Make Love Not War was not emergent

There are those who think the 'Make Love, Not War' movement emerged from nowhere. It seems like a very rational worldview from a generation that grew into childhood and adolescence in a world seemingly always at war somewhere; and bombarded by images suggesting the next war could mean the end of all life on the planet. There had to be some ideology to counter the endless warmongering and brinksmanship in the evening news.

If nothing else, 'Make Love, Not War' was an anti-ideology that borrowed a lot from those who wrapped themselves in anticipation of the next world war. It's been asked often: How would we appreciate life if we did not die? A question that should have been asked in the Garden of Eden when warning Adam and Eve about those trees. Told if they ate from a particular tree they would die, how would the immortal Adam or Eve have understood the term?

Biophiliac and necrophiliac positions are not exclusive. One does not exist without the other. It's what I came to call a dichotomy many years ago: biophiliac-necrophiliac. These dichotomies are how we define relationships with others. We categorize, pigeon-hole, and label but often without realizing we are more defining the opposites of these ideas by applying them judgmentally to others.

People form both types of relationships with others, commonly as a reaction to the perceived position of the other person through another dichotomy: acceptance-rejection of any idea. It's called tribalism or black-n-white thinking or just plain pig headed-ness.

Less common, due to western cultural influences, is acceptance. It's much easier to reject, although the position often is forced to ameliorate. Human relationships do not rationally form Nash equilibria. Our rational mind is too dependent upon propositional logic.

Aristotle suggested an important caveat though: "natural" propositional logic is composed from incomplete syllogisms, or enthymemes.