That's interesting; for me the default is singularity. differentiation comes second, sort of after the fact (of the one).
As for going against something and strength, there is a time and place for it; we wouldn't want everybody to be a rebel, because then society would be unmanageable. we wouldn't want everybody to be sheep either, because then who would lead? the way it is works out (mostly sheep, a few rebels and a few shepherds (sometimes they are the same, like Jesus)).
That's right. Appeasement doesn't work forever, because it acts as tacit consent (tho for some time it is part of the process (grace), and evil reaches a point where it must be fought and inevitably defeated.
"For their part, Russian officials including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have pointed to the arming of Syrian rebel forces by outside parties, primarily pro-opposition Arab countries [who are funded/armed by the US]"
who said the cold war ended?
wicked games man :P you and ctrl are still the baddest dudes here
still haven't found yer name dammit but I ain't out of ideas yet
I guess in a fundamental aspect "singularity" is a key default to nearly, if not, everything, but because everything has a definition behind it, maybe that's why I view it as a multiplicity by default instead. Bi-directionalism to me is only one way of looking at why paradoxes, as paradoxical as they seem, can come honest truths.
It's hard for me to picture everyone as a rebel because I think if everyone was a leader it could still inspire friendships. I have a rebellious nature XD yet I feel like I respect what I oppose anyway. But of course the point you're trying to make is obvious; the mix makes sense.
as for the links XD sorry but I don't even know what the Cold War is
It sounds like that one time an ice age happened in the north pole or something =o
Ahh, only if the price of oil went down to like $10... Would the world be a better place: Russia has no money to give helicopter to infant-killers, arabs have no money to blow people up...
0 1 is crazy :)
hmm, I dunno how to really conceptualise singularity except reflexively, because once we start defining, differentiating, etc. that requires separation; of subject and object (an object of our subjective understanding).
on the other hand, the original spark is still there. just like a large, old tree has at its center its youngest self (it just adds layers every year). according to the big bang it would be something like the original spark of light (being without reflection or self-reflection), and all our subsequent understanding has its genesis here.
then again, I was going to say it's the same with us (our parents conceive) and we are just a spark, but even then we are differentiated (both egg and sperm) and perhaps the universe is like that too - energy and gravity always.
so what's the transcendence? or singular precedence? the thing that unites the two people, or that the two represent in their unity? love, I guess; or life itself.
paradoxes are indeed part of life; we only want what we don't have (because desire is moot once we have it), "success is counted sweetest", etc.
I have/had a rebellious nature too; I think until one begins to self-realise, the ongoing energy needs an outlet, and this is often antagonistic; in retrospect I can see that I was struggling against myself as much as anything.
cold war was ussr/usa. some say it ended in '89 or whatever, but putin is/was kgb and i don't think he ever got the memo.
ice age, hmm, maybe it's the future; who knows. scientists say global warming, radiohead says ice age. maybe it's both?
sudden warming followed by rapid cooling (like lots of hot volcanoes lead to the sky blocked and gets super cold)