Heidegger

Interesting.  As far as I know Einstein did not work or contribute directly to the production of any atomic bombs.  He did say once that he regretted the outcome of the results of his findings in science which contributed to the production of the atomic bomb, and I suspect that was after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

John

Incidentally so did Noble regret the invention of modern dynamite. 
As a result of the abundant profits which he reaped from his patent, he decided that he would donate abundant profits to the Noble Peace Prize.  He did this of course because he ‘invisioned’ the invention of dynamite for peaceful and humanitarian purposes.

John again

Also I don’t think anyone would consider Einstein a “dumb cluck”…he would have been a great plumber if he had chose to be one.  There really is not much difference between a great physicist and a great plumber….just the later don’t get much world wide recognition.

John Once more.

Phenomenally there is no significant difference. The universe is more immense than mensa….and there is no difference if the earth blew itself up because of Eienstein or if a plumber invented a P trap. 

It does not make any difference.  But it does make a difference to you and me if a plumber invented a P trap and Einstein became a physicist.

There simply is not enough fissionable material on the earth (unless it was used solely and at once for war) to make a tad of difference.

chao

John

> No! It was because he was a hypocrit

Well, if that were true, it would have been a lot easier for him to just
produce the hydrogen bomb, instead of letting Teller do that. I am inclined
to believe that he was genuinely scared and shocked by what he saw in the
films documenting the effects of the atom bomb.

Good heavens, you are counting Einstein and his colleagues as dumb clucks in the matter of outcome in the deployment of a nuclear device.

> Then “true warriors” are somehow deficient when in comes to conscience?

Not necessarily. But one’s conscience is different from another’s
conscience, since they have to actualize different Selves. A true warrior’s
conscience could be defined by a honorable victory, and depends on the
warrior himself to what extent is he prone to compromise honor in the
pursuit of victory.

> What kind of a little boy’s view do you have of what you generalize as
> a true warrior? Would this mean that Gen’l Eisenhower had no moral
> conscience?

Well, there’s a saying “Shit happens”. And when shit does happen, one needs
the warriors to intervene.
 
Why then was Gen’l Patton restrained when the shit that was happening of the USSR about to enslave Eastern Europe? Shit happens only when the so-called warrior is privy to its conclusion and the non-warriors, i.e., the politicians, who have another agenda, prefer to turn the other cheek. 
 
So, I guess that Eisenhower’s conscience was
tweaked for such kind of interventions. In the traditional view of the male
role, it was considered ok that a man is a warrior. So, the upbringing that
Eisenhower received produced his Self in a manner that one could honorably
lead armies and still be true to one’s Self.

Then you are concluding that the “traditional view”
is the decisive intrument to amplifying the Self? That would put the “they” as the defining factor to one’s self and by which the Self is not it’s self but the other.

But, my grandfather said that Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon were just a
murderous as Hitler. Soldiers’ main job is to kill people and when one draws
the balance, what does it matter that the victims were wrong or right,
friends or foes? The idea is that people get killed, and the whole idea of
killing them the proper way could be just a rationalization for killing. It
is a good thing that Hitler was defeated, but the price for it was huge
(millions of people killed by either side). It was like the human species
was in zugzwang, and that the only alternative to bloodshed was bloodshed.

In whose view was it that the “only alternative” to bloodshed was bloodshed? Indeed, an “only alternative” implies that an other alternative was neglected. Hitler was aware of this and thus felt free to move into the Sudetenland without interference. He backed off the invasion of Britain when it became clear that the other alternative would come into effect and then made the suicidal blunder of invading Russia.
Was it so “psychologically” unknown that the destiny of the “warrior” was suicide as was the case with berserker warriors as it was for  G.I. Joe in the field of combat or, today, the suicidal martyr?
sincerely;
Bernard

>     Therefore, authenticity is more complicated (and more painful)
> than Osho
>     implies.
>
> And quite incomplete by how you rationalize as much.

You are a bit cryptical in what you say, can you elaborate more on giving
such answers?

Greetings,

Tudor
 
Give me a hint about what I was cryptic about and I will oblige.
Bernard

Posted on Sunday, July 27th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback