Yes, of course I'm watching to see if humans escalate the direness of their situation, by continuing to attack themselves. In the Gnostic tradition, a lesser god makes a boo boo, and we're it.
More seriously, there's a chaos factor in play, wherein everyone tries to spin things their way, regardless of what might eventually emerge as the facts of the matter. Extended forensic analysis is supposedly underway, regarding the origins of these latest attacks on Aramco.
The oil wars have been going on a long time, back burner for some, life destroying for many others.
The only weapons that matter are psychological, and the best ones of all have a healing purpose.
So how are they weapons then, if their intent is to heal?
Anything that presents itself as an obstacle to the will or agenda of some agent or actor in an altercation, is likely to be considered a weapon and/or "weaponized" (as we say today), even if it's rhetorical in nature.
Put another way, if the agenda is outward war (hot), then those aiming to keep it inward (cold) might be considered weapons-wielding, even if their instruments are metaphysical (psychological).
Women healers were accused of witchcraft, for undermining the authority of those with "authorized" status (high priests, church-ordained). The old folkways would be stamped out, if at all possible.
Physical weapons matter in their physical plane, of blood and guts, bones and muscle. Human bodies may die in this space, but not so much ideologies. "You can't kill the devil with a gun or a sword" say the Quakers, paraphrasing their founder George Fox.
However that's not a level at which the most sense gets made. War that holds meaning -- if that's not an oxymoron -- has a psychological side.
Transmuting war from the meaningless physical to a more meaningful level, might be considered both a calling and a skill. Quaker alchemy?
More seriously, there's a chaos factor in play, wherein everyone tries to spin things their way, regardless of what might eventually emerge as the facts of the matter. Extended forensic analysis is supposedly underway, regarding the origins of these latest attacks on Aramco.
The oil wars have been going on a long time, back burner for some, life destroying for many others.
The only weapons that matter are psychological, and the best ones of all have a healing purpose.
So how are they weapons then, if their intent is to heal?
Anything that presents itself as an obstacle to the will or agenda of some agent or actor in an altercation, is likely to be considered a weapon and/or "weaponized" (as we say today), even if it's rhetorical in nature.
Put another way, if the agenda is outward war (hot), then those aiming to keep it inward (cold) might be considered weapons-wielding, even if their instruments are metaphysical (psychological).
Women healers were accused of witchcraft, for undermining the authority of those with "authorized" status (high priests, church-ordained). The old folkways would be stamped out, if at all possible.
Physical weapons matter in their physical plane, of blood and guts, bones and muscle. Human bodies may die in this space, but not so much ideologies. "You can't kill the devil with a gun or a sword" say the Quakers, paraphrasing their founder George Fox.
However that's not a level at which the most sense gets made. War that holds meaning -- if that's not an oxymoron -- has a psychological side.
Transmuting war from the meaningless physical to a more meaningful level, might be considered both a calling and a skill. Quaker alchemy?
