Author Topic: When was Walter in Nam? (Read 3793 times)

A Stoned Buddha · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2012, 08:17:26 AM »

Between all extremes lies the middle path. The edges of the middle path are quite blurry and the path is not a straight line. More like ripples in waving rhythms. The trajectory of all beings are spread across this spectrum. But for any middle to exist, there must always be two sides. Each a part of the same whole. Yin and Yang. When we recognize that we are all acting our parts and embrace each other without perpetuating reactionary thinking, we are in accordance with the Dao. We go with the flow and taking 'er easy becomes natural. This is the center of Dudeism to me.

Yes, sometimes we enter the darkness. It's scary to have to take one on the chin. Innocent people suffer unimaginable horror. We get our rugs pissed without recompense. But grasping to the fading light behind us only puts us deeper into despair and anxiety, further pushing on the wheel of fear. Fairness is not a option dude.

So what do we do? I can't say for anybody else besides myself. I only see the universe pouring into my own eyes. But running around telling people "No, No, No listen to me!" "This is the real reality" sounds pointless and exhausting. To change the world for the better is a mistake. At the end of the day all we can really do is choose to make better ripples around ourselves. The universe will take of itself anyway. What's that? I'm a pacifist pussy who doesn't stand for any ideals? Well I am that I am. And so are you.

Hominid · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2012, 08:35:57 AM »

Good discussion. Neither of you are backing down, which is cool. But you're both right...

Quote

I don't believe that our attitudes about ourselves are arbitrary. Some things are innate. Like our expectations for genders.

The reason for their innateness is understandable because of the necessary biological superiority required to hunt and gather. You know, upper body strength... That need no longer exists; the "innateness" of something only serves as a justification if the reason for its existence is still relevant.

But further than that, the arguments each of us put forth on this topic of heroism and bravado have a lot to do with our own inner personalities and tendencies, which do become more refined as we get older, but in the end I truly think it's all various shades of grey. Depending on the situation where we're threatened. sometimes a 12-gauge is the only answer, and other times a lively debate over tea serves much better. There's no "right" way to resolve conflict; only that the less harm done to all parties, the better.

BikerDude · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2012, 10:07:43 AM »

Quote

Aristotle explores the connection of courage to friendship and loyalty to comrades. The man of good character, according to Aristotle, "does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honors and in general the goods that are objects competition, gaining for himself nobility."18. Aristotle sees in the soldier's courage an active risk taking for the sake of the good. Action and choice are distinguishing marks of good character.

BikerDude · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2012, 10:12:50 AM »

Quote from: Hominid on October 30, 2012, 08:35:57 AM

Good discussion. Neither of you are backing down, which is cool. But you're both right...

Quote
I don't believe that our attitudes about ourselves are arbitrary. Some things are innate. Like our expectations for genders.

The reason for their innateness is understandable because of the necessary biological superiority required to hunt and gather. You know, upper body strength... That need no longer exists; the "innateness" of something only serves as a justification if the reason for its existence is still relevant.

But further than that, the arguments each of us put forth on this topic of heroism and bravado have a lot to do with our own inner personalities and tendencies, which do become more refined as we get older, but in the end I truly think it's all various shades of grey. Depending on the situation where we're threatened. sometimes a 12-gauge is the only answer, and other times a lively debate over tea serves much better. There's no "right" way to resolve conflict; only that the less harm done to all parties, the better.

But without question SOME action is required.
A person doesn't need to be Arnold Swartzenpecker but he has to have some sign of backbone.
Sure if you find honor in it take the typical path.
Take it up with the authorities.
Better yet you and Walter roll out with the Uzi and Jackie and the rug pissers will never fuck with the wrong guy again.
But the Dude went into Jackies place after knowing that he had sent the rug pissers and had a grand old time slapping each other on the back. If I was alone in the room with him I'd have been looking for the heaviest object.
As someone said above, it's about balance and people come out different. But both extremes are undesireable.
My lunacy is closer the a big ass mountain of Walter.
Perhaps Walter and the Dude are precisely those extremes.

Rev. Marcus · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2012, 12:51:02 PM »

Quote from: BikerDude on October 30, 2012, 10:07:43 AM

Quote
Aristotle explores the connection of courage to friendship and loyalty to comrades. The man of good character, according to Aristotle, "does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honors and in general the goods that are objects competition, gaining for himself nobility."18. Aristotle sees in the soldier's courage an active risk taking for the sake of the good. Action and choice are distinguishing marks of good character.

