PDA

View Full Version : Of Civility And Softness



Zook
31st December 2010, 10:18
Good morning, Good Avalon ...

Took Mom out for a drive to the ocean this afternoon on a long and winding coastal road in a temperature totter about zero degrees Celsius. Sun was very bright today so it didn't matter much that my premium roast coffee which was brewed warm ... on the advice of McDonald's legal trogs so as not to burn the tongues off old folks and human frogs (some of you may know the latter as Liebermans or Androids) and thus reduce Old McDonald's profit margin ... grew cold by the time we reached the big rocks at Lawrencetown. As I watched the surf and a few souls who braved the stiff breeze battering their metal boxes for a closer glimpse of Old England, my mind drifted back to Avalon and mercurial things like civility, and the insidiousness of softness. Too much civility and we lose our toughness. Too little civility and we lose our civilization. Somewhere on the mutual path (of civility and softness), there exists a Goldilocks balance.

Fact: these are tough times we live in. IMHO, the only way to survive is to become tough in tandem.

I don't know when exactly it started, but there has been a systemwide surgical separation of civility and softness. We are being programmed to be uncivil; at the same time, we are being programmed to be soft. This separation does not exist naturally and did not exist in the days of men and women. Tough times triggered internal toughness. Tough crimes were met with tough punishment. Tough despots were met with tubs of tar and a roll in the feathers (at least the lucky ones were). Tough political systems were met with resistance and eventual obsolescence.

But what is happening today? Times are getting increasingly tough. People are getting increasingly uncivil, as expected. But are they getting tough in tandem to meet the times and the potential tipping points? Alas, this is not the case. Quite the opposite. There's been an engineered push towards softness even as the times require hard individuals, extreme vigilance and a coordinated pushback against the system of bankster crime and oppression. But even more egregious, there's been an engineered push towards incivility ... against the natural grain of civility that softness binds.

This, of course, should come as no big surprise; after all, the goal of TMastardsTB is to conglomerate the many local pyramids of moderate tyranny and moderate size into one global pyramid of total tyranny and super size. A tyranny of scale, if you will. To this end, their best tool still remains division. From division (chaos) to conquest (order).

Before I put on a tux and put in a limo for the shaded ride to the great hall of heroes, legends, and legerdebeings ... to pick up my Gold Medal For Stating The Obvious (GMFSTO) ... let me pose a few rhetorical questions.

(1)Who among us at Good Avalon is working (wittingly or unwittingly) in the duty of division? Seriously ask yourself this.

(2)There's been a lot of discussion lately on the message vs the messenger
(wrt Wikileaks). Question begs, why is it important that we detach Julian Assange from Wikileaks ... at the same time, attach the Saudi leader with the message to attack Iran? Remember this in your reflection, the attack-Iran message has been around for quite some time now, not least nor
least humorously in the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg&feature=related

Does anyone not see the hypocrisy here?

(3)What is more important: the preservation of civility at all costs ... or the battle against destructive softness in times that require constructive hardness?

(4)What exactly is the charter of Avalon if points of factual data can be so blatantly disfigured, and the disfigurement becomes the basis for future debate? Is it the charter of a civilian intelligence club ... or a beer pub? Case in point (for factual rectitude; nothing personal against you, Heretic), the Belfast Telegraph article. There is no reasonable doubt that Assange said those words attributed to him. Wittingly or unwittingly, Heretic mutated the fact of Assange's words into a doubt about their authenticity. This is not a trivial mutation, folks. It hinges the very credibility of Julian Assange and Wikileaks; and it does so without a need for preponderance. To be frank, I found it deeply disturbing that 70% of those pushing the thanks-button on the thread (and its various posts) did not deem it necessary to call Heretic out on his errant characterization of Assange's 9/11 remarks as being a rumor and nothing else ... in fact, reinforced this error by supporting his subsequent post(s) on the topic. Granted the support for Heretic may be an extension of the support for Assange and Wikileaks; or it may have been a visceral response against my own post(s) which are usually hard-edged ... but I'm merely keeping things in phase, e.g. hard times root hard truths. Those who seek softness by uprooting the hard truths are misguided, at best; and divisive, at worst. From division to conquest.

Good folks of Avalon, if you want the truth ... you have to be vigilant about it, not merely pass it on a plate over the tea and truffles table. Definitely, the truth was not being served in the thread (Hero or Pawn). Assange did, indeed, say the words attributed to him by any reasonable standard of evidence collection (certainly, by the same standard employed by The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, etc.). And because he did say those words, he wittingly stands against the truth. Mendax is the fitting handle. Webster Tarpley is bang on with his exposition of Assange.

Humble opinions all around.

:smow::typing::smow::smow:

ps: For those that promote arguments by fallacy of popular appeal, in our case, the argument of repetition to reality, it's as simple as this: the truth can be repeated over and over and over again and never be a falsehood ... a falsehood can be repeated over and over and over again and never be a truth. To wit, repetition to reality is an ideology; not a rational argument.

ps2: But why can't we have both civility and hardness, you may ask? Short Ans: we can. Of course, there are those among us who only want the civility (and not the hard truths); those who only want the hard truths (and not the civility); and those that take long winding drives along the ocean (to get to the ocean!) wondering how a balance can be achieved without compromising the hard truths.

ps3: I had much more black hair four months ago.

Elandiel BernElve
31st December 2010, 10:50
ps3: I had much more black hair four months ago.

