Mogar Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Yes, I believe egoism was mentioned specifically in the OP. Good job being able to read and stuff. You get a gold star. I prefer just posting and reading after wards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Yes, I believe egoism was mentioned specifically in the OP. Good job being able to read and stuff. You get a gold star. Yes, but I was suggesting that the essay as a whole seems more geered towards the egoism of rulers than passion. Thus it might've been a better title. I'll take the gold star and leave now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted April 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Yes, but I was suggesting that the essay as a whole seems more geered towards the egoism of rulers than passion. Thus it might've been a better title.I'll take the gold star and leave now. Ah. It is best read with and immediately after "Peace is a lie" which I posted last week. It is just an expansion on the first full line of the Sith Code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 I read it, I got it, and it was well written. But there is a line that separates meaningful essays from the pointless things Vladimir often posts. I can see that line from here and I pray you never cross it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 So will this be an ongoing series of writings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 This is a philosophy that I can get behind. Only through struggle and conflict do we grow, and those who refuse to grow are as good as dead. My nation has been growing for the last 6 months and I wasn't involved in any wars, struggle or conflict so clearly this statement is not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 (edited) "Give me what I want and give it to me now! I AM the center of the universe." Oh, it is exhilariting isn't it? Top of the world, no-one can stop you, the crowd lifting you up. Until fate deals you a crooked hand and then you realise those behind you aren't supporters but eaters of the dead and when you need a hand you find only teeth. Edited April 19, 2009 by Hymenbreach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebony Wings Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 My nation has been growing for the last 6 months and I wasn't involved in any wars, struggle or conflict so clearly this statement is not true. When the next your country goes to war, and eventually all nations go to war, the only thing that can save you is the experience of those who know their way around a war better than you. Nations who spend no time in combat are just prey for those who do, unless a more experienced leader comes along, pities the simpering weaklings, and gives them the benefit of their experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycurgus Rex Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 (edited) So will this be an ongoing series of writings? Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me Thats the full code, so yes, this is an ongoing series of writings. Until fate deals you a crooked hand and then you realise those behind you aren't supporters but eaters of the dead and when you need a hand you find only teeth. Well the solution to that is simple, never trust in fate or rely on it either. Edited April 19, 2009 by Lycurgus Rex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ventus ex Gutter Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 ...and your chains are broken, Ivan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 When the next your country goes to war, and eventually all nations go to war, the only thing that can save you is the experience of those who know their way around a war better than you. Nations who spend no time in combat are just prey for those who do, unless a more experienced leader comes along, pities the simpering weaklings, and gives them the benefit of their experience. You've done nothing to address my point at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebony Wings Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 You've done nothing to address my point at all. Ah, but I have. It will come to you in due time. When your nation has been reduced to a smoldering crater - the inexorable fate of those who cling to peace - the message will become clear to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Ah, but I have. It will come to you in due time.When your nation has been reduced to a smoldering crater - the inexorable fate of those who cling to peace - the message will become clear to you. Believe me, the precise amount of sense of the message is already clear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 My nation has been growing for the last 6 months and I wasn't involved in any wars, struggle or conflict so clearly this statement is not true. Struggles and conflicts are not only waged in a physical notion. But also in a non-physical way, a physical conflict (War on your nation) will either see it grow larger or drastically reduced in stature. We did not mean a struggle in this sense, but a struggle in a non-physical sense...to elaborate we must constantly struggle to maintain the most efficient bureaucracy at all times as well as remaining at the forefront of technological aptitude and strategy. Our struggle and conflict is internal, to remain the strongest we must move forward otherwise we grow complacent. Through peace, we gain our complacency through war we gain our passion. And our passion propels us to constant struggle, our struggle makes us stronger. That is our war, our passion, our purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 snip Daemon, are you an innovator? Have you done anything worth mentioning in the annals of cybernations history? Or is your definition of struggle free growth that of the GPA's, a never ending quest to become a paper tiger? Don't kid me. Growth without passion and struggle is meaningless. "Give me what I want and give it to me now! I AM the center of the universe."Oh, it is exhilariting isn't it? Top of the world, no-one can stop you, the crowd lifting you up. Until fate deals you a crooked hand and then you realise those behind you aren't supporters but eaters of the dead and when you need a hand you find only teeth. You seem to mistake arrogance for passion, presumably associating stupidity and incompetence with a willingness to engage in conflict and struggle. While the arrogant and stupid exist, we feel perfectly happy erring to the competent side of the conflict equation. And is that not the great thing about