Achieving in the World of a Warrior

When it comes to self-empowerment, many different techniques exist. You can literally find thousands of books (did you know 166 new books get released every single day!), tapes and other associated materials out in the marketplace. Most of it works temporarily. Once you put a book down, turn off the tape or are no longer in viewing range of the inspirational piece - the motivational boost it gave you seems to dissipate into thin air. And you know what else I find? (and cannot stand?). Most of these individuals doing the whole self-empowerment circuit exude the energy of a dry prune. I mean, you got passive, timid people telling you how to "aggressively" take your life back, you got fat people telling you how to "melt pounds" and "get fit", you got old-time, snake-oil salesmen pushing "financial dynasty" programs up and down your remote control. Truth is very few people practice what they preach. There are a lot of hypocrites foisting products and programs that don't belong anywhere near you, especially your pocketbook... Be cautious!

WARRIORS Practice What They Preach!!!

One sure-fire way to miss the mark when pursuing any goal is to listen to someone who doesn't know what the heck they are talking about. Following the advice of someone who has never accomplished whatever it is you're seeking to do is a waste of time. I mean, you don't go to a guy who builds hot-air balloons to learn how to work on the engine of your car. Simple example and maybe nonsensical, but the majority of people do the same thing when searching for worthy advice on how to take their life back.

Although tons of information exist throughout this site on the powers of self-empowerment, I want to remind you how important it is to follow the guidance of your own intuition and more importantly, reason, when striking out on any journey to better yourself. I practice what I preach. Do I ever fall short of reaching my goals? Do I ever become frustrated by not fulfilling what I set out to do? Of course I do. But I'm always reaching, always adjusting, therefore, always taking steps, sometimes big, sometimes small, towards my ultimate objectives. As we say here at Ultimate Creations, Inc. -

Back to Top

Social Philosophies

This claims that any arbitrary assertion deserves consideration, that one must prove a negative; that "there are no dogs on Mars, prove it" is a valid consideration. Agnosticism enshrines the arbitrary. (See also Skepticism.)

This claims the justification for your life is to serve others. Self-sacrifice and betraying all your values (except altruism) are primary demands. The standard of morality in altruism is the degree of selflessness for an action. The only justification for your own existence is to continue sacrificing and renouncing your own values for others. Individuality is crushed, and blatant crimes in the name of "selflessness" destroy man's spirit in an altruist society. It certainly does not mean a general good-will towards others, nor does it mean being charitable to worthy causes. Altruism is self-abnegation. (See also Collectivism, Utilitarianism.)

This claims that any form of authority is necessarily evil- even an objective police force. Anarchism leads to gang warfare as soon as someone decides to violate the rights of others. Anarchism denies the validity of an authority that defends individual rights. (See also Anarcho-Capitalism, Nihilism.)

This is a libertarian offshoot that claims an utopia consists of anarchy with capitalism. Without an authority to enforce the contracts of capitalism, however, anarcho-capitalism becomes gang warfare. (See also Anarchism.)

This is the general belief in spiritual beings. This attacks reason by asserting truth to an arbitrary (and "unprovable") claim. Animism is often used to mean a religion that asserts "spirits" that exist in natural objects. (See also Mysticism.)

This is a school of psychology which explicitly denies the existence of free will and consciousness. B.F. Skinner advanced this notion, and besides being anti-mind, it has been refuted empirically and logically many times. (See also Empiricism, Fatalism.)

This is a philosophy which asserts that an individual's life should be controlled by the collective-- by the state. Collectivism states that an individual's life and work belong to the collective, and his/her only justification for existence is his/her sacrifices to the group. This is the political form of altruism and subjectivism. (See also Altruism, Subjectivism, Utilitarianism.)

This ethical notion claims that an action should be judged on the consequences which it produces. Consequentialism includes no concept of values, rights, or virtue. If murdering one person saves one hundred from a natural disaster, consequentialism would sacrifice the individual-- there are no rights, allegedly. Also, there is no standard for good or evil in consequentialism.

The Kantian theory of duty, this asserts moral obligations. The concept of duty undermines the concept of rational judgement.

This is the same as Fatalism. (See also Behaviorism, Fatalism, Sensationalism.)

