Peace?

[Bijo]

Well, I'd like to tell ye this thread is about peace and how to establish it, and why peace doesn't exist. Mainly aimed at being philosophical and debate-like/discussion-like, as long as we keep it civilised and such.

I'd like to keep subjectivity to a minimum, and objectivity to a maximum, but of course you're allowed to express opinions, if they're suited enough. But for ascertaining truth I prefer no opinions or beliefs at all, 'cause 't seems to me they will not give us truth. We'll see.

Peace (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peace): peace (pēs) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The absence of war or other hostilities.
2. An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities.
3. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations: roommates living in peace with each other.
4. Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace.
5. Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind.


That's the basic rundown thereof.

When I observe why there is no peace, general peace, agreement, etc., I look at humans. Seems that observing humans and their traits, personalities, egos, psychology, and the likes, will provide a good basis to explain many problems in the world [related to peace].

And what is a deciding human factor to obstruct peace? Emotion. This is, what I truly see, the very human factor causing conflict so I'd like to state this following simple rule at the end of my post, but before that, first emotion.

Emotion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emotion):
e·mo·tion /ɪˈmoʊʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-moh-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3. any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4. an instance of this.
5. something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.


These emotions and desires one hath, will obviously create conflict (or the general opposition of peace). [Conflict] with one another, [conflict] with oneself. To have a desire and to fight to satisfy your desire: it will lead to conflict. Envy, hate, love, joy, etc.: they're all things that can or will lead to conflict.
Inner peace is a state of mind hardly anybody has, or will ever have. Even if global or general peace is there, there is no true peace, for people have no inner peace, which can lead again to conflict within oneself and conflict with others.

Therefore:
"Emotion is, thus Peace is not."


So how do we possibly and logically achieve peace? We invert "the rule" --> "Emotion is not, thus peace is."
By having no emotion, by doing noble deeds, by following a path of light, by gaining wisdom, etc., we will have peace.

Discuss!

[Somebody Else]

Jedi!

[macsen rufus]

Nah, more Buddhist than Jedi, methinks...

but the general diagnosis I agree with: "No peace within; no peace without"

Non-attachment and mindfulness are the key (in westernised Buddhist terminology) or being "in the world, but not of it" in a Christian equivalent. Or as Gandhi so eloquently phrased it "There is no road to peace; peace is the road". Conflict is a vicious circle that feeds on itself, hence the wisdom behind turning the other cheek. It is not possible to right past wrongs by revenge, only desist from propagating them to the future. That requires a detatchment from some of our most basic emotions, or at least an awareness of them. Yet emotions are such that they can overwhelm awareness and rationality.

However, that said, psychopathy is also associated with lack of emotion, so it cuts both ways.

[Marshal Murat]

Being detached from the situation lends your ability to determine peace.

Its common enough on this forum. People who comment on American issues point out "Why don't you do this." They have no stock in the situation, which doesn't mean it isn't credible, but that they don't understand the human emotions involved.
Par example-Israel/Palestinian Conflict
We point out all these possibilities, but it doesn't help the situation.

If you do something that helps others but goes against your instinct, your either doing something good or very stupid.

If your an anti-abortion politician but your voting bloc is a greater percentage pro-choice, you either face politican suicide if you go anti-abortion, or re-election for pro-choice.

This problem is interesting. By taking the statisical viewpoint, your going against your instincts and what you were brought up with, but your being the representative of the people, what your elected to do. On the other hand, lending yourself to anti-abortion, you represent who you are, and will go down full of respect for standing up for what you believe in, but are still not re-elected.

Emotions exemplify who You are, and probably allow you to live with yourself.
Peace requires detachment from vices (pride, honor, greed, advancement)

[Papewaio]

Too detached and you will get into another set of vices such as procrastination, poor hygiene and sloth.

Most wars are over limited resources from land and oil to hairspray and mate selection.

[KukriKhan]

We have lots of practice waging war. But not in waging peace.

We can't even define peace, except in terms of war (see the starter post).

