PEACE To attempt the impossible...

reply to post by SLAYER69



But that's my point, it's arrogance that starts the drums of war... everything else is just a domino effect.

Fear of losing house and home is an after-effect of someone pounding on your doorstep.

reply to post by CranialSponge


Ok so we disagree.
Fair enough

You think Hubris is the largest reason and I say it's a part of it but not all of it.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

Ok so we disagree.
Fair enough

Not necessarily, I agree with your concept that fear can be a driving force. In some circumstances, it can be the only driving force, however not when it comes to the subject of war.

But I disagree that fear is the starting point. In my mind, something is driving that fear to have begun in the first place.

And I believe that starting point comes from the hubris (arrogance) of the other side that's causing the fear.

So I guess it just depends on how far back you want to go to where and how it all began.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I have a few guesses which I'll share here with whomever cares to discuss not Iran and Israel but the deeper human root causes for FEAR and mistrust.

fear is an indicator that the person experiencing fear is sensing danger. it is a valid emotion inherent in all beings. it can be a life saver. eg if you walk too close to the edge of a cliff and notice this in a precarious moment the jolt of fear can release a very spontaneous and accurate move away from the danger. this fear is not a product of thinking. you can stand at the edge of the cliff and look down into the unknown and be very frightened. but when you step back and contemplate on that fact, you will not feel that same fear. you can only be in touch with the estimate of the consequences which of course can be accurate or can be false.

fear in this sense is keeping peace I would imagine. the dangers of war and fight are fearful enough to keep away from it. it needs an authoritarian command by someone who is not in any immediate danger but imagines and calculates to benefit from it.

mistrust on the other hand is based on prior experience of something. old behaviours of the other party in a war (or any party in any situation for that matter) that were disliked are remembered and imagined to be repeated. if the shock of that war (or whatever) was severe enough it can leave a being quite immobilized, blocked to assess further similar circumstances in a free manner.

mistrust causes to react (re-do something) and is void of creativity. eg again you stand at the edge of the cliff in contemplating distance, if you base your estimate of danger on old experiences of falling you will not be of free will but surrendered to reaction. your raised heartbeat is due to an old circumstance and has nothing to do with the cliff of the moment. you mistrust that edge whereas it actually might be quite safe. or in matters of war (and in any other matter) you might actually be disadvantaged and not prepared to act to something unforeseen.

Perhaps this has been better said by someone else. Imho we cannot face ourselves. It is easier to point out the blackness in someone else than it is to face the darkness in your own soul. If I blame you then I do not have to be responsible, it is your fault. We fear because we hide. Fear has naught to do with another, it is generated within and manifested without.

Peace too has to come from within.

reply to post by anoncoholic


You need to realize that not all women are like your wife.

From your post, it is clear to see that you have accepted the "wisdom" that has been fed to you by the ages that "women are the downfall of man". It takes no independent thought, you just believe it because you have been taught to and you accept it because it's easy to.

"Oh? You're a FEM? You must be XYZ. Dad always told me FEMs were XYZ. I won't try to disprove it because there are enough FEMs with the XYZ attitude, from my perspective, that I don't need to. Any FEMs who don't act like XYZ are not FEMs at all. They're DEFs. And, we allllll know about DEFs..."

I could put forth a long diatribe about all the things about men that make no sense to prove my point, but I won't.

Why? Because that is exactly the attitude which ensures peace cannot reign.

So. To answer your oddly ensconced questions: Yes. I, as a woman, do have the capability to love all. It does not come naturally to me. I do not even love myself sometimes. But, I am working on it and working to become a better person. And, in being a better person and treating others around me with the kindness and respect with which I would like to be treated, I will make the world a better place. If I can't make the whole world peaceful, I can at least make my world peaceful.

Fear of the unknown?

Fear of change?

Fear of loss

reply to post by SLAYER69

are there any more?

"holds up hand", um projection, lack of personal responsibility?

Originally posted by Iamschist
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

are there any more?

"holds up hand", um projection, lack of personal responsibility?

I would say the source of both of these are Fear.

Projection: Fear of accepting negative attributes about oneself by attributing them to or saying they are caused by others.

Lack of personal responsibility is similar to projection in that people think that others are to blame for their problems. Again, fear to admit their actions/choices had negative results which were unforeseen.

reply to post by ottobot

I would say the source of both of these are Fear.

I can see your point. I tend to think of fear as a lack of faith. I am not the deepest of thinkers. lol

reply to post by Iamschist


Towards what means?