Yes you did ! What happened? Did stardust exploded your hair while on ocean drives? or is it Assange, the white haired prince, pagan messiah of leaking truths that has got your brain working for so hard these months your hair started taking over the color of assange's.

;)

Zook, you drive a hard bargain here, I will need some time to contemplate over what to respond. But I will later on.
Thanks for the post. It's a good point of discussion. What's the tolerance limit of one's own ideology.
This might take some hours...

Ceyou around!

ponda
31st December 2010, 11:14
Yes zook but the repeated attacks on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks get to be a bit much after about 50 times.Just because the attacks are 'sugar coated' doesn't make it any less annoying after so many separate instances.The message is always the same.We get it already.

Burke
2nd January 2011, 15:18
heya Zook,

I swear I am not stalking you but I figured since you talk about me here, I get to post here as long as I do so without trying to carry the same argument over multiple threads. This is also why I waited so long to reply, to let the dust settle some so I don't come off as being overly confrontational.

I really like your thought provoking questions and wanted to toss in my two cents for what it is worth.


(1) Who among us at Good Avalon is working (wittingly or unwittingly) in the duty of division? Seriously ask yourself this.

I feel I have done plenty of "work" that has unwittingly encouraged divisiveness. I am my own worst judge and think very carefully before I post anymore which is why I have such a low post count here at Avalon 2.0. I feel I made an idiot of myself for the most part at Avalon 1.0.

Since then I have done what I can to temper my passion and open my mind to perspectives that create conflict in me and how I react to them. My first priority now is self mastery, all else is self reflection and even entertainment.



(2)There's been a lot of discussion lately on the message vs the messenger
(wrt Wikileaks). Question begs, why is it important that we detach Julian Assange from Wikileaks

Who among us is without flaw? What would the perfect messenger look or speak like? Is your response subjective or objective? Is perfection born from judgment or beauty?


(3)What is more important: the preservation of civility at all costs ... or the battle against destructive softness in times that require constructive hardness?

Civility in battle is honor isn't it? Chivalry and all that? Is that what your talking about here?

Hardness vs. softness is a difficult question to offer my opinion on in few words. I think it all depends on context, and since personal judgment is involved - subjective thus hardly universal. Ancient Chinese men of renown (Lao Tzu, Confucius, Sun Tzu) have said that when it comes to which is better, hardness or softness, all depends on the situation.

If two warriors were to clash, both of equal skill while using hardness then the outcome would surely go to the strongest. If two warriors were to clash, both of equal skill while using softness then the outcome would surely go to the smartest. If two warriors were to clash, both of equal skill, with one using hardness while the other employs softness, then the outcome would surely go to softness. So according to these guys, hardness is superior only when you have the advantage of strength.

An Explanation of the Martial Aspect of T’ai Chi

As a martial art, T’ai Chi is externally a soft exercise, but internally hard, even as it seeks softness. If we are externally soft, after a long time we will naturally develop internal hardness. It’s not that we consciously cultivate hardness, for in reality our mind is on softness. What is difficult is to remain internally reserved, to possess hardness without expressing it, always externally meeting the opponent with softness.

Meeting hardness with softness causes the opponent’s hardness to be transformed and disappear into nothingness. How can we acquire this skill? When we have mastered sticking, adhering, connecting and following, we will naturally progress from conscious movement to interpreting energy and finally spiritual illumination and the realm of absolute transcendence.

If our skill has not reached absolute transcendence, how could we manifest the miracle of four ounces moving a thousand pounds? It is simply a matter of “understanding sticky movement” to the point of perfecting the subtlety of seeing and hearing. - Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi_chuan_philosophy)

Not sure I approached your question correctly but I find wisdom in this concerning hardness vs softness because it equally applies to spirit and intellect. Perhaps you could give me and example of "Constructive Hardness".


(4)What exactly is the charter of Avalon if points of factual data can be so blatantly disfigured, and the disfigurement becomes the basis for future debate?Is it the charter of a civilian intelligence club ... or a beer pub? Case in point (for factual rectitude; nothing personal against you, Heretic)...

- snip -

...New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, etc.). And because he did say those words, he wittingly stands against the truth. Mendax is the fitting handle. Webster Tarpley is bang on with his exposition of Assange.

No offense taken at all. I agree with just about everything you said but for this:

There is no reasonable doubt that Assange said those words attributed to him. Wittingly or unwittingly, Heretic mutated the fact of Assange's words into a doubt about their authenticity.

I feel I offered my best explanation in the host thread but for the sake of others who have not read the host thread my brief rebuttal to this here would be:

I reminded folks that those words are "reportedly" Assange's words and that due to the divisive nature of those words, confirmation is in order before preceding towards judgment. I feel the cornerstone of investigation and research is to doubt and question. The reasoning is just as you said: "It hinges the very credibility of Julian Assange and Wikileaks". Well...maybe just Assange and not wikileaks but that's another argument.


Awesome questions and it is a shame there are not more answers from folks. I find it a fascinating subject how we all come to agree on so many things, yet also disagree on so many things even though we are all basically looking at the same material.


P.S. - I haven't looked deep enough yet Zook so I have a question for you because you may have: Has Assange ever "judged" any other conspiracies as true or false beyond the 911 in any press, MSM or alternative? Just askin' because I am curious and you seem to have educated yourself on the subject and may have a link or something off the top of your head which would save me alot of time.

P.S.S. (edited to add) Is not the pen mightier than the sword? Isn't the hardness of the sword tempered in the fat of sheep lest it be too brittle and break under the stress and strain of battle?