Response to seraphimsigrist

[sophiaserpentia]

If the primary motives behind the war were as they have been stated to be in the media -- the deposing of a cruel regime -- then I would agree that the best outcome to hope for now that war has begun would be a quick victory for the US.

But I keep coming back to my conviction that the primary motivation for the war was not to protect the people of Iraq but to establish a global military hegemony, to feed the military-industrial complex, and to "clear the way" for American businesses to gain advantages they do not already have in world markets. By "following the money" it's possible to explain every nation's stance in favor of or opposition to, the war.

That it all boils down to bucks and self-interest on every side makes this situation intolerably cynical for someone like me, who strives above all else to be a person of conscience and compassion.

Perhaps though, in its own way it is a blessing that governments and corporations (archons in every sense) have been forced to tip their hands. Without the charade of beneficence to hide behind, we can see them and their actions for what they really are.

Comments

[arbiteroftruth.livejournal.com]

do you think that balance is sometimes effected irrespective of erroneous motives on the front end? in other words, is it possible that something better can be achieved regardless of the "real" reasons for this war, whatever that may or may not be?

(anthony de mello said something that has always stayed with me. and i paraphrase (egregiously): the world is crazy, but you, now, right now, are all right. i have always tried to remember that. his sentiment shouldn't prompt inaction, but it can afford, perhaps, a little peace.)

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

In ways I hope you are correct, but today I am feeling very pessimistic about the possibility of anything good coming out of something bad -- though I *know*, in an intellectual sense, that good things come out of bad things all the time.

[arbiteroftruth.livejournal.com]

well, my darling, i shall keep a good thought for you. and for myself. for us all.

motivation

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

I think sometimes the search for motivation can come
up fairly empty, there can be a complex of motivations
but none sufficient to explain the result, I do not think
the cynical ones you mention are at all sufficient, nor
are the ones that are perhaps more positive...not at all
sufficient, separately or together. and that is why people
cast about and fix on shadows and write what seems tome a lot
of nonsense. (in the great outside world that is not on live
journal )
The only thing I can come up with is that momentum plays
a large part in corporate as well as in personal life, things
continue to move once set in motion and develop their own
reasons which are not sufficient... they do for individuals
and this perhaps is a case where the patent insufficiency
of explanation might disclose the great force of momentum...
I dont really do political or any other argumentation on internet
and I hope my first note and this do not seem argumentative,
nor do I do dialectic...you said but I say...but no you werent
listening I said ,yes but you werent listening to me I really
said etc...I dont do that so I hope this can be enough or of
course, since you are an internet friend, by private email if
there is something to think about on these things...
+Seraphim.

Re: motivation

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

The only thing I can come up with is that momentum plays
a large part in corporate as well as in personal life, things
continue to move once set in motion and develop their own
reasons which are not sufficient...

Though I agree with basically all that sophiaserpentia has said, I see those items as being essentially symptomatic of far deeper movements and currents, and what you've stated above - especially as regards the use of the term "momentum" - I think begins to address these deeper causes, rooted for me as they are in a more or less "Traditionalist" (as in Guenon, Evola, et al) conception of the cycles of time and their tendency toward increasing "mass" (hence, the appropriateness of the term momentum in my estimation). I don't know if this is at all what you were driving towards, but that's my take on it at least.

cycles of time

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

well that is a large question and requires I think
to be discussed over a beer or something and
perhaps not, by me ,here--the quick response would
be that I do not accept a Jainist view of history
and not a good deal of the traditionalist dogmatic
(their dislike of the Renaissance etc) probably
closer to a Teilhardian sense of things but
really these are all myths and images, well and
have nothing useful to say on em just now or
if you will excuse me in this forum(by private
email if anything further came to me as I said
to Anthony)...else my best move might be to
withdraw rosary from pocket and say a prayer
if I did the rosary prayers which I dont really
but the durn thing as a whole represents prayer
to me so I keep one around pretty much and
might best say some sort of prayer as so mote
(not mote and beam but mote of masonic use)
we all maybe...this to your interesting note...
+Seraphim

Re: cycles of time

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

Thanks; I'm still trying to make up my mind about alot of the Traditionalist dogma myself, though their application to the cycles of time seems at the very least self-consistent as well as consistent with some of my own learning and observations. "The whole thing represents prayer" is something I will have to meditate on. The larger questions, for all their apparent impersonality, do I agree require a good deal of personal interaction among individuals to offset the very often stale medium at hand; and I wholeheartedly agree even larger doses of beer to chase it with :-)

self consistent

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

a self consistent thing can become a real
mental trap, look at the poor anthroposophist
seeing everything in terms of the lunatic ideas
of Steiner, a Goethe gone awry, and how self
consisitent it is and how positive on interpretation
of history in terms of this guy being that
character in parsifal and je ne sais pas quois.
or marxism or freud taken without some water etc
so self consistency can be a sign one is getting
into a dead end street can't it?

