[FRIAM] Enlightened Self Interest: was Help for texas

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

I suspect your questions are rhetorical.  But since I never tire of hearing my own voice...

On 09/13/2017 11:20 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Is  the concern among pacifists about the practical consequences of violence or about the actual physical harm to another?   This article suggests to me it is about the practical consequences.

The section about Gandhi was good.  If I understand correctly, Gandhi was very into engaging with reality, living closely in touch with his surroundings.  He was embedded.  And I think his position on ideology and abstract learning followed that bent (i.e. somewhat against it).  If that's true, then his non-violence would largely be one of practical consequences.  But my guess is there are plenty of ideologues involved with both sides.  And anyone who places ideas/thoughts above physical presence will be at risk of the idealization of "physical harm".  (Since we all continually suffer physical harm as soon as we're conceived, it seems silly to be anti- physical harm. ... perhaps this is why so many people love the idea of downloading their brain into a (pain-free) computer?)

> For example, I am against the death penalty, but I am not against the permanent removal of some pathological individuals if it can be done without a public representation of vengeance.    If a child or a spouse is abused so badly that they kill their parent/spouse, I'd say we should move on (if it is discovered).   I claim this is not paradoxical.
I agree.  I'd go even further to claim that all organisms require damage.  Life is pain.  There are no highs without the lows.  Or the phrase my parents loved: This hurts me more than it hurts you.  Etc. with whatever favorite aphorism.  "Far from equilibrium" has more meanings than we often give it.

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