Murder Must Foul



After Kennedy was murdered, Johnson became President and sent thousands of soldiers to Vietnam. 
The war got worse, and US was there until the massacre in Son My changed the view of the war.

In an interview in New York Times, Dylan recently spoke about that he was thinking more of the extinction of humankind than of his own death.

Same with me.... 

Dylan seems to think that it all started with the murder in the 1963.

That I don't know. The Viking age here and for example the Celtic era i Britain was very bloody with sacrificing of humans for various reasons. 

It seems that Cristianity made it more peaceful, at least for a while. 

What now makes it more scary is AI-technology and climate change.

But as in the Viking-story of Ragnarök, some people will anyhow survive. 

Let us many of us as possible strive to make the Climate change less severe.  But let us also see the beauty in the small things. 

But let us also think of Mother Earth. 
Was is best for her? What is best for humankind in the long run?
Anyway, no one can predict the future...

Well, Dylan is scared for his own death too, as we all are. 

The Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh has his own way to deal with it; 
If we could take away the words life and death we may see more clear. 

We think with the help of concepts. But if we use the concept of "no intrinsic self" we can see it in another way .  My father died but I'm still alive and when my son was newborn i took him to my father's grave. 

It's easy to see my son as a continuation of my father. It seems that the urge to have children often is triggered of  the death of a parent. 

As we are interconnected with the sun, with water etc we are all connected. The sun that once shined of the skin  of my father, now shines on my son. 


So as long as the sun shines, we will, in a way, all still be here...









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more