peace is LIVING in harmony and smoking the ganj

Excellent thread!
Just had to say that right now..my contribution will folllow later, though

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit peace is LIVING in harmony and smoking the ganj

what does 'living in harmony' entail? what does that even truly mean? harmony with nature? with other people, plants, music, what?

and what happens when the ganj runs out?! those are some of the most angry, violent moments ive ever experienced around your average, ardent dope smoker|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

i'd define peace on a micro level as having respect for others and an OPEN MIND, freedom of speech and expression, and a polite and educational exchange of ideas through debates, forums , etc...

but on a macro/ international level the definition of peace gets skewed as you pointed out... one explanation could be having healthy relations with everyone... now u ask what are healthy realtions and how do you maintain them???

i guess answering the first part is simple but to answer the second part... we have to go a little back in history to understand sources of conflict between peoples in present times... also world factors like social and political factors have a say in maintiaining relations between countrys ... i therefore agree with you on the point that peace really doesnt exist on a macro level atleast...

but as long as ppl can keep an open mind i think that ppl on a personal level can be at peace..., like for e.g i was totally anti war at first but after browsing through this forum and talk to a lot of ppl on the subject i admit that there are strong points for and against the issue...

peace is realtive too.. for eg if aliens were to attack the earth (lol) then we'll all unite to fight a common enemy... at that point we'd all be at peace with one another... so i guess peace only exists when there exists or is potential conflict.

kind of an oxymoron ... any other ideas???

PS :: i havent at all answered your questions but these are just my views on peace...

To have peace and to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. “Peace is a state of mind, not a state of the nation.” To have peace, we have to love, and we have to begin not to live an ideal life but to see things as they are and act upon them. This can only come about through an inward revolution of the individual self.

___________________
sig edited: no political imagery allowed. please reref to the sig guidelines

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior To have peace and to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. “Peace is a state of mind, not a state of the nation.” To have peace, we have to love, and we have to begin not to live an ideal life but to see things as they are and act upon them. This can only come about through an inward revolution of the individual self.

but how is this affected when others choose not to, or símply refuse to follow a similar mindset? it seems to me that to follow your POV one could be taken advantage of by those that wont 'love' you and may freely antagonize for their own (tho possibly limited) gains. does that make sense?



thanks for the response victor, i didnt specifically call for people to address everything that i had said, as that could be difficult. i dont even know the answers- i just wanted to get people thinking, and maybe get them to pose similar problems or issues with the debate.

it gets old listening to polarizing opinion/heresay on very limited subjects when this forum could be used to truly discuss everything related to politics, et al|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

hahaha yeah...

good thread tho...

quote:

Originally posted by biznology it gets old listening to polarizing opinion/heresay on very limited subjects when this forum could be used to truly discuss everything related to politics, et al|

i definitely agree

___________________
sig edited: no political imagery allowed. please reref to the sig guidelines

I agree with bizz that total peace cannot be achieved as I feel violence is a very natural human reaction. People have said that the development of ones mentality or the inner self is a possible solution. Well this is key I feel it must be coupled with physical conditions. By this i mean a point of relative global peace can be achieved by creating a global gov which can impose population/economic controls. I strongly believe that over population and the resulting competition for basic needs plays the largest reason for conflict globaly.

___________________
Todays youth have desacrated music with the popification of all generes. FOR SHAME.

MUSIC GURU - 2002.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology it gets old listening to polarizing opinion/heresay on very limited subjects when this forum could be used to truly discuss everything related to politics, et al|

Yes we need more threads that deal with abstract political debate rather than relating everything to what is happening today. Some of the best threads I've read have been offtopic subjects such as absolute truth, astronomy, physics, the mentality of ordinary people in the nazi regime, etc (ironically all in threads about Iraq/US). It's a shame that these forums are being pumelled with current events that all but drown out every other issue that we can be discussing.

I agree with Biz and mental in that peace is an idealistic objective that cannot be achieved at this point in human evolution. No matter how amicable, rational, and open-minded you are, situations will always arise that demand conflict. On the micro-level and in the macro/global sense. It is within human nature to strive for self-preservation. In order to achieve self-preservation we adapt to become competitive, aggressive, and controlling. In doing so we establish dominance and assurance of self-preservation. If any philosophers are out there, I think that Thomas Hobbes said it best in the leviathan:

quote:

if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies, and in the way to their End, . . . endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another . . . If one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient Seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life, or liberty . . . So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory. The first maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety; and the third, Reputation. The first use Violence to make themselves Masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their Persons, or by reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their Profession, or their Name. Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man . . . state of nature will return.

The famous saying that everybody attributes to hobbes is that the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I agree that the current state of mankind is accurately described by that statement. I don't think that we are destined for oblivion and violence however. I think that only through GLOBAL education, can we can rid the world of many intolerances, hatred, misconceptions, and ignorance. That won't happen in my lifetime though. Probably not for another 10 lifetimes follow at least.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider ... The famous saying that everybody attributes to hobbes is that the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I agree that the current state of mankind is accurately described by that statement. I don't think that we are destined for oblivion and violence however. I think that only through GLOBAL education, can we can rid the world of many intolerances, hatred, misconceptions, and ignorance. That won't happen in my lifetime though. Probably not for another 10 lifetimes follow at least.

hmm...this global education though would be entirely relative as well. you would have to either teach everyone the same thing - which could be seen as brainwashing and *not* education, or adapt your education culturally. it would be difficult-

but in regards to Hobbes, the modern(not-post) view of history was of progression - that things got better. therefore Hobbes theory was criticized and adapted by social contract theorists, etc. are they less appropriate?

(our) post-modern views in regard to theory and history have changed how we look at our world, but does that mean that history or the world has changed? who is to assume things will get 'better' with time? who is to say the opposite? |

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'