories, and I can’t imagine that the irony of his own contradictions had been lost on him. There cannot be an abolition of control, since abolition is control. One cannot be arrested for professing what is in the interest of State, since only States can make arrests. (A “citizen’s arrest” is nonetheless a *legal* possibility.) There is no friendship without loyalty to common goods and expectations; there can be no noble aspirations without class distinctions, and a monarchy without a constitution is a tyranny. If all are born with evil in their Souls, then any has the obligation to control it, both in Self and Others; this especially is true if only some are evil and the others good, for any innocence must be protected. Men cannot defend those worthy of protection if there is no rational consensus in between them about who is worthy. All of our moral aspirations strive to the fulfi...