To Avoid Chemotherapy

dan: "Certain rogue barons out on the fringes have started to launch raids to test and stress our strength. How we distract the people from the basic glory that undoubtedly entails? These at least are the kind of people relative to their society that Nietzsche would have considered "healthy." They affirm the tribal pride--forcing their way by orthodox means into the position of traditional aristocrats--that we ultimately see as childish venality (because that is in fact what it is--this is the meaning of Nietzsche's word "developed"). So we first have to kill them, which is the only way to delegitimize them."

Earlier, I toyed with this theme on my blog:

"Nietzsche, in this case, was both correct and incorrect. He posited that 'good' and 'evil' were context-specific, that Master Morality, with virtues of strength, power, and conquering, could without contradiction claim certain things were good that Christian (Slave) Morality, with virtues of meekness, humility, and self-control, claimed were evil, and they could both be right within their particular contexts. Simply, what he was saying is that the terms 'good' and 'evil', since they could evolve, were actually meaningless, and needed to be discarded for a new paradigm of creativity and will to power.

However, is it the case that 'good' and 'evil' evolved, or is it simply that their application evolved? As the needs and evolutionary strategies of mankind changed, and as new systems emerged, cooperation and humility did indeed become the predominant survival techniques..."

"Good and Evil" is a universal language that all human societies understand, though sometimes the specific meanings are lost in translation between disparate groups. These terms prescribe behaviors that will be beneficial for the tribe or society, and they proscribe behaviors that will be deleterious to these units. It is the same everywhere.

Your comment made me think. If each culture's definitions of good and bad behavior are co-dependant, which they are, what are they co-dependant on? Specifically, what do these "values" act and interact with, how did they grow, and can they be changed?

They certainly act and interact within the culture itself, so one answer, if we are to help their culture 'evolve', is a change from within. This seems to be the most difficult for us, since as outsiders we will have difficulty assimilating our ideas into the flow of local logic, and, as you mentioned, the institutions for cultural interaction have atrophied in the Arab world. It is not impossible, it just takes the most time and learning, and we may not have much time. Iraq, in this respect, is our first effort at an internal shift.

But there are also outside forces that affect the internal survival values of "good and evil". These external forces can be thought of as the environment in which the tribal or cultural values strive and compete. If we look back in history, there are many examples of this, British Colonialism being but one, where the tribal preconceptions continuously bounced off the British values, which were backed by power, causing the tribal preconceptions to evolve over time.

So, we must become the environment in which these tribal preconceptions interact and compete. "Carriers" of an ideology that cannot assimilate, those who carry the doctrine of murder, will have to die. It will take years and years of power projection and resolve. I am not sure we will be able to do it...

As Churchill said:

"[H]ow the structures and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded into larger organisms, lack thoses elements of persistance and conviction which alone can give security to humble masses; how, even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued for ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead directly to the bull's-eye of disaster. We shall see how absolute is the need of a broad path of international action pursued by many states in common across the years, irrespective of the ebb and flow of national politics."

A new cancer treatment is being tested, where nanotech drug delivery systems carry a precise amount of silver particles to surround a tumor. Once the silver is in place, the patient simply lies down in a "tanning bed" that sends infrared waves through the body. The silver particles collect and reflect these waves off the self-contained mirror system until the tumor simply dissolves from the extreme heat in the 'kill zone.' The rest of the body doesn't even feel it.

The world of today is populated with tumors, and we need a precise delivery system designed specifically for each problem area. If we are unable to find it, the cancers will metastasize, and the only option left will be a large and imprecise dose of chemotherapy.

The extreme solution weakens the body, sometimes to the point of death, recovery is difficult and painful, and there aren't even any guarantees that the cancer is gone.

It is something we should strive to avoid.