No, I'm not equivocating. "To approve" of something involves believing it is good, acceptable or satisfactory. If you don't then you don't "approve" of it. That is the meaning of that word. Your garbled meaning is in your head only. — Baden

Yes, in that sense of the word, no good person approves of it.

That's not approval. — Baden

What is it then? You're willing according to the same nature that gave birth to the other's actions. That counts as approval of that nature, what else can it count as?

And to say of a woman who is raped that she is of the same nature as her rapist because she doesn't forgive him is disgusting. — Baden

It may be disgusting if you don't separate forgiveness from approval. To forgive someone doesn't mean you approve of their actions. But it seems you do not understand the underlying logic of violence that perpetuates it, and hence the danger that Jesus's radical exhortation seeks to avoid:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — Matthew 5:38-48

Why does Jesus give those prescriptions? Because he wants to be a nice guy? No. Rather because those are the prescriptions that are required to STOP and put an end to the logic of violence, which is otherwise interminable because it feeds off itself.

Each person involved in violence becomes - paradoxically - identical with their enemy, in their desire to harm one another. And so violence continues. It is only by surrendering violence - even if it means that you will be killed for it - just like Jesus was - that it is possible to circumvent the logic of violence. As hard as it sounds, this is the only way. All other ways lead to more violence, because violence feeds off it - both combatants end up seeing themselves as victims and desiring revenge - as being justified in their violence. It is precisely the reactions of the other that make them justified in their escalations of violent behavior.

When you hate the rapist, you become one with him in the very fact that you hate - just like him. That's the double bind you find yourself in. To disapprove of the rapist and what he stands for, you think you need to condemn him violently. So in your very violent condemnation of him, are you not approving the logic of hatred and violence? Are you not like the Pharisees here:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins. You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell?

In your very attempt to disapprove of the rapist, you are approving of him by using the very same logic he has used - the logic of hatred and violence. Likewise, in their very rejection of their fathers, the Pharisees are approving of them. Just like their fathers did not recognise their own violence and expelled their own fathers saying they have nothing to do with their violence, so too the Pharisees go on perpetuating the same logic of violence while being unaware of it.

A raped woman or a victim of a similar crime is a person in torment. Their nature is chaotic not evil. — Baden

That is true, but just because they are suffering does not mean that they are not at risk of perpetrating and continuing evil. Many have felt that because of the injustices done to them, they are allowed to murder, pillage, torture, etc. That is wrong. An evil doesn't justify another evil.

So, there is only free-will? — TimeLine

Absolutely. How could there be anything else if God is Love?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. — TimeLine

It is of course not the one who loves who is fooled. Jesus Christ wasn't fooled when He was put on the Cross. He knew exactly what was happening. It was Satan who was fooled. That is why in Dante's Divine Comedy there is the image of Satan nailed to the Cross - because that is what happened. Through his innocence, love and non-violence, Jesus exposed Satan for the murderer and liar that he is. And a lie that has been exposed no longer works :)

Love is not fooled in its innocence and forgiveness. It is worldly wisdom which is fooled. That's also the Socratic irony that Plato tried to convey. It wasn't Socrates that was fooled for going to his death - it was those who sent him that were fooled.

So, you believe those men who don't forgive those who rape their wives approve of their wives being raped. OK. Can you take a look at the edited example? Does the woman also approve of being raped if she doesn't forgive? — Baden

Now you're equivocating on "approval". There are two kinds of approval. There is one type of approval that involves me willing the same specific action that you will. There's also another kind of approval that involves me willing according to the same nature that you will.

Now, with regards to the first kind of approval, neither my wife nor I would approve of the rape. Neither of us will want that she is raped. Obviously.

With regards to the second kind of approval, if we will not to forgive the other, if we will to punish him - that is willing in the same nature that he wills in. That would be to will under the logic of violence, which would make us approve of him by virtue of sharing in the same underlying logic that he shares in. By virtue of the very fact that we want to distance ourselves from him, we will only make ourselves approach closer to him. It is only the radical break offered by forgiveness that can tear away the logic of violence and create an abyss between us and him.

I've been developing this understanding only very lately, but it seems to be correct and to bring clarity to a lot of situations.