If we could find a way to focus the same ferocious intensity we wage war with, to wage peace, we might get somewhere.

Sadly, such efforts are contingent on a "you first" negotiation position... except by war-weary survivors of prolonged conflicts, who were usually neither the instigators, nor the formal combatants of those conflicts. With little more to lose, those survivors manage to find a way to the common ground that eluded their leaders.

Even more sadly, those short-lived periods of peace, and the roads that led there, are forgotten in less than a generation.

For a while, I thought that the African "truth and reconciliation" paradigm might show us the way, and it does show us westerners important lessons. But, it too, needs "war deeds" to have been committed before it is invoked and works. And my jury is still "out" on how long that works, without some future revenge rearing its head.

Someday, we'll figure out a way to go from the 'conflict-fight-resolve-prosper' plan to the 'conflict (skip fight)-resolve-prosper' plan.

If that makes any sense.

Cool topic.

[Andres]

"Emotion is, thus Peace is not."

If that would be true, then I don't want peace. Having emotions is inherent on being human. A human being without emotions has lost its' humanity.

"Emotion is not, thus peace is."
By having no emotion, by doing noble deeds, by following a path of light, by gaining wisdom, etc., we will have peace.

I feel love, desire, fear, anger and, I admit, sometimes envy.

But I'm happy. I accept myself as I am. My emotions are there and I have to struggle with them sometimes, but I wouldn't want it any other way. Without my emotions, I wouldn't be able to be happy. I would be a stone, a robot, an ongoing machine. How contradictary it may sound, those burning emotions inside are what makes my life worthwile and intresting.

Maybe peace is impossible, since it's not human and therefore maybe not even a desirable state...

@Bijo: great thread!

[yesdachi]

Peace is relative.

[Bijo]

Thanks, guys, for the 'good thread compliments' and all of your contributions. What can I say? I just love these kinds of topics


@Yunus

The most I think we can hope is for the masses to attain sufficient understanding of each other to remove most of the fears and doubts that separate us.

O yes, I think that's indeed the best we can hope for, at least, but when I include Andres' words-

Maybe peace is impossible, since it's not human and therefore maybe not even a desirable state...

-I, cynical as I am, think that it, indeed, would not happen and that we humans are not designed to achieve peace. Think of the scale involved, finding ways, methods, to actually get this understanding and removal of doubts, fears and other negative emotions. A total overhaul of humanity: it would cause many new problems, but maybe I'm thinking about a too big thing here. There might be ways.


Way I view humans generally, is that they are animals with those basic instincts and emotions we've been talking about. But I think humans are worse than animals. Not only do we/they still possess these tribal/animal/beast-like traits in some form more or less, we have more intelligence than our wild pets we put into zoos. And it is intelligence, creativity, resourcefulness, etc., wherewith we even take our destructive evil natures to greater heights.

Our intelligence, combined with, and even influenced by, those emotions and instincts, seriously threaten the world and peace (on all levels) more than ever.

The fact that man hath ideas aplenty makes us sophisticated and brutal creatures. And if humans are not to be at peace, if we are naturally designed, like animals, to constantly be in conflict (and an occasional ceasefire), then it's truly a most undesirable race.... the human race. So many great abilities, and what do we do? We fuel our most basic evil desires, thoughts, and the likes.

[Yun Dog]

Thanks, guys, for the 'good thread compliments' and all of your contributions. What can I say? I just love these kinds of topics


@Yunus

O yes, I think that's indeed the best we can hope for, at least, but when I include Andres' words-

-I, cynical as I am, think that it, indeed, would not happen and that we humans are not designed to achieve peace. Think of the scale involved, finding ways, methods, to actually get this understanding and removal of doubts, fears and other negative emotions. A total overhaul of humanity: it would cause many new problems, but maybe I'm thinking about a too big thing here. There might be ways.


Way I view humans generally, is that they are animals with those basic instincts and emotions we've been talking about. But I think humans are worse than animals. Not only do we/they still possess these tribal/animal/beast-like traits in some form more or less, we have more intelligence than our wild pets we put into zoos. And it is intelligence, creativity, resourcefulness, etc., wherewith we even take our destructive evil natures to greater heights.

