World Peace

[Vmarco]

[Informer]

Well, I don't know about literal world peace. Peace amongst humans seem like as good of thing to aspire towards as anything. I don't think it is impossible by any means, in the sense of war and killing. If we all cherish each others life as much as we value our own life through compassion and love. Compassion and love can be taught, but isn't being taught very well, evidently.

 

It also seems that natural selection would favor those who don't kill, because generally there is the risk of being killed in killing.

[LaughingNumbSkull]

As possible as everyone in the world being happy.

[Informer]

Maybe it ultimately falls upon a woman's shoulders. If all the women refused to breed with males who would later influence their children to partake in war, then we could systematically eradicate the provocateurs.

 

 

When basic primal instinct continues to be rewarded, to the victor goes the spoils.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Informer

[Marblehead]

I would put the probability of world peace at a very low number.

 

I agree with your comments about competition.

 

I have stopped competing but then I already have enough. "Enough" will vary amongst individuals.

 

I don't expect to see world peace within my lifetime.

[Protector]

The world is at peace but trying to change it, changes it

The nature is very powerful and can take care of the planet itself without interruptions

I think the idea that the world is in danger and needs changing is what creates imbalance, in people's minds at least.

Let's use the competition as an example.

Giving an idea that the world needs saving makes people think of what might be wrong with the planet so they also create solutions. While that happens, nature doesn't know that the world is in danger and the seasons change, oceans move, winds blow, things live and die. Everything is just perfect for the world, and the people with their ideas show up and try to save everything with, for example, recycling.

Paper is reused, seems like a good cause to save the trees but while the quality of the recycled paper is going down, no one is growing new trees to be cut down and made into good paper.

There seems to be two paths, trying not to touch nature at all and keep recycling paper and let the trees disappear on their own, or grow many many trees to make paper for everyone but have too many trees eating up everything.

There is no right answer but the world is so connected and under surveillance and control that the onlooker might think that the trees might need saving or there are too many trees.

People can work hard for the competition of trying to save the world from nothing or follow the natural course and let it be.

Thinking about that I make myself remind me that I'm a Taoist and that I have four answers instead of two but choosing the right one will be the same as choosing the wrong one.

What to dooooooooo?

[joeblast]

 

I'd love to hear a variety of thoughts,...but to start it off,...can there ever be peace in a competitive world?

 

There's a difference between self interest and selfishness. One is proper, the other is extreme. "More for me" doesnt necessarily equate to self interest, but when that more for me produces more for everyone else, that is the proper function of self interest borne out over society. A facade of adherence to some amorphous ideal of piety while at the same time making no distinction between self interest and selfishness is hypocritical...and detrimental when widespread enough, leading one to compliment the emperor on his choice of clothing. The ring kissed, bowing low, why does society call his duties performed?

[suninmyeyes]

World Peace,...is that an oxymoron? Can the World (that is, 7 billion egos, 7 billion sets of Six Senses, All preditors and prey,...ever be at peace,..that is a state of mutual harmony?

 

Total mutual harmony - my answer is no. That implies that all deisres would be gone and how would the human race continue?

More pleasant and harmonious enviroment - absolutley yes .

If the world is to go on there should always be some opposing forces in play, even if they are very subtle.

That is the way life is. Or shall I say more correctly, that is how I understood it so far.

[Informer]

If women refused to breed with war-mongering men, wouldn't the probability be high that those men would resort to rape?

 

Then you would have to start packin' until the threat has been neutralized . Yeah, that would suck to have to worry about.

[Aaron]

World Peace,...is that an oxymoron? Can the World (that is, 7 billion egos, 7 billion sets of Six Senses, All preditors and prey,...ever be at peace,..that is a state of mutual harmony?

 

I'd love to hear a variety of thoughts,...but to start it off,...can there ever be peace in a competitive world?

 

In my opinion, competition is not only a distraction to spirituality, but has an inherently hostile, us verses them mentality that is contrary to the true nature of basic human beingness. Competition is about as natural and needed as the Abrahamic religions. Just as there is no such thing as healthy delusion or a healthy religion, there is no healthy competition. Competition does not build character, it reinforces low self-esteem.

 

Competiion encourages animosity, envy, hostility, hate, war, and illiberalism. The synonyms of competition include contention, rivalry, conflict, strife, struggle and combativeness. For competition, there is only a winner if their is a loser When viewed integrally, competition undermines all healthy human enterprises. Competition reinforces a psychological dependence on external, object-ive activities. In a competitive society only the winner is good enough. Success is seen through defeating others, not cooperation.

 

Harvard Business School professor Dr. Teresa Amabile, author of Creativity in Context and Growing Up Creative, has given much attention to team creativity, organizational innovation, assessing creativity and motivation.. In one experiment she had two groups make artistic collages. One group competed for prizes through a contest, while the other was unaware of any competition. The art was then independently judged by seven professionals. Those competing for prizes were considered much less creative and complex than the non-competitive crafted collages.