So, now you do believe in punishment? So, there is a hell? — TimeLine

I've told you that there is hell back a long time ago:

I'm saying hell and heaven are just reactions to Love. — Agustino

Punishment is self-inflicted. Vice and sin are their own punishments.

This magnanimity is a hallucination of reality because your forgiveness is irrelevant if she is not genuinely repentant, proven if she repeatedly makes the same mistake. — TimeLine

My forgiveness is very relevant because I have to set myself as opposed to her actions. By setting myself on an equal footing with her - as someone just like her - I do the opposite. Setting myself as opposed to her actions is the only way to encourage repentance in her.

The problem here is that you are arguing against authenticity and you need to prove why it is not relevant for a person to be honest when they apologise — TimeLine

It is relevant for me to be honest when I apologize, but not for the other. I will assume that they are honest because we should always try to think the best of our neighbors.

A man rapes your wife. You don't forgive him. Does that mean you approve of his actions? — Baden

Yes, it does, because from his point of view my hatred of him and unforgiveness justifies his behaviour, because just like him, I am a bad guy who wants to harm him. That hides himself from seeing his responsibility for what he did - instead, he will conceive of himself as someone who now has to defend against the evil I want to do to him.

And at what point do you forgive him? — Baden

Forgiveness has nothing to do with taking actions to protect my wife. I can forgive him and still take actions to dissipate the threat as you say.

Augustino is saying that if his wife cheats on him repeatedly, he needs to represent himself as a moral person by continuously forgiving. He is being paradoxical. — TimeLine

I may not want to be married with her anymore, but I would forgive her and be friends with her. Not to forgive her is to justify her actions and approve of them. It would be to tell her that she was right to cheat on me, because I am a bad guy, and I didn't deserve her anyway.

But to forgive her would show great magnanimity of soul, and expose her evil to herself. You do not realize that this is actually the biggest punishment that can be dealt. It's much worse than anything else I could do, for it is the only action that refuses to justify her behavior.

The problem with your approach is that violence breeds more violence. You will be seen as an aggressor, and hence the other person's aggression will be justified which will make them behave even worse. Your demand for honesty is a threat, and it will be met with fury and revulsion. That is why Jesus said in the Sermon on The Mount to forgive your aggressors and wrongdoers and to love your enemies.

If you don't give up your weapons for fear that the other will kill you, then the other will also not give up his weapons for fear that you will kill them, and like so conflict will escalate, and it will be only your mutual violence - paradoxically - that keeps the peace. That is the structure of human society from time immemorial. Jesus represents a break with this structure - He says - love your enemies and those who persecute you. Choose to be killed instead of to kill if you are forced to choose. Imitate Christ, just as He imitated the Father, who has been the victim from time immemorial.

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. — John 1:9-11

The history of the world is the continuous expulsion of the victim - of God.

Are you saying there is no hell? — TimeLine

I'm saying hell and heaven are just reactions to Love.

It also follows that you cannot reason with an ignorant egotist, like those people who pretend to be holier-than-thou when they clearly contradict themselves. — TimeLine

if you were a moral person you would prefer to help them see the meaning behind the apology itself — TimeLine

If you are a moral person all you have to do is be a mirror so that they can look at themselves as they are.

I remember when Pope John Paul II went to the prison where the man who had shot him was locked up. They sat down, talked, and John Paul forgave him. It was a simple act of kindness and commitment and I found it very moving. I remember the guy was shocked and moved. — T Clark

Of course. It's actually part of the hidden strategies of war in Chinese history as well. Forgiveness of the enemy. It's funny that the Chinese are more Machiavellian than Machiavelli by being rulers that you want to serve under, instead of rulers that are hated and feared - which pretty much is in direct contradiction with Machiavelli's weak advice. Which is precisely why in Western history we have few great strategic minds.

Of course nowadays it is simply assumed by most folks that mind is an attribute or quality of body, rather than vice versa, but in my view that is very much a cultural construct. My Indian Studies lecturer used to point out that Westerners say of someone who died, that he 'gave up the ghost' whereas Indians tend to say he 'gave up the body'. — Wayfarer

This is very interesting. In my experience we often tend to assume in the intellectual landscape that Westerners are the Cartesians, and Indians (Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) are the monists who espouse unity of body-mind. That's why in Chan Buddhism there is the namarupa - mind-body. Is this understanding a Westernized version of Asian culture you would say?