Our intelligence, combined with, and even influenced by, those emotions and instincts, seriously threaten the world and peace (on all levels) more than ever.

The fact that man hath ideas aplenty makes us sophisticated and brutal creatures. And if humans are not to be at peace, if we are naturally designed, like animals, to constantly be in conflict (and an occasional ceasefire), then it's truly a most undesirable race.... the human race. So many great abilities, and what do we do? We fuel our most basic evil desires, thoughts, and the likes.

This would be true, but surely as individuals and as a species we can control our emotions - greed tells us to exploit the planet - logic tells us this would not be sustainable. Anger and fear tell us to build nuclear weapons, reason tells us if we use them then we too will be destroyed along with our enemies.

The teachings of buddism etc are all about controlling ones ego and not being a slave to ones emotions, the no self state. I think that while in the past people have been manipulated by organisations preying on peoples emotions, surely there are still those in our society that are able to control their emotions and be master of them, if those peoples example was admired and copied eventually the hundreth monkey would learn it and then the whole world.

Why should people change - if the longevity of the species isnt enough, then we should rightly go to our doom, hopefully before the planet is too wrecked for something else to emerge from the ashes.

There have been many mass extinctions over the geologic history of this planet. The geological record will stand as testament to the end of the Holocene being the worst of these, both in terms of numbers of species and being the most rapid. We have the dubious destinction of being Lords over the greatest mass extinction of life this planet has ever known. This period may be refered to by whatever lifeform that replaces us as Le Grande Mortus. ALL HAIL MAN THE DESTROYER. Good riddence I say.

[Bijo]

This would be true, but surely as individuals and as a species we can control our emotions - greed tells us to exploit the planet - logic tells us this would not be sustainable. Anger and fear tell us to build nuclear weapons, reason tells us if we use them then we too will be destroyed along with our enemies.

We can indeed control our emotions, but I don't see it happening. Your point stands strong, though, about the fear, anger, and the logic to withhold oneself from committing those attacks (military and politics-wise, etc.). It's not necessarily immediate destruction, but the use of fear, threat, to safeguard oneself. This would still be classified as conflict/non-peace, and it only taketh one error to go all the way.

The teachings of buddism etc are all about controlling ones ego and not being a slave to ones emotions, the no self state. I think that while in the past people have been manipulated by organisations preying on peoples emotions, surely there are still those in our society that are able to control their emotions and be master of them, if those peoples example was admired and copied eventually the hundreth monkey would learn it and then the whole world.

The idea is there, but then again... I'm skeptical and cynical. Is there really a way to have people admire others (who are few) for their no-self states and learn this for themselves ('themselves,' a term to then disappear)? I think ignorance, fear of the unknown, the thought of no financial/materialistic gain, etc., would keep people from even getting to this. It's exactly those egos that prevent them from having no ego, when it's too powerful to defeat. And O brother, what power man's emotion hath!

But it seems there are still authoritative groups/organizations aplenty to influence people's emotions, not just in the past but really at the moment as we speak. We could even include things such as commercials, TV, radio, news, billboards, and more. They all add up thereto, with the sole purpose of financial gain (and any other gain they have in mind).

About those few who are there without egos...
I wonder, how can the ones who still dwell in the dark come into contact with them? Seems to me those without their selves are kind of "disconnected" from society, which could very well have granted them the luxury position of having no ego. But by coming into contact again therewith - society - to teach these ignorant the way of peace, they risk falling into the trap and obtain non-peace again. But yeah, it's my cynicism, heh heh

It also seems to me that sometimes "one cannot exist without the other," but 'tis a loose claim. Nevertheless, those who know peace know it 'cause they know (and/or have known) non-peace, its opposite, the one which was before peace. Or 'twas the the other way around, where peace was first and then came non-peace - also a possibility.

[Vuk]

My simple Philosophy? If you want peace; prepare for war. :D