Ernie: "Focus on hate" ? Actually this is a fairly minor part of my philosophy of life. Yes, it is an element in the equation, but only an element, it is FAR from central. What is central ? Clinical objectivity, as much as I can muster, anyway. With that goes --or so it is my objective -- constructive criticism. In the sense that Galileo challenged the Ptolemaic system of his era, that the practice of bleeding patients was challenged by early medical researchers, in the sense that Taylor ( for all his faults ) sought to understand what actually went on, on the shop floor, in order to find efficiencies in how work is done. You said-- " it is impossible to be truly objective without loving rightly." I' m not a big fan of Tina Turner, but sometimes the lyrics to her song make perfectly good sense, " What's love got to do with it ?" Is Pluto a planet ? I'd like to know, but where love enters the picture eludes me completely. Finding a method to predict earthquakes would really be great, I'm all for it. But what does love have to do with it ? And so forth, for a lengthy list of similar concerns. Love is the best in us, it is crucial to life, it is something to live for. If someone does not have it, he or she is living a mistake, not a good life. But it simply isn't the answer to all questions. Not remotely. Enough of my spiel. Well, we could kick this around until hell freezes over. I trust our views are relatively clear to lurkers and others. Maybe they are clearer to ourselves also. But I am more curious at this time about the thesis of the Newsweek article. Is it true ? THAT is the question. For if it is, there are many serious implications up and down the line. The Pacific Northwest has long been more-or-less "lost" to traditional Christianity for many years, not in an absolute sense, but nonetheless lost generally. Also true for the coastal part of California. Now it is true for most of New England. Where does the process end ? Does it ever end ? This suggests that Christian faith ( in a cultural sense ) is in serious trouble. If so, it needs to be re-thought. and re-invented. Given our ecumenical ( religiously pluralistic ) age, which seems to be a permanent condition now, HOW should this re-conceptualizing be accomplished ? Billy ------------------------------------ PS As for the Marines, since my experience with Marines is limited to knowing a number of Marines personally but no military service as a Marine, I cannot be completely sure. But at least I have seen films of parts of basic training and in them, during bayonet practice , the Marines say "kill , kill, kill, " as they stick their bayonets into large objects similar to punching bags meant to represent enemy soldiers. Its not just " fight, fight , fight, " but actually is "kill, kill, kill." This is simulated combat, and is intended to inculcate necessary battlefield values. In an actual battle the objective is not only to fight the enemy, but to kill him --so that he does not kill you. =========================================== In a message dated 4/9/2009 11:44:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Billy, On Apr 9, 2009, at 11:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: > The Marines, as I understand them, simply do not train with language > like > "love your enemies and always show them you care about their > immortal soul." Actually, I believe the motto is "semper fidelis" -- always faithful. So yes, they value "faith" more than "love", but hate still isn't in the equation. > Rather, the rubric is "kill, kill, kill." > In fact, the Marine Corps rubric is more like "Fight, Fight, Fight" than "kill, kill, kill" -- and it is an important distinction. http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/usmc_slogans.htm > In other words, if one fights, then is there any substitute for > fighting to win ? If fighting to win is a Good Value, then > consciousness > of some sort of love imperative while in the midst of combat can well > become self defeating. And disable defense of those you love. Again, I think we're working from a different definition of love. By "love" I don't mean emotional sentimentality, which I totally agree is often a pointless distraction. When I say "love" I mean 'agape', in the contractual sense, of seeking to do what is best. If my enemy is supporting something evil, the best I can do for him is neutralize his ability to work that evil, even if it means killing him. But I don't hate him, although I may hate what he stands for. And if I can stop his evil without killing him, so much the better. And once I capture or neutralize him, I would tend his wounds and seek to treat him with as much dignity as is possible. > That is, my interpretation of the "heart ". of Christian faith is > congruent > with Buddhist values. Love -compassion-- is still essential. > But objectivity is central.to everything else. >From my perspective, as in I John, "God is love", and thus it is impossible to be truly objective without loving rightly. That is actually my biggest criticism with your focus on hate: I think it is a epistemic vice, that keeps you from judging objectively. -- Ernie P. _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
