Bad Peace and/or Good War

[Bijo]

---Looking back on what I just finished writing, I ask you take it with an open mind and try to understand the logic applied.---

______
Some might remember the old Peace thread wherein the point was made that due to people's emotions, desires, and the likes, they have no inner peace (tranquility of the mind, soul, and body) and therefore no outer peace (peaceful interpersonal relations).

And there the point was made that to achieve peace we must not have emotions, desires, etc. The simple formula was made: emotion is, thus peace is not; therefore if emotion is not, peace is. It is logical.


We may say that in our society in which we live there is peace, due to absence of war -- war; as in a great conflict of military forces, nations, and so on, as most of us do not have to fight in war. But this is a very simple view and doesn't take into account basically what is stated in the first two paragraphs.

The majority of humanity still operates on basic emotions, desires, irrationality, egoism, impatience, and other such primitive traits, and this leads to conflict. Conflict with the self and conflict with other beings. It is the original basic way of nature and many are bound thereto.
Then there is another way. I basically call it a "higher path" or something of the like -- this name is merely a term applied practically. It is the way of philosophy, wisdom, enlightenment, natural spirituality, rationality, truth, virtue, goodness and peace. This will not lead to conflict.

So if we look again at society what do we see in the big picture? We mostly see humans to be categorized into the former and not the latter, for the former gives us exactly the quick easy gratification we seek as it is fitting to our forced beast-like nature while the latter is either too difficult, time-consuming, and generally not satisfying as the former dominates.

Because of that simple fact outer peace -- as in external peace, peace between humans -- will not exist (though personal inner peace is still a possibility).

It leads me to conclude that the kind of peace we have is a bad one and therefore is called Bad Peace as in the thread title. Bad Peace: a peace that has absence of war, but many small conflicts inside in the society itself.


Let's get to the other one, pell-mell. It is my conclusion that humans -- based on the aforementioned factors -- will always "need" an enemy. That they will always have conflict, and that they will automatically seek conflict -- it is simply their nature forced onto them by nature which they cannot control. I say if therefore external conflict (-- caused by internal conflict --) is and will be true then why not let it be a conflict of greater significance?

Look at people and what they do: we are like slaves to our egos and to the established rules of nature and human society. We study, work, ****, and consume like idiots who look not for a higher purpose of mind, of existence. Our technology advances but we humans do not naturally: we basically remain the same old primitive animalistic creatures of nature.

So to addreses the "greater significance" part: let there be "Good War" if Good Peace is no option. Let us concern ourselves with things we will REALLY have to worry about instead of whether we look good so a particular person will like us; to worry whether your mobile phone is good-looking, AND SO ON.

I do not wish this -- war -- upon anybody, but seeing as it is a constant, it will have to be whether likeable or not. Good War will mean great significant conflicts between people(s), but it also means external peace within the two (or more) societies themselves.


I conclude the quality of activity of Bad Peace is low, and the quality of activity of Good War is high(er). Here is the logic behind it even though the terms themselves are self-explanatory.
===> in Bad Peace we have peace that is bad, therefore of low or mediocre quality (...it is not an extreme of peace which is Good Peace); in Good War we do what we humans do best which is conflict, therefore it's of higher quality (...it is an extreme of conflict called Good War), though Good War is something we shouldn't have and is naturally destructive and evil, therefore any war is always a "Bad War" if we look on the level ABOVE (Good/Bad) Peace and (Good/Bad) War.

And from that we can conclude we will never have it good: it will always be either Bad Peace or Good/Bad War which is always bad in the bigger picture.

[Marshal Murat]

Could a 'Good War' be a conflict against cancer?

[KukriKhan]

A fine piece, Bijo. :bow:

I think you underestimate 2 factors:

First (and least) is that despite man's capacity for brutality, he generally seeks peace and prosperity, for the rewards that lack-of-conflict confer.

Second (and more important, IMO) is: vengence. Pay-back. The big get-even. That starts, or continues, more conflicts than anything else, I think. Many men will suffer years of torment and deprivation themselves, but be inspired to violence finally, by what they see as the un-righteous loss of someone ELSE they value.

People love other people. They think, and say: "I would die for you", to express their intensity of feeling. And they mean it.

But reality is "I would kill for you.": when that loved person gets killed or hurt by some nut, or some soldier, or some random circumstance, we seem hard-wired to seek retribution, rather than commit suicide and follow our loved one(s) into whatever beyond-life reality we believe in.

Yes, seeking an internal state of non-desire will lead to peace. But only because of a lack of lust, a lack of fervor. Stasis, over action.

So I agree with you; conflict is inevitable, until we learn how to wage peace as fervently as we wage war.

[Bijo]

A fine piece, Bijo. :bow:
Is that a pun? :laugh4: And thanks for the compliment :bow:


I think you underestimate 2 factors:

First (and least) is that despite man's capacity for brutality, he generally seeks peace and prosperity, for the rewards that lack-of-conflict confer.
Hmmm, possibly. The part about reward is true, and is based on greed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosperity
prosperity

noun
1. an economic state of growth with rising profits and full employment
2. the condition of prospering; having good fortune

Peace and prosperity are not two things to be combined in most cases, for prosperity -- as you say -- is about rewards that lack-of-conflict doesn't bestow -- and lack-of-conflict is peace, though looser expressed. Therefore if man really seeks peace he should not seek prosperity. However, the meaning of prosperity is very much debatable. The search for prosperity is to be categorized into conflict.



Second (and more important, IMO) is: vengence. Pay-back. The big get-even. That starts, or continues, more conflicts than anything else, I think. Many men will suffer years of torment and deprivation themselves, but be inspired to violence finally, by what they see as the un-righteous loss of someone ELSE they value.

People love other people. They think, and say: "I would die for you", to express their intensity of feeling. And they mean it.

But reality is "I would kill for you.": when that loved person gets killed or hurt by some nut, or some soldier, or some random circumstance, we seem hard-wired to seek retribution, rather than commit suicide and follow our loved one(s) into whatever beyond-life reality we believe in.
We could call it vengeance in these particular examples mentioned, but I would still categorize vengeance or retribution into the overall factor / class of non-peace or conflict.



Could a 'Good War' be a conflict against cancer?
What do you exactly mean? ~:confused:




----
Further I will add to this thread -- though it's already kind of mentioned -- that we have two big choices whose effects are most likely applicable and forced to our world. If we choose for the typical choice of Bad Peace we will lead a life in normal society in which we will be consumers, consumerists, who only live to consume. Such a person cares about the silly petty things of life such as looking into an IKEA book and ordering a kitchen, thinking it's so important, and all of these kinds of typical things.
If one chooses Good War this person will not engage in typical "citizen" / consumerist activity, but will join the Army and fight in battle, where you care about life and death (big important things), and not if you remembered if you've brought your tooth brush and condoms because you were going to spend the night at some woman's place, or what the colour of your sofa is and whether your house's interior looks modern or fancy, or good enough, or how silly consumerist products "define" your person, and such (small unimportant things).

This is why I will join the army. And I think there's more honour to be found there in war, than here in society, for our silly conflicts are of petites dirty nature, and those big conflicts -- war -- are of grand nature. They are both ugly, but the latter is more noble in a sense.

[rory_20_uk]

Like 1984 then. A war that is occurring, that gives everyone something to hate but doesn't really affect any of s that much. Or coming to think of it the Cold War, or indeed the War On Terror.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

What do you exactly mean? ~:confused:

I think he means the inevitable, the way of nature ~;)

[Bijo]

Could a 'Good War' be a conflict against cancer?
Well, from a cold logical standpoint the simple answer is yes, probably.

:|