Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:42:09 +0000 Subject: war: what is it good for (absolutely nothing) From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk> > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3128416929_206626_MIME_Part just a thought in these thoughtless times: if peace be good if peace is the absence of war and not just an armed peace if war presumes sides and the taking of sides {is war the very presence of sides?} then peace is the absence of sides and the non taking of sides {not-taking} not even taking no sides {no sides to be taken} but their very utter absence then the absence of sides is good {is peace} but what can this mean? how can this be thought? [I am looking for a Heideggerian response to (the) war] what do yo'all think? regards michaelPeace ps: is peace good? --MS_Mac_OE_3128416929_206626_MIME_Part
HTML VERSION:
if peace be good
if peace is the absence of war
and not just an armed peace
if war presumes sides
and the taking of sides
{is war the very presence of sides?}
then peace is the absence of sides
and the non taking of sides {not-taking}
not even taking no sides {no sides to be taken}
but their very utter absence
then the absence of sides is good {is peace}
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005