Dualism (Mind-Body)
This philosophical idea, advanced by Descartes, asserted that the mind was a separate entity from the body, that the mind was embodied in a soul, and Descartes even went so far as to claim that the pineal gland was where the mind met the body. (See also Idealism, Rationalism.)

This is a political philosophy that asserts that all men should be made equal. Egalitarianism is a leveller- because all men are considered equally "valuable" (without referring to a valuer); all men who overachieve are penalized. All men who underachieve are rewarded. (The story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut is an excellent description of egalitarianism in action.

Pure egoism defines an individual's happiness as the good, however- this does not include a rational comprehension of individual rights. Egoism without a rational foundation leads to hedonism. The concept of value in pure egoism is undeveloped. (See also Hedonism, Humanism, Secular Humanism.)

This holds that knowledge comes only from sense experience, that there are no concepts. Empiricists hope for a "scientific" justification, but explicitly refuse any idea that man can form concepts of the world. This is the exact opposite of rationalism, and in fact, was a response to dissatisfaction of rationalism. (See also Behaviorism, Rationalism, Sensationalism.)

This is a hedonistic philosophy (from the 4th century BC), which asserts that one should live contented and peacefully, but with high frugality. It has little to no acknowledgement of reason (See also Empiricism, Hedonism, Sensationalism.)

This is a strange philosophical theory that concepts (essences) are actual perceptible things, contained in any object. A table would have table essences, a chair 'chair' essences, which are somehow perceived; and this is how essentialism claims a man recognizes existents. (See also Materialism, Monism, Nominalism, Realism.)
Ethical Relativism
This holds that all ethical systems are equally valid, from all cultures. Moral judgement is completely destroyed by this idea. Because no ethic is wrong, and all ethics are equally valid, then any act is ethical if you make up a new ethics that accepts that act. This notion has zero-information content; it says absolutely nothing. If anything, ethical relativism is an evasion of moral judgement. (See also Agnosticism, Skepticism.)

This is a real nasty philosophy that asserts man has free will, but exists in an unknowable, malevolent universe with no knowledge of what is right or wrong. The catch is that the individual is responsible (morally accountable) for all his actions, but has no way of knowing what actions are correct. The effects on a person are devastating. (See also Skepticism.)

Also known as determinism, this holds that man has no free will, and every action and "thought" is mechanistically fated. Fatalism destroys the concept of truth/falsehood, because with no reason, only determinism, there is no possibility of knowing truth. Mental processes are not self-guided or based on reason in fatalism. Fatalists come in two flavors, crazy physicists, and crazy religionists. The former enshrine Newton 's laws, and the latter enshrine the "hand of god." (See also Behaviorism, Sensationalism.)

General Semantics
This claims that "habits" of thought are lagged behind the language of science and logic. (What the heck does that mean?) One assertion is that the law of Identity is no longer true: A is not A. This masquerades as an attempt to "clean up" language.

This claims that the ultimate good is one's pleasure. This is a range-of-the-moment style of thinking. Hedonism does not include any ideas of happiness (only pleasure), and a hedonist's value-system will be based on irrational values necessarily. Reason is not a part of hedonism. (See also Egoism.)

This is a rather interesting philosophy which is focused on man and values. It asserts that men have free will and are superior to nature. It's ethical code is ambiguous, though. It is somewhat similar to christian ethic, but departs in several ways. This philosophy is a Renaissance development, and so has many good qualities. (See also Egoism, Secular Humanism.)

This claims that ideas have material substance, or that only ideas exist and that experience is not a part of "true existence." Platonic idealism is the most extreme, claiming that concepts exist in another "plane" or "dimension". This is a primitive attempt to explain reason and concepts by ascribing human concepts to a metaphysical existence. This is a direct attack on reason and human thought. (See also Dualism, Rationalism, Realism.)

This holds that what is "good" may be inherent within some things or actions, without any context or concept of value. This destroys the concept of good-- "good to whom? why? how?" are all unanswered questions to the intrincisist. This is a very mystical view of ethics. (See also Mysticism.)

