The Brits Get Their Turn as Targets

Non-public-blogging, JKn's private journaling continues.

Another headline re Iran:

Iran cleric warns EU, UN against backing Britain
Again, spontaneous emotions work to the advantage of the ruling machos. Ahmedinejad, meet Bush; Bush, Ahmedinejad. Sharks vs. the Jets. The embassy attack may even work to Ahmedinejad's advantage in distracting us from the ineffectual attempts to retard Iran's nuclear power & weapons programs.

Sanctions against Iran (the people) will not help, only solidify the Islamofascists' control. "Radio Free Iran" - is there such a thing? Rather I should say that, Of course there is - it's called Twitter!

It will be very interesting to see how the Islamic Resurgence plays out over the years, with Oil and Nukes at their disposal.

It's tempting, of course, to give in to the visceral reaction to these headlines - to the Crusading impulse. But that, also, only plays into Ahmedinejad & Co.'s hands.

Decency is not a natural state - and it has little place in revolutionary times. Yet it is the Human thing, the thing that (I feel) needs to be preserved.

Critical Platitude Expressed

The notion of determinism vs. free will, and the notion of self-acceptance vs. striving for virtue, are parallel notions. In the one, tho it seems that cause & effect operate in life to the exclusion of chance, such that absolutely all things seem to proceed from physical causes, still that causation remains overwhelmingly invisible to our eyes (lacking, as we do, the omniscience & sheer cognitive power often attributed to God). In this case, one still operates in & as a self by which choices are made & carried out. Even if whatever we do is by a kind of unseen compulsion, and not by truly free choice, still the appearance is of a kind of free choice, and it is what we operate with (the use of appearances). Even if some hard determinism underlies all life (God, chaos, the unnameable), free choice is the only way that we, as people, can manage our movements to or from, and so sort out our impulses.

To the extent that a man's hand is real, & setting aside death and violence, then to that extent he may use his hand as he chooses.

So also with self-acceptance. If you decide you are inadequate, or choose to believe so, that judgment will result either in self-castigation to no useful purpose or (at the other extreme) to spurring oneself on to improvement & accomplishment. If you simply ignore judgment (the notion of better or worse) and say to yourself,

"I'm my self and that's all; nothing will change who I am, so it's unreasonable that I should try to be that which by nature I am not,"

then you are abdicating self-guidance, abdicating the ruling faculty, even abdicating oikeioosis (self-interest), the fundamental rule of dynamic nature. It may be that you can never truly & fundamentally change who and how you are, but at least you can learn and improve and often - in many cases - excel in relation to your original self or others.

To refuse to accept your condition, your essential given - whether a world of causes you have no control over, or a self you cannot exchange for another - is in either case to condemn yourself to despair or self-hatred. To simply and passively accept conditions is, however, to abdicate what little freedom you can exercise and diminish yourself altogether. The untidy answer is to do both - accept the world or yourself as the starting point ("warts and all") and then proceed towards the Good therefrom.

QUICK NOTE

Reading various stray articles from googling "neurochemistry" with "self-discipline", it occurred to me that (so far as I've read here) self-discipline is seen here as REFRAINING from sexual excitement or pursuit. This is striking to me, for in my own case, the lack of self-discipline is most obvious in the lack of pursuit - whether of females or of money or of success. For me, the critical value of self-discipline would lie in TRYING - FOCUSING on mundane tasks, ACTIVATING self-arousal with regard to work, and STAYING at it. Again, Diversity in beings.