 

Social psychologist Alfie Kohn pointed out in his impressive 'No Contest - The Case Against Competition' a multitude of negative effects of competition, many of them subtle. Kohn articulates that competition arises from four myths. First, the "survival of the fittest", which really manifests a purpetual struggle in society. Second, that competition builds character. Yet it has been shown that only those with low self-esttem require competitive activities. People with high self-esteem has no need to externally prove anything or beat others. Thirdly, that competition is fun. Competition reduces spontaneous play to superiority/humiliation dynamic. Fourthly is the fallacy that competition increases productivity. However, study after study shows that cooperation, not competition, leads to higher levels of achievement. "That most of us consistently fail to consider the alternatives to competition is a testament to the effectiveness of our socialization." Alfie Kohn

 

How could a truely loving parent put their children in competitive surroundings? For me, I never hesitated to play games with my kids. For example, we'd occasionally play the word game known as Scrabble. It wasn't played competitively, but cooperatively. We didn't take part to beat each other, but to continually see how many overall maximum points could be extracted from our play. We would help and encourage each other to find fantastic words. We would use a dictionary to learn new words and their suggested meanings.

 

Competitive contests encourage division, thus reinforcing the illusion of separation. As long as the belief that we are separate is clung to, we keep our sapiential mind obscured, and our thymus glands atrophied. Competition stimulates physical aging. Cooperation on the other hand, not only perpetuates an enhancing of human potential, but promotes a healthy relationship with humanity and our environment.

 

V

 

Aww... this was one of the nicest posts I've seen in awhile. I would give you a cyber hug, but I know you have strict boundaries regarding that.

 

Seriously, great post.

 

I think the question is answered in the Tao Teh Ching, when Laotzu speaks of how one village is so close to the other that they can hear the roosters crow, but one has nothing to do with the other, they are only concerned with their own affairs. When we can live like that, then world peace can be attained. It involves giving up our preconceived notions of what is right and wrong, then resisting the urge to enforce those notions on others, and instead focusing on our own lives.

 

Aaron

[Vmarco]

The world is at peace but trying to change it, changes it

The nature is very powerful and can take care of the planet itself without interruptions

I think the idea that the world is in danger and needs changing is what creates imbalance, in people's minds at least.....

 

...There is no right answer but the world is so connected and under surveillance and control that the onlooker might think that the trees might need saving or there are too many trees.

People can work hard for the competition of trying to save the world from nothing or follow the natural course and let it be.

 

Thinking about that I make myself remind me that I'm a Taoist and that I have four answers instead of two but choosing the right one will be the same as choosing the wrong one.

What to dooooooooo?

 

 

Yes,...rallying for peace, is war. I wouldn't say the world is already at peace, but perhaps inherently engaged in a harmonic balanced interchange, when viewed unselfishly.

 

Shantideva said,

"All the joy the world contains

Has come through wishing happiness for others.

All the misery the world contains

Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself."

 

I read an interesting article by Swami Amar Jyoti called "illusion of time, space, and ego"

http://light-of-consciousness.org/

 

"Yajnavalkyra, a great Vedantic sage, when nearing his old age wished to renounce. He had two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani, but life had ceased to give him any fulfillment. It was like chewing gum that had lost its taste; just chewing rubber. He went to his wives and said, "I'm going to renounce, so I will divide my property between you." One wife, Katyayani, was satisfied and thought that this was fair. But Maitreyi asked, "Will all this wealth and property you leave me give me immortality?" She was a wise woman. He told her, "no, you will be as good as any other wealthy person would be." She replied, "Then what shall I do with it? I will go with you."

 

In the forest, Maitreyi asked Yajnavalkya, "tell me more about immortality and love in the world." Yajnavalkya told her, "Look Maitreyi, you love me for yourself." She was shocked. "How can you talk like that? I came here with you and renounced everything and now you are telling me that I love you for my own sake?" Yajnavalkya told her, "don't be agitated, try to see clearly. Would you have come with me if that were not what you wanted for yourself? Did you come just to be with me and to help me?" Their conversation continued but he did not only accuse her. He added, "a husband also loves his wife for his self." She was satisfied. And he went on. "You have to go very deep to see it." THe said, "you worship the sun for yourself because it gives you sunshine. You love the food for yourself. You love enjoyments for yourself. You revere your rulers for what they give you. And as long as you are doing for the self, for the ego, that ego will die and you will not attain immortality." He told her, "Try to see behing the individual soul of everyone. What is the most common factor? From where do we all come, Maitreyi?" She could see the point; if you want to be immortal, if you want to go beyond all concepts, if you want to know your true Source you have to become completely still and transcend time and space.