This is the exact opposite of Objectivism. It's epistemology is faith-eaten and mystic-appeasing. It's metaphysics is subjective, it's ethics are altruistic and it's politics are collectivistic. Kant created the exact opposite of what constitutes a philosophy based on reason. His "argument" consists of equivocations, elaborate straw-men (the entire Critique of Pure Reason for example), etc. He was quite an evil person.

Logical Positivism
This is a form of empiricism. This asserts that a statement (outside of mathematics or symbolic logic) is only true if it could be empirically verified. As a reaction against idealism, it also asserts that metaphysics, ethics, concepts, anything intangible or a product of mental processes-- these all do not exist according to logical positivism. So, instead of enshrining the mind, they denounce the mind, and enshrine the dirt and grease of the material world. (See also Idealism, Materialism, Nominalism.)

This claims the only things which exist are made only of matter, that thought and energy do not exist. The materialist claims that all things are the results of processes of matter. This broad view that a soul does not exist has been used to justify several philosophies. (See also Behaviorism, Empiricism.)

This is a broad category of philosophy (within metaphysics) which asserts that all things are made up entirely of one kind of thing. For materialists, all is matter, and thought is nonexistent. For idealists, thought is everything, but matter is an illusion. Both are monists. Monism rejects the claims of dualism that reality has a mental half, and a material half. Clearly monism could be either objective, or subjective- and this is where many philosophies lie: in a compromise. (See also Dualism, Idealism, Logical Positivism, Materialism, Nominalism, Positivism.)

This holds that one can acquire knowledge without using reason or the senses. The mystic has no evidence to support his claims, and no reason to assert them. The mystic has truely relinquished reason. To explain how so many mystics flock to one religion or another, consider that they first had to give up their reason to authority first. Their willful attempts to not-think do not produce the king james bible, rather, the king james bible produces converts who proudly claim their non-thinking is a virtue. Mysticism is the complete destruction of a valid epistemology. (See also Animism, Subjectivism.)

This is the philosophy that claims man is a helpless, worthless creature in nature. This is primarily an aesthetic movement of the arts. Man shows no heroic, admirable virtues in naturalism. Naturalism paints man as another animal, without a mind, without values, without reason or achievements. Naturalism is best symbolized by looking at man as a tiny speck in a great, huge universe. (See also Existentialism.)

This is the absolute extreme of anarchism and is similar to existentialism. Nihilism claims that a human value system does not exist, that no authority should exist, and openly advocates the destruction of social and economic institutions. It is another leveller- but of the products of the results of society and industry. It would reduce men to the state of animals. (See also Anarchism.)

This holds that there are no such things as concepts- that any word which people use as a concept are not actual concepts. Nominalism holds that the mind can have no thoughts and the words which he uses to designate concepts, are names of arbitrary groupings of things based on vague resemblences. This is a direct attack on reason and man's conceptual faculty. (See also Logical Positivism, Subjectivism.)

In essence, a concept where man is a heroic being, and his life is an end in itself, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

This asserts a moral absolute (without any context) that it is wrong to use force. Instead of recognizing the need for self-defense, the pacifist equates all force with evil, equivocating. A pacifist society would perish absolutely when the first gang came along. (See also Anarchism.)

This asserts that only knowledge derived from empirical experience alone, or the rationalist's logical/mathematical claims can be considered valid. This is an attempt to unite empiricism and rationalism. It denies religious or mystic methods of acquiring knowledge, fortunately. By trying to unite empiricism with rationalism, it actually accepts knowledge divorced from the evidence of reality (rationalism), and accepts knowledge divorced from reason or logic (empiricism). (See also Empricism, Logical Positivism, Rationalism.)

This holds that "what works" is the standard of truth. They reverse the principle that what is good in theory is good in practice, and they claim that what is good in practice is true in theory. Pragmatism denies the validity of principles and concepts. It conflicts with logic, certainty, and the human conceptual awareness. Unfortunately, bastard versions are extremely popular in America today. (See also Empricism, Materialism.)

This holds that reality is only knowable through logic and reasoning detached from empirical evidence. They discard the necessity of reality and the evidence of their senses to try and use logic (which is derived from reality) to acquire knowledge about reality! They do not see that a logic disconnected from existents is not reason, it is mental acrobatics.