Could you give us an example of how that may apply?
Sounds interesting, I've never looked at that angle before.

S&F.

Since I heard this song in my youths i have been in the "outside world".
And we wonder why they killed him? If he had a chance to grow a little we would have ascended already.



All we are saying is give peace a chance.

Think about that line for a moment with history in mind. Then read Report from iron mountain.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Towards what means? Could you give us an example of how that may apply? Sounds interesting, I've never looked at that angle before.

So I confess to not being the deepest of thinkers and you bumfuzzle me? I will be happy to oblige if I know what you are referring to

reply to post by Iamschist


oh cool...

How does lack of personal responsibility apply to lack of PEACE. Lack of ones country not taking responsibility for their actions?

I believe you guys are looking at peace in the wrong way.
I KNOW peace is a far stretch and that there is really messed up people in the world that actually want do do other people harm. But with that said I also believe that inside every human there is love. And that love can be used for ones self or for everybody.
If you use it for yourself it will be dark love and vice verse.
Peace is the thought of removing all those people. (Peace among nations is just scenery)
If we really want peace, then be peace. And when you give peace tell the person you gave it to, to keep making peace.
Then in the end we might see peace and every nation understanding that it's not the differences but the likenesses of one another we need to cherish.
And the fact that we came up with fire-arms and and bombs before we realized we don't want them is a little problem too.

To sum the ramblings together: We will never have peace since some of the people that want peace is not ready to do anything for attaining peace.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I love this type of thinking I wish they would not just lurk and pay attention globally.

Originally posted by FejkNick
I believe you guys are looking at peace in the wrong way.

That's pretty assumptive.

We are exploring all possible contributing factors. Love is great but at first two opposing sides are not in the loving mood.

I KNOW peace is a far stretch and that there is really messed up people in the world that actually want do do other people harm. But with that said I also believe that inside every human there is love. And that love can be used for ones self or for everybody.

True to an extent but before that can manifest itself shouldn't dialogue begin first? How to bring two opposing sides to the table and begin a discussion in the first place? Wouldn't overcoming their FEAR, Hubris and mistrust be first?

To sum the ramblings together: We will never have peace since some of the people that want peace is not ready to do anything for attaining peace.

Agreed.
Conflict and turmoil are too familiar and comfortable. Kind of like a favored old pair of slippers.

I think they should ALL meet the global leaders in 1 location to discuss whats going on together in like a face to face meeting. They may see they are alike in many ways.. I dont know it seems possible but when considering the potential for OTHERS who manage the global leaders the attempt may not even matter if not fitting in the OTHERS agenda for Earth. Its hard to call..

There will always be dispute between people, the problem is we are too quick to rush into military action without exhausting all other peaceful avenues.

Lets take Iraq. It was a broken country due to sanctions and past wars, with No fly zones to the north and south. Iraq proposed no immediate threat to anyone. Yet instead of trying to resolve the problems by negotiations and increased weapons inspections, we went in with Shock and awe.

I just dont think those in power have the balls to go with peace, especially when they have such a huge military at their disposal. I think the assumption that we solve the worlds problems with military intervention is a big problem.

As George Carlin said, "fighting for peace, is like screwing for virginity".

Originally posted by SLAYER69

That's pretty assumptive.

We are exploring all possible contributing factors. Love is great but at first two opposing sides are not in the loving mood.

I might not have put that in the way I wanted to. I was talking about peace as the opposite to war. But that is not what I see peace as. Peace for me can be allot of things. But peace of mind, if that is a kind of peace then you could say that "they" are waging "war" for our peace of mind. So it's a "mind-war"? Hope i cleared that up.

True to an extent but before that can manifest itself shouldn't dialogue begin first? How to bring two opposing sides to the table and begin a discussion in the first place? Wouldn't overcoming their FEAR, Hubris and mistrust be first?

You cant come to a conclusion that would bring PEACE in a dialogue i think. Since for peace to be what peace is there is no need for talking. Everybody already know what peace is. You do no harm to anybody. And that is no talking point. Either 1 we have war or 2 we don't. I really think it's that easy. As long as we have even 1 person ready to go to war for whatever instead of forgiving, war will never go away.

Agreed.
Conflict and turmoil are too familiar and comfortable. Kind of like a favored old pair of slippers.

I would say the fear of the unknown is too big for people to even contemplate. Hence they rather go to war with the system than to embrace the system and try to change what we have into a more loving system. War/media-budgets go to fixing the world = world saved.

See the problem? We can have peace and save the world, we just don't do it.