Thank you for the lesson in history, which I've been lacking in virtue to learn before the prompting of this new article of yours.
The following comments may sound like corrections. ... and being corrected tends to be intensely unpleasant. So let me add that, in consolation, this is just me citing others and talking far from my areas of expertise, rather than posturing as some kind of an authority over you, the reader.
Point One (out of three):
Quoting: ... In my opinion, the current news cycle provides proofs, showing the concept ‘might makes right’ is operational....
Scientists, at least some eminent ones, say that in science there is nothing that ever provides "proofs."
For example, the physicist Carlo Rovelli writes: "The very expression “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing that is scientifically proven." Instead, there is only gathering of evidence that lends support to one thesis or another.
If scientists, which is to say people who study incomparably more than us in their fields, have that attitude toward proofs, what does it say for us who want to draw conclusions from the current news cycles that we follow in spare time?
Point Two:
Quoting: .....Pick your timing, don’t let others dictate it. Prior to usurping the throne, Prince Guang patiently served his uncle for about ten years (from 526 - 515 BC). Likewise, Wu Zixu spent seven years (from 522 - 515 BC) to help Prince Guang to usurp the throne and then another nine years (from 515 - 506 BC) to achieve his goal......
As sound as this lesson is, it actually understates the need for patience in politics. The German statesman Otto von Bismarck used to emphasize that politics, to be done any any decent way, can only be done multigenerationally. (Source: https://dominiccummings.substack.com/api/v1/file/733e1653-37bd-4059-9bb6-83c13dea7cc2.pdf) In other words, one has to give oneself without expecting to see the true or full results of the self-sacrifice in one's lifetime.
Compared to calling for people to have patience and bide their time(, it's a different league, a league above it.
On the light side: The cyclical nature of life suggests that the ever shorter attention spans will sooner or later be followed by a culture of patience, one that would be widespread and popular, leading to a new fruition....
Point Three:
In my rambling readings over the years, there was an encounter with this enigma:
Almost every authoritative translation of the Bible's Sermon of the Mount uses certain terms, that Biblical scholars, when pressed, generally agree are imprecise and misleading.
How can that be? It's a mystery to me. Here are the details:
/1/ The word used in the beatitude in Matthew 5:3, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Here, "poor" is translated from ptochos, which literally means "to crouch or cower as one helpless." It signifies the beggar, the pauper, one in abject poverty, totally dependent on others for help and destitute of even the necessities of life.
“To be poor in spirit is to acknowledge honestly and with understanding our spiritual poverty—indeed our spiritual bankruptcy—before God.”
/2/ If you read the original New Testament Greek you will see that Jesus never said that the meek shall inherit the earth. He said the gentle-hearted would inherit it. ….
1 and 2 are not my words, but quotations from people more learned than myself.
The implications are massive.
What are they, especially regarding the popularity of potential leaders: a topic for another time, perhaps.
All your three points are well-grounded. Point 1 and 3, in particular, touch the edge of epistemology, giving me an idea for a future article and encouraging me to write in more precise and concrete language. Point 2 is great, pointing out the fact that life consists of countless cycles. Politics is one of them. Thank you for your informative and constructive feedback.
Another excellent pick of subjects. I would like to echo point #2 stated by Dors above that good diplomatic policies take generations to achieve. I would like to add a little bit comments on top of that. I think in the old days the true strategic patience or any sound diplomatic policies required an authoritarian government, at least a government whose diplomatic policies are not subject to challenge by members of parliaments or any forms of civilian opinions. Such policies take time to shape, to take effect, and often make trade-off at the national level and hence may require uneven domestic treatments to domestic populations. If the policies need to last more than one generation, as in the case of Geman Empires, the rise of Qin kingdom to unifying China, or British effort to convince the French to switch from bitter foes into allies against Germany, then it takes either a good teaching from father to sons in a dynasty, or some national think-tanks or the equivalent, to carry the "torch". Or maybe both. But in a one-person-one-vote kind of democracy where the President and teh whole cabinet can change every four years, there will be no long-term vision. This means a deep-state HAS TO exist for a long term diplomatic strategy. Since diplomacy is only an extension of domestic politics (or vice versa, per your own judgment) the deep-state would have to dictate the domestic national strategy and policies as well. Just look at how post-WW2 successive USA governments flip flop in diplomatic approaches for example. Without a long-term vision, there surely is less chance for a long-term peace or prosperity.
Great point. In "a one-person-one-vote kind of" situation, foreign entities would also have more opportunities to meddle in domestic affairs, leading to "flip flop in diplomatic approaches." In general, I tend to think that critical situations, current condition in particular, would lead to more authoritarian government. It's a choice between safety and liberty... Authoritarian governing, traditional dynastic ruling in particular, is more permissive to "a good teaching from father to sons in a dynasty, or some national think-tanks or the equivalent, to carry the "torch."