This claims that concepts exist in reality as real entities, outside of one's mental processes. Realism has a strange epistemology- subjective; yet it has an objective metaphysics: realism claims that objects exist independently of one's perceptions. (See also Idealism.)

Secular Humanism
This philosophy argues that man was not created by a God, and that every man has individuality and moral responsibility. Each person must find their own values, and everyone is responsible for distinguishing between good and evil, and right and wrong. Being secular, it is either agnostic or atheist. This is a product of Aristotelian thought, brought back by the Renaissance. (See also Egoism, Humanism.)

This philosophy asserts that man's mind is a passive tabula rasa, and that all his knowledge consists of sensations. This denies the validity of reason quite explicitly, and reduces man to something less than an animal, which at least has percepts. (See also Behaviorism, Materialism, Nominalism.)

Situation Ethics
This subjective theory of ethics holds that an action is good or bad based on the situation (the context), and on the intentions of the person who commits the act. It is a clear-cut denial of objective morality. Good intentions can justify an immoral action. It is no surprise this was developed by an episcopelian theologian.

This belief claims that "true" knowledge is impossible to man. Either because man has limited senses, or because his life is finite, or other mumbo-jumbo. Essentially, the skeptic is an enemy of certainty, and here is his fatal contradiction: he is not skeptical of his skepticism. So it would seem that skepticism is exempt from skepticism? Contradictions don't exist, once again. (See also Agnosticism.)

Social Darwinism
This arena of thought held that society operated on the rule "survival of the fittest." This was used to explain economic differences between the rich and the poor. Some people use it more recently to attack capitalism, that a producer is necessarily exploitative. That person holds social darwinism implicitly (or explicitly) as a premise. While there is competition in society, it is not a life-death kind of competition that exists in the animal kingdom, so the analogy falls apart. Darwin never said 'survival of the fittest' also.

This is the belief that reality exists only for one's self, that the self is the only existent, and primacy of consciousness reigns. A solipsist tries to escape the responsibility of thinking about other people by postulating that no other people exist, and if he perceives them, it must be a figment of his imagination, because surely everything he perceives is just "his imagination." Solipsism advocates primacy of consciousness, subjectivism, and has no ethical system. (See also Subjectivism.)

This claims man should use reason, live in harmony with nature (ambiguous), and also has a duty-based morality. A stoic acts virtuously out of duty, not out of reason (a contradiction). What is interesting is that stoicism asserts man should be indifferent to both pain and pleasure. It rightly downplays the metaphysical importance of suffering, but it also throws away the metaphysical importance of joy and happiness. (See also Epicureanism.)

This is the cornerstone of irrationality. Epistemologically, subjectivism denies the law of identity and turns all truth into "opinions". Metaphysically, subjectivism leads to solipsism, and denies the world even exists. Ethically, subjectivism denies all moral judgements. Subjectivism is often thought of as an "original" idea, like "what if life is just a dream?" or "what if we make reality with our own thoughts?" or "suppose no one is right, and no one is wrong?" In each of these, some aspect of reality is evaded and distorted. Subjectivism is the heart of irrationality. (See also Altruism, Collectivism, Ethical Relativism, Idealism, Kantianism, Mysticism, Nihilism, Solipsism, Transcendentalism, Zen.)

This was an old philosophy which tried to straddle the middle-ground between reason and faith and tried to delimit where either should apply. This is very Kantian in nature, and is a revolt against an objective epistemology. It submerged into obscurity until it was ressurected as neo-Thomism in the 19th century. (See also Agnosticism, Kantianism, Skepticism.)

This is the belief that intuition is superior to sense-perception and reason, and is filled with mystic gooble-dee-gook. Its epistemology is exclusively subjective. I think this is only popular because it has an interesting sounding name. (See also Mysticism, Subjectivism, Zen.)

This held that the right or wrong'ness of an action is determined by how much good it brings to people. This was formulated as, "the greatest good for the greatest number." This is a very sacrificial ethic, which is thoroughly collectivistic and contains no concept of individual rights. The standard of good is happiness, though happiness is ambiguous in utilitarian thought. This is the fusion of altruism and collectivism in an ethical code. Later utilitarian thought went so far as to imply that some actions are good because of intrinsic "good"ness. (See also Altruism, Collectivism.)

