Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by cosmictraveler, Jan 27, 2005.
You must have peace within yourself first.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I do agree with that.
May people believe in changing the world. But you are part of the world. To change the world, you must change yourself.
I am curious as to other sci'ers in what you would define as peace within yourself
Peace? Without passion, without hate, without love, without greed,etc.
Without passion? Would that disclude all strong emotions? Would it disclude love? I always saw peace as a harmony and love with everything.
Harmon yes, but love is giving you an imbalance, except if you manage to love everything simultaneously, then it is peace.
You are coming--i feel--from a Buddhist perspective when you say 'to have peace withing yourself' and that some how wil change the world...it is also New Agey, as the NA get most of theri dieas for Eastern beliefs
listen when you see starving kids, and people being abused, and all the shit going on, do YOU feel peace within yourself? Have they you see suffering got it? so why the ..k should YOU have it?
GEt angry, get passionate. speak out. dont just sit and meditate thinking 'i am changing the world oooooom' .All that is hypocrritical. i am not saying it aint GOOd to feel inner peace. what i AM saying is that i object passionately to these belief systems that GUILt the individual for feeling angry, etc when that is a NATURAL reponse
think about it. what does Buddhism and the pharmaceutical-psychiatric establishment have in common? they both desire to sweep away EMOTIONS
think about it
Very good point. Perhaps to change yourself though, is not to find inner peace, but to stop wondering about the world and go out there and do something. Strong emotions such as love, compassion ect can be rooted from helping others, helping the world in general. I would see that as a form of inner peace, and outer peace as well. Any positive emotion can be seen as helping peace in the world in general
I agree with duendy to some extend, he does list some reasons that kept me from accepting Buddhism, alas,as far as I know, Buddhist also want to help others, as long as no one else is harmed. Also, the action itself should be more important than thought and words... but there are different perspectives.
Anyway, I do not desire peace within me, nor peace on earth. We live in a constant struggle, if we want to or not. Being peaceful will probably crush you, and you would also not fight for someone else, or fight in any event. That is something I do not agree with.
Who had the longer, more positive impact. The angry Hitler or the peaceful Ghandi.
That depends...you can learn a lot from the things Hitler did.
.. the world would have to be devoid of life.
And even then, volcanoes would still wage war with the earth's form, tectonic plates would joust and water and wind would beat on stones... but at least no nervous systems would be alarmed I suppose.
Which, in the end, is what we're so against right?
I'm sure we've objectively reached the logical conclusion that functioning nervous systems and death are scientifically and universally bad.
It has nothing to do with us being living organisms, who've had these ultimately arbitrary and meaningless values ingrained into us by natural selection favouring those who most feared and despised pain and death.
Even if we had the ability to obtain world peace, why bother? At that stage why not just die? We've won, we pulled ahead. It's over.
The instincts that made peace so appealling in the first place aren't needed anymore.
They're not going to help you survive a battle if there's world peace now are they? So lets just end it when we get to that stage. It would be the only logical thing to do.
Sitting around peacefully is as usefull as going into suspended animation with a boner.
The peace might feel good for a while, but the good feelings are wasted on a non event. You aren't getting that satisfied feeling for bringing peace to your territory by vanquishing an enemy, your masturbating with your instincts.
How much pleasure and comfort do you really need? Isn't it worth so much more when it's rewarding the behaviour it came into existence to reward?
Orgasmic pleasure is for fucking offspring out of a mate. Not juggling your balls and choking yourself with a belt while you sit on a carrot.
This "peace" dream is no different.
You're just fantasising about what it would be like to have world wide non-stop peace, sometimes I wonder what it would feel like to cum like a high powered hose for an hour, that unfortunately isn't going to happen, it's not supposed to.
When you live in a war zone, and see your people vanquish an enemy, then you will rightfully experience the pleasure of peace.
This might be hard today, but we experience similar scenarios on smaller scales.
Hell, seeing the mormons leave is really enough for most people. You're just being greedy.
All things in moderation, remember? Stop looking for some big imaginary hit that will obliterate the complexities of life and allow you to go into some blissfull catatonic state for eternity. If you hate life that much just die already.