Westerners say "gave up the ghost" because we understand the soul to be the form of the body, meaning its animating principle. So the person (who is a substance formed of the unity of body and mind, form and matter) gave up the ghost - the form and animating principle of the body. Hence why the body is now dead.

It follows from the fact that a great soul can accept those smaller than themselves.

If someone acts afraid of you, you are not justified in being aggressive towards them on the basis of that fact. True or false? — Baden

In reality no. But what will actually happen is that you will start fearing that they might take some sort of action against you because they are afraid, which will paradoxically drive you to violence yourself.

Because baden is correct — TimeLine

I agree with him regarding reconciliation.

What you are saying is that you don't care about other people, you don't care about the well-being of the community as long as you are safe from being morally liable, which I find to be paradoxical.

How you forgive does actually say something about you. — TimeLine

Yes indeed. A person who requires excessive contrition in order to forgive - who demands authenticity - is a person who lacks the virtue of magnanimity of soul. Don't judge and you will not be judged.

And no, you don't justify someone else's behaviour by taking reasonable precautions against it. Don't pretend you actually act that way in real life. You wouldn't last five minutes. — Baden

Virtue and compassion are like two sharp swords Baden - they may seem weak if you haven't understood their logic.

We constantly judge our neighbours. — Baden

I think you are equivocating on this word. Yes, you do form opinions of people, however, the type of judgment that is in discussion here is not the passive, automatic one, but the active one that impacts your behavior towards them.

And no, you don't justify someone else's behaviour by taking reasonable precautions against it. — Baden

Yes you do. If we live together, and I lock myself in one room at night for fear that you will kill me, that would justify aggressive behavior from you and may actually even bring it about.

Now this isn't to say that in some situations we don't take the very pragmatic course of action when the risks are too high. But the logic is still the same.

Evidence is founded when mistakes are not repeated so indeed you can reconcile with such a person, but you cannot forgive. — TimeLine

Whether they accept your forgiveness or not is a different story, but you should always forgive.

Authenticity is certainly relevant and while your example is correct, likewise it is not about expecting them to lie but rather whether your actions of continually forgiving them despite the lack of honesty reduces apologies into nothing but a word with no meaning or substance. — TimeLine

Their lack of honesty is theirs, why is that relevant to you? Their apology has no meaning or substance. That says something about them, not about you. If you treat them as if that's the case though, you will justify their behavior and aggression towards you by the low esteem you hold of them.

The problem with that is clearly the authenticity behind 'I repent' that has always stood firm within me, where a repetition of behaviour clearly outlines that the person is unwilling to actually admit to his/her wrongdoing. — TimeLine

The authenticity is irrelevant. We are not to judge our neighbor. If they lie, that is their fault. But if you act and expect them to lie, that is your fault, for you have justified their behavior by your low esteem of them. They will say that you expected them to lie again anyway. Their behaviour would condemn itself if you weren't to condemn it.

The fight for the equality of women has paradoxically been hijacked into the fight for shaping women into what men want them to be from the 60s onwards. The permission of promiscuity amongst women is nothing but a trick that men have used to oppress women - only that oppression now goes under the proud name of liberation. What better form of slavery than when the slave willingly accepts the chains and even asks for them - fights for them?

The great disaster of modernity is that the destruction of legal/moral prohibitions and the unleashing of desire has led to desire becoming its own obstacle. Non-legal prohibition that arises out of rivalrous desire has the greatest potential to block access to the object of desire and traumatize the subject.

Time Line can not be altered — Bitter Crank

This @TimeLine? :D We already know that!

That isn't how you made it into the big time, is it? — Bitter Crank

Well, as much as it would be ego-pleasing to say that everything good in my life is due to my great genius, intelligence, discipline and hard work, that would be false. Yes, most of the worldly things I've had in my life are due to luck.

And this is coming from a person who has always tried to be hard-working and very disciplined. But the truth is, those attributes only allow me to maintain advantages most of the time, but not to gain them.