Thank you for the lesson in history, which I've been lacking in virtue to learn before the prompting of this new article of yours.
The following comments may sound like corrections. ... and being corrected tends to be intensely unpleasant. So let me add that, in consolation, this is just me citing others and talking far from my areas of expertise, rather than posturing as some kind of an authority over you, the reader.
Point One (out of three):
Quoting: ... In my opinion, the current news cycle provides proofs, showing the concept ‘might makes right’ is operational....
Scientists, at least some eminent ones, say that in science there is nothing that ever provides "proofs."
For example, the physicist Carlo Rovelli writes: "The very expression “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing that is scientifically proven." Instead, there is only gathering of evidence that lends support to one thesis or another.
If scientists, which is to say people who study incomparably more than us in their fields, have that attitude toward proofs, what does it say for us who want to draw conclusions from the current news cycles that we follow in spare time?
Point Two:
Quoting: .....Pick your timing, don’t let others dictate it. Prior to usurping the throne, Prince Guang patiently served his uncle for about ten years (from 526 - 515 BC). Likewise, Wu Zixu spent seven years (from 522 - 515 BC) to help Prince Guang to usurp the throne and then another nine years (from 515 - 506 BC) to achieve his goal......
As sound as this lesson is, it actually understates the need for patience in politics. The German statesman Otto von Bismarck used to emphasize that politics, to be done any any decent way, can only be done multigenerationally. (Source: https://dominiccummings.substack.com/api/v1/file/733e1653-37bd-4059-9bb6-83c13dea7cc2.pdf) In other words, one has to give oneself without expecting to see the true or full results of the self-sacrifice in one's lifetime.
Compared to calling for people to have patience and bide their time(, it's a different league, a league above it.
On the light side: The cyclical nature of life suggests that the ever shorter attention spans will sooner or later be followed by a culture of patience, one that would be widespread and popular, leading to a new fruition....
Point Three:
In my rambling readings over the years, there was an encounter with this enigma:
Almost every authoritative translation of the Bible's Sermon of the Mount uses certain terms, that Biblical scholars, when pressed, generally agree are imprecise and misleading.
How can that be? It's a mystery to me. Here are the details:
/1/ The word used in the beatitude in Matthew 5:3, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Here, "poor" is translated from ptochos, which literally means "to crouch or cower as one helpless." It signifies the beggar, the pauper, one in abject poverty, totally dependent on others for help and destitute of even the necessities of life.
“To be poor in spirit is to acknowledge honestly and with understanding our spiritual poverty—indeed our spiritual bankruptcy—before God.”
/2/ If you read the original New Testament Greek you will see that Jesus never said that the meek shall inherit the earth. He said the gentle-hearted would inherit it. ….
1 and 2 are not my words, but quotations from people more learned than myself.
The implications are massive.
What are they, especially regarding the popularity of potential leaders: a topic for another time, perhaps.
All your three points are well-grounded. Point 1 and 3, in particular, touch the edge of epistemology, giving me an idea for a future article and encouraging me to write in more precise and concrete language. Point 2 is great, pointing out the fact that life consists of countless cycles. Politics is one of them. Thank you for your informative and constructive feedback.
Another excellent pick of subjects. I would like to echo point #2 stated by Dors above that good diplomatic policies take generations to achieve. I would like to add a little bit comments on top of that. I think in the old days the true strategic patience or any sound diplomatic policies required an authoritarian government, at least a government whose diplomatic policies are not subject to challenge by members of parliaments or any forms of civilian opinions. Such policies take time to shape, to take effect, and often make trade-off at the national level and hence may require uneven domestic treatments to domestic populations. If the policies need to last more than one generation, as in the case of Geman Empires, the rise of Qin kingdom to unifying China, or British effort to convince the French to switch from bitter foes into allies against Germany, then it takes either a good teaching from father to sons in a dynasty, or some national think-tanks or the equivalent, to carry the "torch". Or maybe both. But in a one-person-one-vote kind of democracy where the President and teh whole cabinet can change every four years, there will be no long-term vision. This means a deep-state HAS TO exist for a long term diplomatic strategy. Since diplomacy is only an extension of domestic politics (or vice versa, per your own judgment) the deep-state would have to dictate the domestic national strategy and policies as well. Just look at how post-WW2 successive USA governments flip flop in diplomatic approaches for example. Without a long-term vision, there surely is less chance for a long-term peace or prosperity.
Great point. In "a one-person-one-vote kind of" situation, foreign entities would also have more opportunities to meddle in domestic affairs, leading to "flip flop in diplomatic approaches." In general, I tend to think that critical situations, current condition in particular, would lead to more authoritarian government. It's a choice between safety and liberty... Authoritarian governing, traditional dynastic ruling in particular, is more permissive to "a good teaching from father to sons in a dynasty, or some national think-tanks or the equivalent, to carry the "torch."