Peace?

[Yun Dog]

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 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.

Yep good post

I agree the consumer society isnt geared for peoples inner peace - in fact its geared towards the opposite - constant need/want - and instant gratification. It is a pity it is not enough to listen to a veteran tell of how terrible war is, and should be avoided at ALL costs, and that be enough to convince others who have not experienced it, that it should be the last resort. These days rather the last resort it almost seems like buying a pair of shoes - pick up the kids from school, mmm better have a war with those people cause we dont like the 'look' of them, home in time to catch all the action on the 6 o clock news. Its hardly surprising given societys willingness for conflict at any opportunity, and why not, its worked very well for the Christian Western civilisations so far. Superior tech, advanced weapons, go and kick the poo out of some lesser developed people, get rich off plundering their resources, rinse and repeat.

I agree Im also skeptical as to if the human race can get to a peaceful place or will it be in constant conflict till we obliterate ourselves or our habitat so it becomes unable to support humans.

perhaps there are selective forces at work as we speak with the warmongers killing each other and the pacifists surviving and reproducing more pacifists...

In essence I see the human species much like an over population of chimps picking up a bone and clubbing each other (scene from 2001), we havent really come very far from that in terms of our emotional/spiritual development. While we have much prettier curios to adorn ourselves with, and we will pay lip service to communication and diplomacy, in the end we still want to whack each other and take each others things. Not alot ot hope for there I agree.

One thing I think we can assume, if we dont find a way to get past it, then our destruction is an issue of when not if.

[Bijo]

In essence I see the human species much like an over population of chimps picking up a bone and clubbing each other (scene from 2001), we havent really come very far from that in terms of our emotional/spiritual development. While we have much prettier curios to adorn ourselves with, and we will pay lip service to communication and diplomacy, in the end we still want to whack each other and take each others things. Not alot ot hope for there I agree.

One thing I think we can assume, if we dont find a way to get past it, then our destruction is an issue of when not if.

Hah hah! Chimps 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those movies I need to watch again, 'thas been a very long time ago.

It's true about the emotional/spiritual development, and also the technology and such you mentioned. So much technological scientific advance, but no spiritual, social, and emotional advance. Efforts to reach good, 'stead of evil. Though there are some organizations with noble, good-hearted, and philanthropic goals and natures, I think they're merely outnumbered by the majority that consists of the typical individuals (or should I say collectives simultaneously?) who are to greedily benefit only.

Not even the Catholic Church, one could think that it's actually about a noble religion in the service of good and spirituality, but if we look at history and the usual power struggles of man we see much evil therein, is a group or movement aimed at peace: I think it's a group aimed to achieve power, but I think I'm going to start a new thread on that; religion.

I'm not so sure about-

One thing I think we can assume, if we dont find a way to get past it, then our destruction is an issue of when not if.

-that. It sounds reasonable, I grant you that. But maybe we'll be so innovative enough to even extend our ways of destruction in the future. Perhaps technology will enable us to forever live in conflict/war.
To a great degree it's been happening already with the advance of science (used for bettering human life standards, monetary gain, and especially methods of destruction, etc.) throughout history. If we've been able to sustain so much destruction - humanity - up until now, finding ways to extend it all including our lives, there's a good chance technology/science will continue doing this.

Until I decide that your Victoria's Secret model is hotter than mine and bonk you over the head with a big stick.

I think this funny short sentence of few words says a lot too.

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.

I understand.
There've been times I was able to detach myself from emotions and really feel inner peace, some kind of "non-existence" or "emptiness" of mind and everything around oneself, and nowadays I've been trying to regain the ability (and it works quite well and fast, if I say so myself) about the emotional part.

But what's said about making life interesting or worthwhile is true. I've noticed the following kind of personally more or less:

Peace requires detachment from vices (pride, honor, greed, advancement)

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

Advancement, poor hygiene, sloth: in a way I've had these when 'twas about emotional detachment (but many time it wasn't).

If man gets too detached, he'll indeed achieve inner peace most likely, but he risks the trap of the above negativities. However, when one is at peace, I think those "negativities" wouldn't matter anyway, because this person exactly is at peace. And 'tis this peace that brings along those situations with it.

Therefore, what's better?
To live in conflict, negative and positive emotions alike, to have no peace whatsoever in any circumstance, but you might be happy; or to live in peace which brings poor states of life standards with it, no joy, no emotion, no conflict, apathy, etc.?

Easy Street, non-peace; the hard way, peace; or is there a middle road? (One might even argue peace is the easy street, while non-peace is the hard way.)


Also, the following is of very extreme logic or drastic action (but the basic principle or idea has been in this thread already I think):
If peace is a state of being wherein there's no conflict, it would mean that to achieve it, non-existence (in the broad sense) would suffice as well. And by non-existence I refer to humanity to not be alive. Yes: death.
Should peace wishers just take control and drop A-bombs to finish off everything? With this cold logic I refer to the following words to be juxtaposed therewith...

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

...where war is the destruction of man with all its necessary acts, in order to achieve said peace, which is exactly this non-existence, the destruction of man.


Personally I'd prefer the middle road, if there's one: peace AND the benefits of (positive) emotion(?). I mean: no hostilities, prosperity (which was mentioned in the thread somewhere), positive emotions, compassion, friendliness... you get the point.

[Mooks]

Who wants peace? Reading about history would be dead boring without the frequent wars and battles. Think about it.

[Yun Dog]

Who wants peace? Reading about history would be dead boring without the frequent wars and battles. Think about it.

generally speaking people who have first hand experience of war

think about it