conflict and struggle? The fools who partake in it lose and then are gone, leaving the world a smarter place overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I think this Ivan Moldavi guy might be on to something. Disagree with his radical idea concerning treaties though. You're dreaming, Ivan. As long as there are still politics on Planet Bob there will also be treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 You seem to mistake arrogance for passion, presumably associating stupidity and incompetence with a willingness to engage in conflict and struggle. While the arrogant and stupid exist, we feel perfectly happy erring to the competent side of the conflict equation. And is that not the great thing about conflict and struggle? The fools who partake in it lose and then are gone, leaving the world a smarter place overall. If war selected fairly, how could I argue? But in war heroes and villians win and heroes and villians lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemon Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Struggles and conflicts are not only waged in a physical notion. But also in a non-physical way, a physical conflict (War on your nation) will either see it grow larger or drastically reduced in stature. We did not mean a struggle in this sense, but a struggle in a non-physical sense...to elaborate we must constantly struggle to maintain the most efficient bureaucracy at all times as well as remaining at the forefront of technological aptitude and strategy. Our struggle and conflict is internal, to remain the strongest we must move forward otherwise we grow complacent. You start to make a half decent case for unwinding the 'war is king' argument. Then you go and drag the argument back to war again and ruin it with the following: Through peace, we gain our complacency through war we gain our passion. And our passion propels us to constant struggle, our struggle makes us stronger. Impling, again, that peace is to be avoided as some kind of disadvantage and that war is the key which is the physical struggle you tried to distance yourself from in the first paragraph. Whichever way it seems to be explained it always seems to come back to war is best and war makes us stronger and we should all be at war and shun peace. It confuses me therefore why the NSO aren't in more wars right off the bat because surely that will make you grow faster and become stronger, right? Or is something 'more important' than war keeping you from fighting with others? Perhaps it is because the subtext here is that 'WINNING a war' makes us stronger which also implies the consequences of the contrary result. OOC: Let's face it this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Did anyone really expect an alliance based on the Sith to love peace and fluffy bunnies? This doctrine doesn't need posts in OWF - we all know it. The tail has well and truly wagged the dog in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neboe Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 While I agree with the basic tenants of what you have written here Ivan. I wonder what do you advise when passions collide? You say "Acceptance of the truth allows your nation and alliance to set the most just course for growth and development." But when conflicting passions collide can there be more than one "most just course for growth and development?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 If war selected fairly, how could I argue? But in war heroes and villians win and heroes and villians lose. Natural selection works, usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I think this Ivan Moldavi guy might be on to something.Disagree with his radical idea concerning treaties though. You're dreaming, Ivan. As long as there are still politics on Planet Bob there will also be treaties. I have not stated there should no zero treaties in the Cyberverse. I simply believe they should be more selective and limited. The New Sith Order believes that PIATs and NAPs are pointless agreements. If you honor someone as your comrade then you should be willing to spill blood for them as well. I also believe anything "greater" than a MDP is just as ridiculous. No alliance should give up any part of their sovereignty on obligatory, optional but expected, or chaining aggressive treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 While I agree with the basic tenants of what you have written here Ivan. I wonder what do you advise when passions collide?You say "Acceptance of the truth allows your nation and alliance to set the most just course for growth and development." But when conflicting passions collide can there be more than one "most just course for growth and development?" You know me well enough to know how I will answer that. If you are on the right and just path then your passions will run parallel to my own. If our passions cross then you have erred in your interpretation of the Truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redoran Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 While I agree with the basic tenants of what you have written here Ivan. I wonder what do you advise when passions collide?You say "Acceptance of the truth allows your nation and alliance to set the most just course for growth and development." But when conflicting passions collide can there be more than one "most just course for growth and development?" It was answered by "the strong will survive". The strongest will, dominates. The person whose passion is greatest, will triumph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I have not stated there should no zero treaties in the Cyberverse. I simply believe they should be more selective and limited. The New Sith Order believes that PIATs and NAPs are pointless agreements. If you honor someone as your comrade then you should be willing to spill blood for them as well. I also believe anything "greater" than a MDP is just as ridiculous. No alliance should give up any part of their sovereignty on obligatory, optional but expected, or chaining aggressive treaties. I don't really follow your reasoning. It's ok to give up some sovereignty and pledge mandatory defense of a close friend and ally, but it's not ok to pledge assistance in taking out an enemy of that ally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I think this Ivan Moldavi guy might be on to something. It's almost like he's led alliances before... And yet another interesting philosophical ideology, Ivan. Hopefully you'll come up with something more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.