Art of War

Oh yes, I am posting again.
Well, just started reading Sun Tzu and must say it's partially interesting in theory. I just pity those who contsantly apply this. LaVey leaves more room for fun and saved my butt in conflict. When people read this stuff to apply it in real life, they probably lack the attentive attitude needed for the text which makes 'em use it imperfectly, and forget they can well switch to another mode where they don't use it - in other words they'd get all fanatic.
No I don't wanna change roles with a manager who applies "Art of War" constantly. He might get a hell of a lot of success out of it but will loose the ability to enjoy it, and risks so much, possibly might end in jail.
Apply "Art of War" fully and loose coolness and fun forever! Can you ENJOY that meal after THAT day? There's a knowedege in you, you've put yourself in danger again!
I guess the knowledge from "Being And Nothingness" is forever superior over "The Art of War". Morons, be careful, you might be asking someone to put it to an end forever!
The idiocy is you leave someone else no other choice than escape or fight. How will you end up?
So much for attentive strategy.

(edit by Anton: sorry this needed to be a new thread, I've called it Art of War)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2009 02:10PM by Count Anton.

Since I made a summary of 'Art of War' in the War Magick section of Kaos Heiroglyphica, I suppose I should comment.

Before deciding to fight, one has presumably asked themselves first the question 'why?'

Probably to either gain or protect something you value or even need (either physical or abstract). Fair enough. But this raises other less obvious questions. Firstly, what do you stand to lose if you don't win? And perhaps more importantly, what do you stand to lose even if you do win? Are these potential losses of even greater value/need to you than the loss from not fighting? Can they be protected against?

If fun and coolness are more important to you than what you are fighting for, and it is likely you'd need to lose them to win, don't fight! If if they are less important (ie you are fighting for survival), or you can likely keep hold of them win or lose, fight!

The problem isn't the art of war, but people losing sight of the bigger picture in order to win a small victory. If they look at 'Art of War' from a broader perspective, they'll see it even covers this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2009 03:56PM by Count Anton.

I have read a bit further, now. I have got the edition with that psychological commentary by Gitta Peyn.
I am highly critical about the contents. The commentary rather shows a complicated battle for self-control full of antisocial tendencies, projection and self-alienation instead of sovereignity. The enemy wears a pink shirt, blue tie and black suit and constantly battles for self-control. You have seen him. That book is the junk that those read that ruin the life of many. But I am aware of the fact that the money spirit seems to prefer those people. Too bad that people are so dumb to obey such types. Every one of your psychosomatic symptoms is caused by them, who will alienate you from your true nature which is freedom in any case, people! You'll probably find a long history of attempts to protect himself, because he feels he is a likely sacrifice for those he has hurt. The fact that the herd makes such a cult out of these people causes the herd's own hell.
The outside world, reality as it is, is not perceived quite sharply by the enemy. His own disdain is suppression of facts - a lie to himself.
In my best mood I will be able to make the enemy fall to pieces easily. He has prepared himself for that.

Finished it! Good to have read it - but among other books. Some advice in it is wise and in the past I have even been applying some of it in some situations without having read it. Just like many people act like they didn't understand the Satanic Bible, like they got all hysterically confused when reading it, which made them get all kinds of things wrong, many people act like they wanna wage a war and have misunderstood many things in Art of War.
I feel a bit safer, equipped with more intellectual armour, and no compulsion to apply it, which morons directly get, when they would read it.
It's very fitting to quote John Lennon: "War is over - if you want to!"

I never read one of these reprints of 'Art of War', I just printed out a translation without commentary from the web and read that. I consider it like martial arts for the mind. Something to use in self defence. People who use it as a way of life are as much arse-holes as someone that learns a martial art do etc, just to go around mugging people. It is a debasement of the art, essentially missing out on its real purpose and message, and likely to ultimately be self-destructive.

Today I am philosophizing (is that an English word? Philosophieren is a German one - thinking philosophically) a lot.
What just came to mind fits this thread here. I am getting a vague concept of pacifist war. I can imagine fighting for an idea without causing harm, that's the imagination of it, the ability to do it is another thing.
Then there's that phenomenon, that there are types who praise the experience of war, believing it is good for personality, something which even found its way into European art in the era of Expressionism. I mean this will often go with suppression of the knowledge of the actual harm done in real wars.
Today there are ways of simulating war though, and simulations of the quality you can find around Picadilly Circus can definitely get close to generating the psycholgical experience of real warfare.
If humanity doesn't manage to abandon fighting altogether, one factor is of course a belief of some people, that war has a value in itself other than what is fought for. If we'd manage to purify that very value, in case it is found, of all the harm done in real fights, and best ways of sublimation of it would be designed and made accessible, it might take many potential harm-causers out of the game.
I don't want to justify non-physical aggressive behaviour this way either. I am convinced that this can cause serious harm by a psychosomatic way. That's not so biochemically dumb or so unempirical, if somebody will right away not believe it. If you know a cancer case, take a look at what happened in their life before the illness.
What do people want in a war? "Prove themselves" - a concept worth some contemplation, for it has got a deeper sense. If someone just proves to himself that he can cause harm, I think not much is done, to me he'd have to prove he can consciously decide to do something better than that.
The real wars are far more primitive than that, the leaders don't see another way than killing to achieve their goals, out of tradition, don't search for more intelligent ways to get it. Many examples of frustration-caused aggression directed at the wrong victim also take place.
Leaders who still want that are stone age men in suits, nothing more. Still very common types.
But if we could offer some persons ways of proving themselves other than going to war, fighting, causing harm, something would be achieved.