One thing I notice in many people is that they tend to value things they've worked for a lot, and the reason they cite for it is "I've worked a lot for it". Well, I'm about to go to the gym, and I've worked a lot for my physical condition for a quite a long time. And yet, when I look back upon all that work, all the many hours spent, it is like nothing. All those hours don't make me one single bit more attached to the result. If I could have had the result by snapping my fingers, I probably would have done that. Do I enjoy it more because "I've worked a lot for it?" - absolutely not. I enjoy it the same as if I were not to have worked for it. Because what is enjoyable is just having a healthy body that feels strong.

But I see some guys who go to the gym for example, and "feel proud" because of how much they worked... why does it matter? Does it matter that you worked 2000 hours or 2 hours? Results are relevant, not the time spent. People play all those stupid ego games, and deceive themselves about what are the real causes of success in life. The rich businessman says he is rich because of his great industriousness and intelligence - that's not true. He's rich because he happened to be stuck in the right social circumstances at the right time (and those circumstances push you to do what it takes anyway). The man with a great wife thinks he's married to such a woman because he's handsome, a great person, etc. etc. - truth is, he was just lucky.

As Heraclitus said, it does help to expect good fortune, but it is still fortune which does the trick. The rest is just an ego-game that we're trained to play, especially in modern societies. Discipline and hard-work only help after luck has already struck.

But one still has to cooperate with lady luck. — Bitter Crank

The difference between a disciplined (and all other good attributes) person winning the lottery and his opposite winning the lottery is that the former will maintain his winnings and grow them, while the other will return to his original condition in awhile. That's all there is to it. But luck is still the decisive factor even for the disciplined one.

Luck is incompatible with knowledge at an epistemic level and those poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs likely had pre-existing cognitive abilities that enabled them to adapt and learn with the incentive to improve their situation. It is not causally due to this phenomenon of luck, they knew that an opportunity presented itself and worked towards attaining it. — TimeLine

That's not necessarily the case. My point is that "the gods", or "luck" or "fortune" or however you want to call it plays a much bigger role in success than is often attributed to it. The Ancients were well-aware of this - if someone was rich in Ancient Rome, they attributed it to Fortune, not to themselves. And that was correct.

Man cannot do anything without the blessings of God.

You can be the smartest, strongest, best prepared, most disciplined and still lose if luck isn't on your side. But on the other hand, if luck is on your side you can be the most despicable, weak, cowardly, least prepared and undisciplined and still succeed.

Hey, the fact you don't know stuff is probably less damaging to my self-esteem than you might think. — apokrisis

You still didn't tell me if you like mashed potatoes... ;)

No? How so? It was groundbreaking within my own experience, regardless of the historical context of the concept. — Noble Dust

I mean the idea itself is very old, and Tillich doesn't even express it in the best way. Also the idea itself, without the necessary experiences, isn't of much help either.

By the way, I remember this being much like Tillich's book, but much better. Significantly better ;)

Yeah, like where? Can I find cheap audio gear and rent, and somehow find a way to make a living while having time to write/record music? :s — Noble Dust

Are you kidding? You're living in probably one of the most expensive cities in the whole world! You can find much cheaper rent anywhere else, especially in third world countries where prices and rents are much cheaper for everything. That is provided you can sustain a similarly high income, which wouldn't necessarily be impossible - for example I know that if you worked online you could do it. If you were a web developer, say, you could continue the work you used to do in NYC from anywhere around the world, and earn about the same while living at a cheaper cost. If you are a musician you could probably do it if you're already somewhat established online and get funding/sales through things like Patreon.

Actually, come to think of it, it was a useful concept. The idea of our conception of God being just a representation of the real God; the "God above God". That's how he phrases it; in other words, more accurately, it would be the "God above god". — Noble Dust

To a certain extent, but it's not that ground breaking :P

You mean are depressed, right? I still live here :P — Noble Dust

lol! See, that's why you should move to a chill, non-competitive place :P

The ground of being is the main gist; God is above God; beyond God. The ground of being. — Noble Dust

Ah, at least I remembered that... >:O

It's the definition of that place. — Noble Dust

LOL, that must be quite a depressing place to live then, no wonder you were depressed!