This is a weird kind of philosophy that posits there is a kind of "life force" or "vital energy" of some mystical, supernatural form in all living things. This sounds similar to the "phlogiston" which was used to `explain' how fire worked. It also is similar to "ether" theories of cosmology. In short, this is a theory that posits a new kind of thing with a remarkable nature and unprovable properties, to explain something that science has not fully identified. (See also Mysticism.)

Zen, Zen Buddhism
This is a form of transcendentalism which denies the validity of reason and logic, and claims true knowledge is only possible through meditation and mystical intervention.
(See also Transcendentalism, Mysticism.)

Back to Top


With the end of another year almost upon us, we once again approach that concept that we call our 'resolutions'. Here in the land of Warrior, when we set out to illustrate the meaning of a concept, one of our peremptory commands is to start literal, sustain literalness, and end literally. It is a must.

So, let's go to the dictionary and get the literal definition of, "resolution.”

This is what we find:

resolution (n.) - 1. A formal expression of opinion or intention made. 2. A resolve or determination; to make a firm resolution to something. 3. The act of resolving or determining upon an action or course of action, method, procedure.

resolute/resolve - 1. Firmly resolved or determined; set in purpose or opinion. 2. Characterized by firmness and determination, as the temper, spirit, and action.

In these nontraditional times, people make New Year’s resolutions knowing full well they will not keep them, void of self-determination to actualize them, thereby negating the power behind resolution: commitment and self-responsibility. Today, following through on personal commitments is casually and coolly dismissed. Just as casually and coolly, one spews them out for fun for friends and family to hear, only to, later, have all these people laugh with them about not fulfilling them. Really funny. People make resolutions without seriousness -- an oxymoron -- and have no qualm that they've abdicated self-respect.

Sure, making resolutions has become a nonsensical, non-serious thing. Your family, all your friends, everyone does the same thing. You make 'em, you break 'em. You'd be an outcast if you did keep your resolution. And heck, you rationalize, "There's more pressure in actually executing any resolution I make. I'd make everyone feel guilty, etc. So why not just continue not fulfilling them as usual..."

New Year's resolutions have gone from being a time-honored tradition to a "time-horrored" tradition. Like other traditions, debauched to the point where they're nothing more than a frivolous waste of time -- a traditional participation in virtueless emptiness.

Each year's unaccomplished resolutions get moved forward, once again and again, onto the ever growing, accumulated never-will-I-have-the-discipline-to-do-this list of each successive year. Expanding at the same rate that one's disorganization grows (getting organized #1 on resolution lists) and in proportion to one’s ass spreading and spreading (getting in shape #2 on resolution lists). Made to grow in size by the very one who can't handle the pressure to begin with. "This I will do." "That I will do." Really? -- No, you never intended to do.

Look at the meaning of resolution. For a resolution to be fulfilled, one must be serious about the commitment one makes to himself. One must not break the promise one has made to act in accordance with reality. A resolution made dictates a commitment must be fulfilled by taking resolute action and applying firm resolve.

In choosing a goal, one must consider the means required to achieve it. One weighs the value of the goal against the difficulties of the means and against the full priority list of all their other values and goals. One does not demand the impossible of himself, and one does not decide too easily which things are impossible. One never evades reality, realizing fully that their goal will not be granted to them by any power other than their own action. Should one evade, he will only be cheating himself -- breaking a promise to himself, no other. It is only after serious consideration within these guidelines that one does or does not set a goal.

Take seriously the resolutions you make, no matter the time of year. Return to the lowest common denominator of any ultimate goal you would like to achieve. Even before one takes a step he must lift his foot from the ground. Start simply, and use reason at all times. Consider the goal you desire to set and see if the goal you wish to ultimately achieve is at all reasonably possible considering the other working-goals in progress and other have-to-do priorities overall. Don't keep adding more and more to a list. You've got to resolve, if nothing else, to stop adding to the list. Otherwise, and just as is usually done year after year, you make resolutions with built-in reprieves, rationalizations and excuses. Remember, You alone let yourself off the hook. You will be the one to give yourself an easy way out when things aren't going as you had originally ill-planned. Listen, excuses are excuses.