(aimed generally at all peace pushers)
Why not speak of Martin Luther King. He didn't advocate violence, and the people WERE angry. they weren't ashamed of being angry. The Civil rights Movement protests affected a certain change from the general utter degradation of black people by the white culture, But what i am saying is, they FELt emotions, and thos e emotions weren't made to feel ashamed of.
Hitler? yes he was an angry tyrant. but it was a vile evil anger which was focused on scapegoats, and their termination
Ghandi...yeah, he seemed peaceful, but the philosophy he adhered to was Upanishadian which favours a 'oneness' and denigrates the 'many'
so whati do is i allow and encourage emotionality, WITh the investigation of belief systems and what they are CAUSING inherently. I.e., they may SEEM oeaceful, but are they? for example, mormonism, the people are SO good mannered, etc...like they wouldn't hurt a fly, but they are dead against homosexuality! masturbation,
'fornications' PETTING....etc outside marriage. THAt to me is violent. and it makes ME angry. and i dont want anyone telling me i mustn't be neither
I never said that humans shouldn't struggle or get angry only that if we can have peaceful minds we can get by with living allot easier rather than having always an upset mind seeking out hate and bad things to do. Struggle is part of human nature but having a peaceful mind can bring about desireable results instead of bad results.
I think we just need to realise that there are two basic energies in the universe, positive and negative.
If everyone were to dwell upon the positives (as alot of humans do) we are not taking any responsibilities for our actions. The fact is, negativity is a by product of positivity ( and vice versa). The only way these two sources can evolve is if the other exists in time with it.
That is what I think peace is, creating the balance of positive and negative within yourself, and not just wanting all of the positives in life.......... thats just greedy.
This is what i have been playing with lately....xploring positive and negative. and can i remind you fo EARTH. they have to be earthed to be effective dont they? i am not an electrician
i drew a little diagram of a verical line with arrow-head shapes at each end. at the top is believed to be the positive and the bottom the negative. so for example, 'spirit' = 'positive' and earth = 'negative'....so they created a polar model of the earth and cosmos where they deify one aspect of it, and even sever the actual polar relationship. then they assume only males are closer to the positive/spirit, whilst women are negative/spirit
EVEN in cetain wiccan and pagan beliefs this model can be translated in concret terms where it's believed male and femles represent the positive and negative energies respectively. But they all fail to see that this is all abstracted thinking. That they assume spotove and ngative are somehow static entities, RATHer than a continuum....in researching about this i found this good article that puts things in a bit more of an intelligent perspective ......though i have reservations about his gendered gods 'God' and 'Goddess'
'Plumbing and Polarity do not Equate
so we need ALL three.`positive negative and earth. EARTH, right here is where these energies can play. but we can see an interesting development that very much utlines our confusion and imbalance
right. we have the positivists--the white-light religionists, and new agers, and patriarcahl mystics, all desiring mergence, or some form of emergence of a posotive after life, or puritifed/positivized matter...on one hand
and the 'when yer dead yer dead' materialistic--'there is only earth'/'negativity ('ther is no meaning') secular' and mechansitically scientific people on the other hand
What we NEED is the whole caboodle. the openess to the continuum of positive, and negative energies EARTHED
We will get peace or should i say world peace, when eveyone is DEAD Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We are human, and to deny part of what being human is (non-peace) is simply to attempt to live in denial of ones own nature. To live in ultimate peace requires the subjegation of all emotions, senses and...... thought processes. A better theorum would be to say that one should seek 'harmony' with the world around, bypassing the slight problems that 'peace' entails.
harmony would simply be acceptance and concord, and would be much more natural, since trying to live in 'peace' often requires great strains of mind. e.g.
twat; "hey chris, i think your a complete fucking douche-bag"
me: "*clenches fist to supress urge to cause non-peace, eventually leading to high blood pressure and cardio-vascular problems*"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's what I think cosmic traveller was trying to signify by "peace within the world" - harmony and oneness and not a total disregard for emotion. The other aspect of the question is peace within the self, which I do believe is essential if one is to live in harmony with others. That is, one should seek to resolve internal conflict, such as between deprivations and wants, through the use of reason in order to establish a system that is self-consistent as well as consistent with the needs of the society. If for example there is a disparity between what one does and what one would like to have done to them, then that individual is not self-consistent and consequently not at peace with themselves. Thus we can see that the scenario offered by logically unsound would not occur because a well-reasoned twat would not say such a thing.
Separate names with a comma.