Chris Herrington, Contributing Writer
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/5792_10151367268652253_300430400_n.jpg
http://photos.mongabay.com/07/0213_w_shark_attacks.jpg
http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/sharksweb1.jpg?w=400&h=565
Now, anyone who has any sense of what I am doing knows full well that I am not about the business of talking about sharks in these graphics but rather about something very human: We are shocked that we have problems from those around us when we constantly and consistently encroach and push in on them with the idea that they never were really bothered before when we did that. There is a breaking point and to gear up to deal for the day when you push too hard is in fact the combined tactic of creating a problem where there was not one and the creation of a problem attack in order to be able to rationalize reaching for an objective that might otherwise be out of reach. If I can rationalize anything if you attack me, then all I have to do is to provoke you to attack me, and then I can literally do anything I want and feel perfectly within my right to do so.
I can already hear the wordslingers gearing up for a discussion on the difference between tactics and strategies.
“Strategy versus tactic
[edit]Military usage
Main article: Military tactics
In military usage, a military tactic is used by a military unit of no larger than a division to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific goal.
The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution. The United States Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms[1] defines the tactical level as
“ …The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives. ”
If, for example, the overall goal is to win a war against another country, one strategy might be to undermine the other nation’s ability to wage war by preemptively annihilating their military forces. The tactics involved might describe specific actions taken in specific locations, like surprise attacks on military facilities, missile attacks on offensive weapon stockpiles, and the specific techniques involved in accomplishing such objectives.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_(method)
The tactic is the method, the task at hand. This allows me to do anything as way of meeting an unnamed objective statement, something so ambiguous as national security. Or safety. Or personal well-being. Wealth security. Being rich. As we go along, the concept is ever-evolving. There is not point at which we are going to be eternally safe. This is the war without end. No matter how safe I am right this second, I can always get safer. And am not talking about gun control and never was. And I am not talking about politics or economics. Each one of these discussions about abortion, or war, or homosexuality, or relationships, or interdependence or global warming, or education, each one is metaphoric of the same idea, and a common thread runs through each one of them.
No amount of intellectualization is going to bring you peace of mind. Peace of mind does not actually exist.
The mind does not exist; it is a virtual expression of the emotions we feel as it displays itself to the world, including to ourselves.
Consciousness itself is a concept, a development of thinking that renders the world in a viewable holographic way so that we can intellectualize its existence. What I get is this or that word is misspelled or did you hear the one about…..? But the thrust of what I am saying and have been saying goes unheeded and unanswered….not in terms of there being a rebuttal or refutation but in terms of there being any specific response at all. I have attacked every metaphoric excuse and in the end the response is the same. Jokes, criticism, and radar jamming. And yet, when a crisis hits, people will all say the same thing. When I am hurting I don’t care if I am in any category of humanity: race, creed, color, gender, gender preference, persuasion, or religious affiliation. Pain makes all of that absolutely abstract. A man on fire does not care if he is white or black or male.
What I see humanity doing is forcing itself to hurt so badly that it can stop over-intellectualizing its differences and work as a species. The level of pain this requires is at the world war level. And so we are always gearing up for it. We work so very hard at not listening and making sure that we are at odds that we have mistaken the tactics for the strategies. If the method was to instruct in order to reach understanding, we have now lost track and are only focused on the method.
Once we have gotten others in line, what was the reasoning to do that? What greater good was in mind? We have now placed ourselves in a very odd spot. IF we can make a buck off it, if we stand to gain, then we are in fact in a conflict of interest to even comment. It is in this very arena we do most of our shouting. We have come to accuse others that they are not entitled, and we know because it is we ourselves who are in fact entitled. We will even say to others, Who died and made you God? And then we proceed to project our own version of being like the Most High.
I caution against seeing this as a moral treatise. I reject this as being a religious stance. I submit that what is on trial is the human heart, and the case is not whether it is at fault or to blame or has committed any crime. My claim is that there is, in the main, as a species, insufficient evidence to claim that the human heart exists.
As my father-in-law so aptly puts it, Even a blind hog can find a few acorns once in a while. There are a few people who manage to do some good and yet the vast amount of the resources go to very few, and the leak to help is nothing compared to the dam to stop it. I charge the human race with faking its commitment to peace and tranquility. You, as a species, have provided insufficient reason to believe that you have a heart. If there is a strategy involved, its objective is not peace. Its central theme is the creation of a meme whose true content is merely control and self-serving nihilism. If this strikes you as rather harsh, then rather than attack my analysis, provide some proof in your own life that this is not the truth. IF you have some strategy of peace, let’s see it at work in your own life. To do otherwise is to admit that the human heart is a mythical beast, a unicorn, a phantom of card makers. The person you need to convince is yourself. I only know what you have told me. And the story is not all that helpful in the case of Humans with a Heart Vs. the Truth of Violence.
runningturtle87