So do people do these things because they have "good character?" Hardly! Every action can be traced to either wanting pleasure, avoiding pain, or enduring pain for a greater pleasure. Does one die for a friend because of a "virtue" or because of the pleasure it gives them to sacrifice themselves for the beloved friend? Do soldiers sacrifice themselves for a "virtue" or because they know they are protecting thier country? Only dishonest fools hide behind made-up virtues to make themselves a barrier against their true motives. There is no vice and virtue... no good or evil... only pleasure and pain... and these are the unconscious informants of our behavior... dude...

Hominid · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2012, 01:28:46 PM »

Quote from: Rev. Marcus on October 30, 2012, 12:51:02 PM

Quote from: BikerDude on October 30, 2012, 10:07:43 AM
Quote
Aristotle explores the connection of courage to friendship and loyalty to comrades. The man of good character, according to Aristotle, "does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honors and in general the goods that are objects competition, gaining for himself nobility."18. Aristotle sees in the soldier's courage an active risk taking for the sake of the good. Action and choice are distinguishing marks of good character.

So do people do these things because they have "good character?" Hardly! Every action can be traced to either wanting pleasure, avoiding pain, or enduring pain for a greater pleasure. Does one die for a friend because of a "virtue" or because of the pleasure it gives them to sacrifice themselves for the beloved friend? Do soldiers sacrifice themselves for a "virtue" or because they know they are protecting thier country? Only dishonest fools hide behind made-up virtues to make themselves a barrier against their true motives. There is no vice and virtue... no good or evil... only pleasure and pain... and these are the unconscious informants of our behavior... dude...

True, many of our motivations have their root in those biological prime directives: survival, avoidance of pain, reproduction. But if you study Maslow, you know that once we have shelter, food, clothing, sex... all the basics, we naturally evolve past living for our stomachs and crotches, and move on to higher reasons such as love, joy, peace, and even enlightenment. To reduce our existence to simply pleasure and pain is a very narrow and restrictive model of our modus operandi; it means that we can only ever be demanding, competitive, antagonistic, etc. I don't see it dude...

Rev. Marcus · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2012, 01:38:06 PM »

I didn't mean everything is reduced to pleasure and pain... just that pleasure and pain inform us about what is right and wrong and not the other way around. Pleasure and pain inform us on our path to love, joy, peace, and even enlightenment. Which came first? The feeling of love and peace as pleasure causing activities or some abstract reasoning on what love and peace are?

Hominid · « **Reply #22 on:** October 30, 2012, 03:20:53 PM »

Quote from: Rev. Marcus on October 30, 2012, 01:38:06 PM

I didn't mean everything is reduced to pleasure and pain... just that pleasure and pain inform us about what is right and wrong and not the other way around. Pleasure and pain inform us on our path to love, joy, peace, and even enlightenment. Which came first? The feeling of love and peace as pleasure causing activities or some abstract reasoning on what love and peace are?

I see what you're saying, and agree for the most part, but what comes to mind is the undying love a parent has for their offspring. That is one (...probably the best) example that doesn't jive with the idea that pleasure and pain are the initial motivators. A parent will indeed sacrifice themselves to save their baby. I didn't know what that kind of love felt like till I became a parent myself. One thing you don't do is fuck with anyone's kids... Totally selfless, sacrificial love rises to the top pretty quick!

Zen Dog · « **Reply #23 on:** October 30, 2012, 05:16:38 PM »

You know dudes,this whole story is a parable.What does the Yin Yang of you do when presented with unjustified aggression? Of course,the unjustified aggression needs a reason but this just serves to develop the story and allow the Yin Yang to explore all the perspectives.The Dude and Walter are the extremes of everyman.Most of us of course fall somewhere in between.The Dude is an appeaser,Walter shoots first and asks questions later.This parable has served me well and I have taken great comfort from it.

Rev. Marcus · « **Reply #24 on:** October 30, 2012, 06:01:11 PM »

Zen Dog, I'll drink to that man...

Stever · « **Reply #25 on:** November 01, 2012, 01:38:44 AM »

Thats some deep shit,dude...you are a wise man!

Zen Dog · « **Reply #26 on:** November 21, 2012, 03:22:01 PM »

Dudes, Youtube the Lawn Chair Drill Team.How to be a Walter and a Dude at the same time.Due to the fact I'm too lazy to learn,I can't do the technical link stuff.

Stever · « **Reply #27 on:** November 23, 2012, 08:25:52 AM »

I do agree that the dude made me wince when he folded like a house of cards when his property was invaded..I do believe in picking your battles,but that sort of aggression will not stand,even if you do have a marmot!
True,he did make plenty of smart-ass comments,but still..his head got jammed into a toilet,dude ,in his own place!
A bit too passive for my liking,but thats just my opinion,man..

Author Topic: When was Walter in Nam? (Read 3793 times)

Recent Posts

Most Viewed

Most Commented

Big Blather Box

New Shit

Store

Recently Posted

Calendar

Facebook Comments