I guarantee you it's all in the title. A fucking misleading title, at that. >:O — Noble Dust

>:O I have literarily almost zero memory about what the contents of the book are anymore. I somehow remember Kierkegaard is mentioned and there's lots of talk about the ground of being?

Because reading books in the park can be profound — Noble Dust

I never tried that. I prefer to run in parks, or watch people :-O lol

And no, its NYC, no one approached me. — Noble Dust

Hmmm so is NYC the type of place where if you lie on the ground on the street nobody stops by to see what's happening with you?

A 45 year old man who dropped out of high school, is barely literate, has no sought after skills, is going to do poorly--no matter what. Doers of good deeds and county workers can help the guy, but they can not turn him into an affluent entrepreneur. — Bitter Crank

Though there have certainly been poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs >:O - it's to a large degree a matter of luck also.

At that period of my life, no, as far as I can remember. — Noble Dust

Yes, when I was depressed I didn't find much help in books either. However, things like prayer, sports, and having a few close friends were all helpful to a certain extent - and just getting adjusted to feeling the emotions. You know there is a point when you have emotions but you realize they can't hurt you and you don't have to react to them - that moment was quite revelatory for me. It is much like how you feel the need to give up when you're running and you keep feeling it but don't give up. It's a strange thing because to a certain extent you escape your biological programming - but it's like a muscle, it must be trained.

I remember reading Tillich's The Courage To Be — Noble Dust

I read that when depressed too >:O - but I don't remember much now. I think I liked it at first, and then didn't like it anymore lol.

But, I was crying in the park, in front of strangers, to give you a sense of the impact. >:O — Noble Dust

Haha! Why were you reading the books in the park and not at home? And did the strangers approach you and start talking to you? :P I assume if they saw you crying they must have!

I bought it on a whim in a state of severe depression, and then left it on the park bench where I began reading it after it's purchase. — Noble Dust

Did you find any books helpful in your depression?

Under the assumption "God doesn't want us to sacrifice scapegoats"
Why then does the human, the perfect creation of God, sacrifice the scapegoat? — Frank Barroso

Depends at what level of inquiry you are asking that. If you are asking at the level of metaphysics/religion, then it is because of the Fall - humans have rejected God's love and are thus left with Satan's violence.

If you are asking at an anthropological / evolutionary level it is because human beings are mimetic animals who imitate each other's desires. When this imitation moves to acquisitive behaviors, conflict ensues because both cannot possess the same object. As this mimesis spreads through the community there is a dissolution of the entire community in unanimous violence of all against all. This is resolved only when this unanimous violence of the community is arbitrarily projected unto a single victim, and the whole community unites in order to kill the scapegoat, which becomes both the guilty victim responsible for the mimetic crisis AND the solution to the crisis itself. That is why the sacred is born, because the victim is seen as responsible for the peace of the community that ensues after its immolation. Out of this founding murder are born both rituals (which are meant to be a partial reproduction of the mimetic crisis for the sake of its positive resolution) and prohibitions, which are meant to prevent the propagation of mimesis that leads to the crisis. Myth is the remembrance of the mimetic crisis that arises, and it is written from the perspective of the murderers - that's why the victim or the scapegoat always appears as guilty and deserving of death - and very frequently the request for the murder of the victim is attributed to the sacred, and thus responsibility is removed or hidden from humans - it is projected unto the gods.

That's a spectacularly bad description as it mushes all the different aspects of a dissipative structure ontology together. — apokrisis

Wow it does exactly what your whole philosophy does :D

But anyway, it should be remembered that teleology at the base cosmic level only needs to be considered a globalised tendency. At the biological level, we could talk about it being a function. Then at a psychological level, we could talk about it as a purpose. — apokrisis

Yep, and like so globalised tendency, function and purpose are all mushed together into a cute word salad that is taken to be philosophy and deep understanding :B

(Oh and I forgot, finality is added in there too... do you liked mashed potatoes?)

But peace almost always is a result of prior violence — Noble Dust

That is the way of this world (of Satan). René Girard describes this as the victimage mechanism which resolves the conflictual crisis that arises in the community due to mimetic rivalry, and would otherwise lead to mutual destruction, by the unanimous and collective murder of a victim. The transference of collective violence on the victim is responsible for the unity and peace of the community. Both ritual and prohibitions - and hence the sacred - emerge out of this murder, which is at the foundation of society. And all of mythology is the work of Satan - a lie that covers the founding mechanism as necessary for order. The sacrifice is seen as necessary for peace, and hence the victim is seen as guilty and responsible for the chaos of the community.

