Re: CHAT: pacifism

--- J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...> wrote:

> >..as the Roman Empire did _not_ fall in any
> earth-shaking,
> >world-shattering final conflict - indeed,
> there was no even less dramatic
> final conflict >- either the comparison doesn't
> hold good or we have nothing to
> be concerned >about.
>
>     Yepyep, I know that the Roman Empire fell
> over a long period of time.
You could argue that it never "fell" at all. The
RCC took on many of the empire's beurocratic
structures and functions; civil administration
passed from Roman imperial personnel to French,
Spanish, Italian and German personnel. In the
East, the Turks simply took over lock and stock
and as I recall their sultans even took on the
various Roman titles (imperator, caesar).

> >In one of his poems, T.S. Eliot wrote:
> >
> >"This is the way the world ends, not in a bang
> >but a whimper."
>
>     "manunkind"  CAUTION: Echoland   Wasteland
>     ;)
>
>     the days drag - on like dead dogs
>     having the past in front of us, we have
> hindsight
>     the future tends to creep up on us from
> behind, ambushing us...
>         kuz we can't see in back of us too
> well, hehe...
>     the dead occupy the futurological
> after-[this]-life: GibberGibber
> GIBBER-GiBBeR
Yeah. Things rarely happen with a "bang". The
"rise and fall" of empires is a long cycle of ups
and downs or a carefully balanced dance. The only
thing that really changes are the dancers and the
dancemasters.

Padraic.


=====
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.


--

Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>


Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>







.