Love means something much more than what most people think (material obsession, therapy of disorder).
I was always hesitant myself about how feminine Buddhists (especially Western Buddhists) could be. And while I already knew to suppose they mean something very expansive,
I still couldn't understand until I got older and had even more experiences and self-reflection. Talking with religious people of equal intellect and seriousness and sincerity has helped magnify the same in me.
There is no void of strength and power in love; there's no cowardice, there's no pacifism, there's not even a pause before war, where you kill whom you ultimately love. It's weird but not false.
We can hope that it doesn't be that way, but we can feel relief that we at least don't hate, and for not hating we still unite our true souls together.
This life wasn't for us to decide how it ends but we can decide whether we hate.
Hate is the great self-defeater, and I've been guilty of that at least as much as anyone. Your greatest self does not want that. There are so many worlds possible when you can see beyond it. That is exactly the Glory and gift of the Divine.
I will probably always be rough around the edges and not a choir boy, but I am on the side of the religious and of transcendence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I do support 'gun control' and have for a number of years now, in the same way the medieval kingdoms controlled weaponry: it belongs to the responsible, not to everyone.
That means people with a heritage that understands the responsibility (Hajnal peoples) and individuals that can prove themselves an exception, no one else!
That is how we finally end the gun control hot button issue without it leading to all the other bad we do not want.
I can write you guys a long essay on theory of history or just give the basic points of my response. I'm guessing most people prefer the latter:
(1) There is not a structural-conceptual dichotomy possible that saves nationalism as an originating worldview in need of no greater help.
(But beyond that, I do take Keith as a tactically serious person and support him wanting traditionalists to have fuller-bodied praxis.)
(2) Adam and I have already been working on this maturer reconciliation with Modernity, which respects all levels of language and institutions, identity and autonomy.
The world will head in a better direction, but it will inevitably involve war and death, as it always does.
Tucker was 100% right that the Ukraine issue effectively distracts from China, if it wasn't intentionally done to do exactly that.
Now we have to ask ourselves why Putin is comfortable being Xi's human shield—and how easy could it be to turn Putin against Xi by giving Putin what he wants?
The only serious anthropology and the only serious leadership are both religious.
I'm 'unaffiliated' and will likely continue into syncretism, but I have great respect for Orthodox Christianity (don't read too much into my silly trolling of what is probably more feminine Episcopalians) and Islam.
Contemporary philosophy can (and does) have technical innovation ('linguistic elaboration')—here's one nested example: anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap2701/2701kat…—but in the end everything new must reconcile with origins