"For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings" Hosea 6:6

"Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and consent to the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and you build their tombs" Luke 11:47-48

"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" John 8:43-44

"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdererd between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation" Matthew 23:34-46

Jesus replaces this with forgiveness and shows that the victim is innocent, and sacrifice unnecessary. God does not require sacrifice - it is man that wants it (and through myth and religion transfers this desire to God in order to justify himself).

But does peace require suffering? — Noble Dust

No, that's an underhanded way to say that peace requires violence, for suffering implies violence. That which causes suffering is violent. So peace doesn't require suffering in an absolute sense. In some circumstances suffering may be unavoidable though.

The Christian revelation speaks against this mythological sacralization of violence.

Their earthly suffering is inconsequential when compared to the spiritual gain. God is far more concerned about bringing us closer to him and less about our earthly comfort, even to the extreme that a violent and painful death isn't that big of a deal. — MysticMonist

This theme is found in other world mythologies too. It is a justification for violence, and makes it seem like peace requires the use of violence.

He's been here too under many many names, and each time he gets banned >:O

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/439/mosesquine

The guy who insists on making a logical syllogism proving I am the most disgusting hot dog on the sidewalk in South Africa or something? — darthbarracuda

Yep. That's mosesquine. He's Korean.

I really don't need you pseudo-scientific gibberish. The heart of your ideology is pure Daoism. Deal with it. — Rich

You're not speaking with Apo lol...

I think in-so-far as antinatalism is a form of politics - trying to get others to change their behaviour - it is a hopeless affair. It's really so pointless, nobody should be bothered to argue or talk about it (except maybe as some irrelevant intellectual game/debate) even if they believe in it.

The "left" has a more 'collectivist' approach, and generally thinks that the government should keep the peace. The "right" has no time for such nonsense and is armed and dangerous. You're probably right. We can, perhaps, afford to lose 10% of the left. That's what decimated means - 1 in 10. deci.

Some people are alive today because they were armed and were able to defend themselves. Many more people are dead today because they were armed and were pierced by a bullet before they had time to shoot their assailant. Even more are dead who had wielded their guns and were shot by somebody else first, and a lot of people are dead, whether they had a gun or not, because somebody just up and shot them with or without a good reason, or was aiming at person X, missed, killing Y instead.

Shoot before you might be shot is part of the logic of guns. Shoot first and sort out the bodies later is part of the gun logic. Shoot, shot, shit. — Bitter Crank

This thread is very interesting, and it relates well to my reading of René Girard. The logic of violence outlined here seems to be everywhere in society. We tend to arrive at situations that seem to force us to choose between kill or be killed - situations that demand resolution through violence. Think even of the conflict between US and North Korea. Both sides are approaching faster and faster the understanding that it is a game of kill or be killed, which is exactly what will lead to conflict.

The so called "gun-logic" is nothing but the permanent logic of humanity from time immemorial. Our entire society is built on this logic, the logic of the lynch mob, of the unanimous violence of the many against the one which brings unity, paradoxically. In "gun-logic" we are united by our mutual hatred of the victim - our love is polarised against the suffering of the victim. In fact, we only love each other because we sacrifice the victim together.

Apokrisis has quite specifically advocated a Cosmic Goal manifesting as a Thermodynamics with Purpose. — Rich

The purpose of thermodynamics is artificial or emergent. It's like having a 12-sided dice with 11 faces having a value of 1 and only one side having a different value. According to thermodynamics, it is only this asymmetry in the structure of reality that creates the entropic imperative in the long run - meaning the entropic imperative is only statistical and results from there being a lot more entropifying possibilities (a lot more possibilities to score '1' given a throw in the dice analogy) in the pool of possible choices than the opposite. So if anything this "purpose" is enforced by the a priori structure of reality.

Let me say something very much in agreement with your philosophy. We've discussed this antinatalism so much that it's boring now. Given that your position is correct, we should definitely stop discussing this and move unto more interesting existential matters ;)