Re: self consistent

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

I think I get what you're saying - self-consistency as the surest slippery slope to false dogma; something which purports to hold all the answers within itself can be an easy refuge for the person who can't be bothered to examine and question. This is the most seductive aspect of a great deal of what Guenon and his "disciple" Evola propound, that's for sure.

However I would also say that some manner of self-consistency is a necessary condition for a maintenance of ideals, something which is tied intimately to the question of what is honorable and what isn't; but I suppose then that this pertains more to the personal aptitude for creating cosmos out of chaos rather than allegiance to a more or less "complete" set of beliefs.

Hmm. More food for though, that's for sure.

Re: motivation

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

At this point I don't really have an opinion about concepts such as this. I can see how it would be reasonable to suppose "larger forces at work" in the collective organism of human history. But I can also see how a case might be made for a more "dynamic" conception of these larger forces analogous to wind currents or water turbulence, etc.

Not really an area I have spent much thought on and I can really only idly speculate.

Re: motivation

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

This medium is of course ideal for nothing other than expressing one's passing observations -- for dialogue and debate beyond the sharing of a few impressions it is inferior to email or (especially) face-to-face.

Today I am not in the mood to debate things, honestly; my opinions and impressions are shifting today and I'm not sure where I'm going to wind up.

That said, your comments about "momentum" are cogent; I feel the power it has in my own life and am often loathe to acknowledge its influence (the implication being that I am less of a "free agent" in the face of it). The only hope of countering momentum is of course by exerting greater force in an opposite direction -- no easy task, especially when the 'momentum' in question is literally that of the 'powers and principalities' -- one might sooner change the wind by huffing and puffing against it.

Of course one must never forget the proverbial butterfly in Hong Kong, but I'll have to leave you on that note...

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

Perhaps though, in its own way it is a blessing that governments and corporations (archons in every sense) have been forced to tip their hands. Without the charade of beneficence to hide behind, we can see them and their actions for what they really are.

I agree entirely, with but one caveat: seeing something for what it is is every bit as dependent upon the cleanliness of the sensory apparatus as it is upon the nakedness of what's being viewed.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

And an even deeper irony - at least two of the nations in favor of peace - France and Russia - are probably in favor of peace because of under the table arms deals with Saddam Hussein... "follow the money" indeed.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yep. This is a sizable source of my chagrin today.

Re:

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Ah... yes I see. Is hard to read in depth at work sometimes (must work hard, feed American corporate machine, keep those ceo's happy)

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

Boy, aren't I just making a general nuissance of myself in poor sophiaserpentia's journal today...

And an even deeper irony - at least two of the nations in favor of peace - France and Russia - are probably in favor of peace because of under the table arms deals with Saddam Hussein... "follow the money" indeed.

Really, I don't think there's any "probably" about it - although I would hasten to add that the motivations of the respective governments are likely very distinct from the motivations of the thousands taking to the streets in those countries as well as elsewhere. Indeed, I've thought about this same thing as well, and it ties into what both arbiteroftruth and seraphimsigrist have broached above, about the only relative virtue of the isolation of motives. Following the money in this case seems to lead to a recognition of, on the one hand, the enlarging of the sphere of largesse of the hegemon, and on the other, the restricting of that same sphere by competing interests. The problem would no doubt exist if the powers of the players were reversed, of course. And I really don't have a fundamental problem with any of this as long as I bear in mind that the sphere of politics is always contingent, always dependent on some deeper principle. I support France's and Russia's stances because they help limit the power of the current hegemon, which is a far larger threat to us all than the relatively petty national and corporate aspirations being represented by their opposition. Then again, I may just be done with all this lesser evil business in the next election and will cast my vote for Cthulhu.

Re:

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Hey, I tried to vote for Cthulu in the last election, but you can't write in a vote for president in Louisiana (much to my dismay) so I just voted for Ralph Nader instead, whom everyone thinks is as bad as Cthulu now anyway.

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

Certainly that's what my Gore-aphilic parents thought!