Dealing with opponents, the personally-neutral experience of response#1, prompted by a violation of one's identity with the same content-free means of using power#1 can at best temporarily provide space and time to improve one's own response-ability towards a sustainable solution. If it decreases the opponent's ability to do so, then the escalation is unavoidable from his side, even up to the point of a suicide attack...

This then logically means that response#1 can only be transcended by identifying "who" perceived "what", in which trap, in or order to negotiate with the "who" about the "what". This then presumes, that the "who", e.g. the relevant preceding identification of the perpetrator's identity can be opened up to prevent him from sinking deeper into situation where the opponent identifies with his/her reasons for acting and thus escalating the situation o save face.

Thus response#2 requires a mutually agreed upon, non-negotiable, personally-neutral understanding of a reoccurring, undesirable experience that occurs without it, and which is in fact more undesirable than any man-made or self-inflicted response#1 and vice versa, something valuable to be preserved or empowered with it and which cannot be achieved in any other way. This can only only inhibit lifefulfillment, as the most innate human value, by coercion up to murder, and cannot solve any problem or resolve any of one's own pain or bring one any closer to fulfilling one's own life, and using response 1 only makes it all worse for all concerned. If there were no God, and no sense of justice, one would need to invent both as a sustainer of that fact of life! If there were no devil, inventing a promise like the ones given to Islamist suicide terrorist, such as immediate entry to a heaven where 72 brides await the fighter who falls in a Holy War, would indeed virtually open the door to all evil!

Only when human dignity is mutually accepted as non-negotiable can one negotiate with the "who" about the "what" of his or her perceived entrapment in order to de-escalate the conflict. Thus the denial of such a spirit is a sin against the Holy Spirit, for which even according to the Bible (Mat 12:31) there is no forgiveness. And that is where cold, hot, holy and unholy wars begin to destroy the substance as that at one time or another seems the only way to deal with getting stuck with response#2, the negotiation of at least two subjects on common ground about the disturbing, or desired object.

In the flow of time response#2 results in deregulating the world, common reason, normality, law and order into post-normal individualistic hedonism and an "anything goes" mentality to loosen people up for a response#0.

The response#2 has to be understood as what precedes a more encompassing and only thus a sustainable solution. Pretending it is, or can be the solution for every problem as proposed by philosophy#2 fuels the problem it pretends to solve. It becomes the problem when it is forced upon people with rhetoric, mobbing and so-called legitimate coercion up to a just or a holy war. In short, response#2 is at best a primitive (not doing justice to the full complexity) approach in the right direction; at worst a

Pre-Trans-Trap Displacement Hoax with global aspirations and consequences (freedom/green house effect, c3-manipulation/C3-orientation etc.)

and at best a desirable New End!

[ Up ] [ Response#1 ] [ Response#2 ] [ Response#0 ] [ Response#3 ] [ c3/C3 View ]