Don't be afraid to be different...rather, be traditional and committed when others are not. Be courageous, not insipid. Use your own mind, don't borrow the brain-dead of others. Find out who you are and what you are made of. Once you discover who that person is -- be that person. It’s a perfect fit to you.

My final suggestion would be to make no resolutions. None at all. Stop with the traditional silliness as you have made it. Stop with the lies. Stop living in a world of broken promises. If you don't make 'em -- you can't break 'em. The guilt of not fulfilling resolutions never goes away, and it can be more negative than not setting any to begin with. Memorize the definition of resolution, literally. Hold yourself to never using the word, unless you do so literally. Hence, No penalties. No self-doubt. No self-anger. No self-betrayal. No self-guilt. No responsibility. No obligation.

The obligation to keep one's promises is one of the most important elements in the living of a warrior's life.

Back to Top

Who Owns It?
It always amazes me when people use the lives of other people - lives of those, they say, they care about and lives of those they do not even know - to determine that maybe the life this other person has, isn't really their life to live anyway. Yes, the sentence reads correctly. That's right - your life isn't yours. You aren't entitled to the right of it. They take what you do and what you've done, wrap it all up in a tidy little opinionated package with a note attached - loud in it's tone, long in it's tongue, which says, "Hey, what, are you crazy ? You can't do that! Get outta here. What ever made you think you could..." Notice, the word used most is "you" ; talking about your life, as if you don't exist. So, what gives? Is it your life or isn't it ?

"Of course, I mean...I'm living my life. Who's life could I be living other than my own...I mean, I'm alive and it's my body..right? Right?"

Essentially , you have only one right. You are born with. It is the right to your own life. You own the right to live it. Nobody else is born with the right to live your life. Nobody can take it from you either. Somewhat morbidly, but as a point - even though your life can be taken, the rights you had in that life can not be transferred and used by the one who has taken your life. So, even in death, no one can take your right and use it as their own. Oddly, most people give up - even after they grow up - the controllable aspects of this right under much simpler demands than the threat of death. Understanding this right is necessary to be able to recognize, halt and contend with those who will continue throughout your entire life, knowingly or unknowingly, to try and convince you otherwise.

You see, a right to one's own life does not include a guaranteed quality of life. If you think it differently, then the viciousness of what you believe is the right of life will be never-ending.

Our initial beliefs, which later drive our adult behavior and conduct out in the real world, are scripted by those who raise us, parents or otherwise. Hence, the unethical behavior and lack of morality by kids today; stemming from the "who gives a crap" attention and abusive discipline daycare centers and bohemian babysitters associations which have been raising kids over the last twenty years. I mean, people don't even have simple manners anymore. It simply amazes me how when I do go out into the world, no one, not even paid employees of customer service businesses, extend any pleasantries, not even Hellos and Thank IOUs. Or go hold a door open for someone, you can forget the thank you, it isn't coming, but be careful you don't get the door slammed in your face when you walk through. Anyway, this belief system  - our behavior bundle - we get also primes us for when we go out and try to make good on this "right to our own life" stuff.  Behavior which can ultimately provide or not provide the essentials we need to sustain ourselves or our families. Qualities like ones' discipline or lack of, self-esteem or lack of, self-reliance or lack of, responsibility or lack of, work ethic or lack of, positive attitude or lack of, commitment or lack of, integrity or lack of, truthfulness or lack of, physical conditioning or lack of, etc. All these play a major role in the circumstances of one's immediate life and in one's overall ability to better life, if one, so chooses. Unfortunately, many of us don't get an education at home, set by example, showing us how to obtain, let alone use, these invaluable, necessary tools which we need to build - use our right of - life. Yet, our believe system beliefs guide us in our choices and actions.
If you are allowing the opinions and judgments others give dictate the choices, actions and subsequent, circumstances of your life you are living second-handedly, at best. Afraid to set your own beliefs, pursue your own goals and take the actions necessary to sustain yourself, prevents you from controlling your life. Not having control of your life means you aren't living your life. Following a map of life in accordance to someone else's belief system or allowing the guidance of your life to be driven by the expressed lack of belief someone else has of you isn't controlling your life.

