• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What does peace require?

My view is perhaps different from society's:

Peace requires only the surrender of all personal barriers to it.

It has to be found individually, because everyone lives an individual life as themselves.

You can't try and find it for others -- they'll defend themselves and go to war with you.

To resolve war within oneself, is the only way to resolve war. And the necessary first step is always to accept the fact of war within oneself, and one's need to finally confront it instead of passing both the blame and the solutions to the rest of humanity.

Peace...
 
Last edited:
Is it not clear from history that true, lasting peace can't be found through societal means? Are we not still thumping each other on the head and scratching each other's backs like we were 500,000 years ago? (rolling eyes).

Hope springs eternal, me-guesses...
 
Society is changing. I am echoing the idea of MDAO/The Pope that we must work towards justice in order to achieve peace, and the technophilia of qwe when I say "social democracy," and that's what I mean by a currency more valuable than money. What could be more valuable than money in a highly interconnected, technological, world? A person's reputation? I think so, especially with twitter. A person's reputation could rise and fall like stock in a very concrete, measurable way, and affect all the people who are "invested" in any given individual. This idea came to me especially because twitter gives stiffer consequences to those more influential and held to a higher standard than the rest of us, there's no buying your way out of a twitter scandal with money, it takes actions and sincerity.
What I mean by justice is that people get what they deserve, and the more people's merits are known on an increasingly more personal level, the better potential for true justice.
I personally don't think there SHOULD be total peace. It's friction that causes advances and things of interest. There's just too many damn people, but who am I to complain? A person? My artistic side enjoys the chaos though, even as my scientific side bemoans the real possibility of clean air and water being a casualty in our population boom. God damn capatilism....

I agree that we have probably have remained at the same level mentally, as a whole, as the neolithic, post-nomadic, people, but it's the few who push the many, always.

As far as your take goes, that we need to be at peace with ourselves, the idea that we must work for justice holds equally true: We must be our own self-critics, as objective as subjectively possible, and bring justice to all the injustices within our mindbody and lives.

Also your "me-guesses" comment goes against your stated desire that you don't like the idea of people putting ego against ego in these types of threads. I'm just bringing that point to justice.
 
Last edited:
Simply_Live said:
Peace requires opposites, such as disagreement and anger.
Click to expand...
Peace between people, yes. Peace within requires reconciliation and understanding of those opposites. Then one can have peace in the midst of the battlefield as well as peace lying in one's own bed.
Inner peace requires mindfulness. Lots and lots of it.
Click to expand...
I've said before, if you remember just one thing, remember to let go of suffering. Every time it occurs. and *just for now*, just this time. Might be all anyone needs to remember, if they actually remember it always.
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
Society is changing.
Click to expand...
Society is crisis, in my view. It's continually falling apart and continually reconstructing (this is from a view of "things just happening", rather than separate, individual selves making them happen).

And society reflects what is going on inside man. Self is continually falling apart, and continually being papered over again. The blind are NOT leading the blind. The ignorantly willful are leading the willfully ignorant.

Peace...
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
What could be more valuable than money in a highly interconnected, technological, world? A person's reputation? I think so,
Click to expand...
Dropping the desire to be understood, having understood it as misdirected.

Then coming to understanding oneself, and through that -- understanding others.

I'm really surprised at people's lack of insight sometimes. I don't mean you specifically -- I mean how much of this talk is on the surface, and dedicated to maintaining the status quo. Has the status quo ever done anything for you but made you hopeful and miserable at the same time?

Peace...
 
Nagelfar said:
Every unity supposes a division.
Click to expand...
There's one unity that doesn't.

The unity of opposites.

Opposites are not really opposite, they're supposite. Complementary.

All is one, but not in the way people imagine.

All is only one, because one is All.

That means you -- the reader of this message. You've always known you're All. And that is not ego. Ego is "knowing" the other guy is nothing, while wanting and demanding everything from them.

Peace...
 
I disagree there. Unity in it's very nature supposes division and division supposes unity. Both must mediate the other to exist; by mediating there is no unity without division and no division without unity. Especially & particularly the unity of opposites. Opposites are a multiplicity (even if just two), and for a multiplicity to be multiple, it must be so within a unity of relation, a mediation that is its unity.

There's also a difference between the Kantian transcendental ego and the empirical ego. Saying the 'other guy is nothing' is saying you are nothing; for their ego is constructed in your ego to your ego, and is part of it's whole; without which the whole wouldn't be whole.
 
Dedbeet said:
Dropping the desire to be understood, having understood it as misdirected.

Then coming to understanding oneself, and through that -- understanding others.

I'm really surprised at people's lack of insight sometimes. I don't mean you specifically -- I mean how much of this talk is on the surface, and dedicated to maintaining the status quo. Has the status quo ever done anything for you but made you hopeful and miserable at the same time?

Peace...
Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking in an absolute sense, but in a "this is the trend" sense....
I'm really surprised people are morons most of the time...not you though, anybody but you...EVERYbody but you even...*smirk roll eyes lol faps twice bedtime faps twice shower smirk-again roll eyes again*

They never have the emoticons I want....
 
My view is perhaps different from society's:

Peace requires only the surrender of all personal barriers to it.
Click to expand...
this sounds great and all, but sometimes there are chemical barriers as well (e.g. somebody in a chemically induced withdrawal isn't going to feel very calm, or have a lucid perspective, or even think straight). thus the material world is as important to peace as the existential.
 
qwe said:
this sounds great and all, but sometimes there are chemical barriers as well (e.g. somebody in a chemically induced withdrawal isn't going to feel very calm, or have a lucid perspective, or even think straight). thus the material world is as important to peace as the existential.
Click to expand...

My own experience and opinion is that primarily the "subjective" (one's direct experiencing of life) is what affects and determines brain and body chemistry.

You really can't say "here's a brain chemical we'll tweak -- it will make you have this sort of life experience". Absurd. Maybe if you believe it strongly enough. I suspect there is a large belief factor in most "objective" treatments given to a subject. You can't reduce life to a few chemicals, it's impossible.
 
Last edited:
I think peace requires a universally-accepted ideology that regards all life as sacred, and nature as the highest value. Unfortunately, the current human condition seems to put a price tag on life itself, and has little to no respect for nature.
 
Someone might have said this but I am way to tired to read through all these replies so here it is, the way to peace in a simple set of math equation.

World = the location we want peace
peace = lack of war,violence,evil
People = cause of war,violence,evil
People + world = no peace
So if the above is true then
World = peace iff (if and only if) world = world - people
Or
Peace = world - people
And WALLAH! the solution to peace in simple terms.
 
TheAppleCore said:
I think peace requires a universally-accepted ideology that regards all life as sacred, and nature as the highest value. Unfortunately, the current human condition seems to put a price tag on life itself, and has little to no respect for nature.
Click to expand...

I agree with this...
 
^It's peace in relative terms, not total peace. Life is never going to be totally fair, but we can certainly be more utilitarian in our actions to try to make life as peaceful and enjoyable as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top