 

Time and space leave you at the end, however, not before that. It is hard to transcend time and space before finishing with all of one's conceptions. Practacally all conceptions are dependent upon the conceptions of time and space."

Edited December 19, 2011 by Vmarco

[ralis]

There's a difference between self interest and selfishness. One is proper, the other is extreme. "More for me" doesnt necessarily equate to self interest, but when that more for me produces more for everyone else, that is the proper function of self interest borne out over society. A facade of adherence to some amorphous ideal of piety while at the same time making no distinction between self interest and selfishness is hypocritical...and detrimental when widespread enough, leading one to compliment the emperor on his choice of clothing. The ring kissed, bowing low, why does society call his duties performed?

 

More Ayn Rand objectivist BS!

[thelerner]

World Peace?? It'd be interested to find out how much of the world is at peace. Technically we're at war, but its probably only a small fraction of 1% of the country thats doing any fighting. How much of that is going on in the world? It's a tiny fraction. We're not in the midst of world wars or grand invasions any more.

 

Its mostly nationalistic and ideological things. Correction, its mostly civil wars. There was a TEd video that made the point nicely. Since WWII war has been on a steady decline. We don't notice the good, we take for granted the lack of bad. Few people cheer about the decline in the last 10 years of crime, but in the last 10 and 20 years its been dramatic. But it slips through our consciousness.

 

You wish for World Peace, and you have a world that may be as peaceful as its been for the past century. Happy??

 

Its not a perfect, probably never will be. Problems of hunger and pollution etc. But war is actually one front the human race is seemingly getting better at. Will it last? I don't know.

 

Here is what I get on current active wars creating a 1000+ casualties in 2011

 

Its not pasting well, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts

 

Its horrible, but its also relatively, even surprisingly small. According to the site, which gets there statistics from the UN there are only 11 conflcts right now causing 1000+ deaths a year. A third of those are producing under 2000 casualties. The majority are civil wars. Which are notoriously hard to end.

 

These are by there nature cold blooded calculations, but compared to driving accidents, cancers, starvation, it pales. These targets could make a real difference.

 

There are a dozen diseases which easily kill off more then the numbers listed. We rally for world peace, but if we could end car accidents we'd save a magnitude of more lives. Provide safe drinking and we'd also save more lives.

 

Just saying if any of us are granted wishes, we'd save many more lives wishing for a dozen things other then world peace.

[Birch]

Thank you TLerner for this post. Reminds me that much war is indeed in our (I mean, people's) heads. Of course "ideologies" are important as they may in many cases decide under what conditions people live. My current ironic POV is that all of them seem to be "fighting" for the "good" of "their" people. Be a hell of a lot easier if it were understood that people aren't anyone's in the first place. Or if they are, WTF is up with that?

[Vmarco]

World Peace?? It'd be interested to find out how much of the world is at peace. Technically we're at war, but its probably only a small fraction of 1% of the country thats doing any fighting. How much of that is going on in the world? It's a tiny fraction. We're not in the midst of world wars or grand invasions any more.

 

 

What would peace look like? Perhaps when the only place one could see a Pit Bull or vicious breed was at the zoo,...that would look like peace.

 

V

[Aaron]

What would peace look like? Perhaps when the only place one could see a Pit Bull or vicious breed was at the zoo,...that would look like peace.

 

V

 

Hmm... from what I understand no dog breed is inherently vicious, rather the owners teach them to be. So perhaps when the owners stop wanting dogs to be viscous, we'll stop seeing vicious dogs.

 

You seem to have missed my Tao Teh Ching quote too, which actually answered your question. Are we looking for Buddhist answers only?

 

Aaron

Edited December 20, 2011 by Twinner

[Vmarco]

Hmm... from what I understand no dog breed is inherently vicious, rather the owners teach them to be. So perhaps when the owners stop wanting dogs to be viscous, we'll stop seeing vicious dogs.

 

You seem to have missed my Tao Teh Ching quote too, which actually answered your question. Are we looking for Buddhist answers only?

 

Aaron

 

No,...I had your "Tao Teh Ching quote" in mind when I wrote post #13

 

As for dogs,...Vicious breeds were bred to be vicious. Although many may deny it,...people own vicious dog breeds out of their own perceived fears.

 

Although only a few million per year are actually injuried by vicious dog breeds,...they terrorize hundreds of millions every year. I'm a walker and have been attacked several times,...not only do I have to be very careful in what "public" areas I walk, I also carry mace, in my hand, while walking. In the past 20 years, the people owning vicious breeds has gone up tremendously.

 

No caring, relatively compassionate person would own a vicious dog breed. No one who sincerely desired World Peace would own a vicious dog breed.

 

Obviously, in America, I could never get elected to anything with such a view.

 

V