The right to life is simply a corollary (i.e., that which follows) to being born. You are born; you have life. Yet, the quality of the living in one's life is not a fundamental right. The right to life means we have the freedom to take all actions - rational - required for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of one's life. (Sound familiar? ...right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...) Living life - maintaining life - is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. But nobody can do it for you. It is a responsibility of one's independence; an individual's obligatory right to do so if he is to live by his own judgment.

Of course, as has been often said, here in Warrior Web - it is an individual's choice to think or not to think. A warrior chooses to - at all times; by each moment. Nobody can make this choice for him; just as nobody can obtain his right to life by taking his breath away.

A warrior uses his mind to detect the truth. His verdict determined by an objective - existence exists - reality. He accepts his inability to be omniscient and infallible. But acting as a mindless subservient follower provides neither of these elements, his nature as a human being does not allow him to have. A wrong decision can be avoided a replication, but an error of his own is safer than ten accepted on faith.

For destination in your life, you first have to establish who's life it is. Sounds like a simple task. I mean you know who's life it is, it's yours, right? Right. If it is, why then do you let the opinions, no more than just words, destroy the ideas you have for your life. Why does the expression of a few comments by others destroy your intentions? Quit letting it. Now. OWN your life. Take it back and never give it up again.

Back to Top

Discipline and Principles...Not Mutually Exclusive
Why disciplines and not just principles...
discipline (n.) - 1. Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior. 2. Controlled behavior from such training. 3. A state of order based on submission to rules and authority. 4. A set of rules or methods.

principle (n.) - 1. A basic truth. 2. A rule or standard. 3. Moral or ethical standards or judgments. 4. A basic source.

Fundamentally, methodologies - to become practicable - are composed by structuring an outline determining principles that are to be practiced, acting as rules, so to speak. Henceforth, the practice [of principles] is intended to be disciplined in it's nature.

Fitting to Warriorism, one has no choice about the necessity of principle. Man has no choice about the essentiality to integrate his experiences, and subsequent knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., principles. Hence, principles are an absolute. The only choice one has [in regards to principles] is whether these choices are true or false. Whether they represent conscious rational convictions - or a smorgasbord of invalid, random sources built upon context which leads to consequences one does not know. It is discipline that will lead man to be principled in truth.

Presentation of effects depends on action. Any and all effort producing effectual behavior depends on an applied action of discipline. Destrucity, reality-based and rational, recognizes this absolute. Doing so, shows us the nonproficiency of seeing the action of discipline [the act of discipline] as different from the product of discipline [a discipline]. Making discipline, in reference, both, the action and content - literally, one in the same - constantly reinforces the ideas we have agreed to practice so we can accomplish and succeed.

Any time man exchanges a devitalizing habit for a productive, beneficial discipline he will be tempted by conditions he has long practiced. To create concrete change, he must hold himself accountable when he surrenders to the temptations. Discipline, and the idea of it works here, as well. For, discipline connotes punishment too. If, when one reneges on his discipline of discipline(s), he is met mentally with the implication of, once again, discipline, he will keep foked, distinctively and prominently, on the concept of discipline.

Conscientiously, the constant influence of the concept of discipline forbears one's desire to rationalize his faltering and he will subjugate to the commitment he has made to discipline. For just as discipline denotes all the previously mentioned contexts, it also manifests an idea of strength and strong-willedness, empowering him to be just as he thinks. Once again, drawing us back into a impenetrable foke.

An aggressive, active, inexorable application of the concept of discipline. Passivity has ruled long enough in my book and it has no place in the way of warrior. A proclivity towards cutting oneself slack, as it pertains to the discipline of discipline, has no place when one sets forth creating their own, unique idea of Destrucity.

Seeing the world literally strengthens your commitment and stiffens the actuality of your resolve. Rampant repetitiveness of avowed dogma, and it's inherent dogmatic principles are futile, and certainly no guarantee of any success beyond the fabulous daydreaming you accomplish.

To become -- ACT AS IF. Any principle one chooses to adopt, and consequently emulate, must be suffused with the causality of discipline.

Back to Top

Always Believe