Why We War

[CSwriter1]

Why would anyone in their right mind approve of acts of war?

...the most basic definition of human being is that of a self-conscious animal...

We among all life species know and understand the fact of death long before it ever happens to us....

According to this view, our general psychic movement is constantly one of repressing the massiveness of that terror and then calling it up and confronting this terror in smaller, more manageable doses. As has now been robustly demonstrated by empirical experimental investigation, finding strategies for taming and managing this most basic terror is quite literally the central human task (Solomon et al. 1998 and 2002). For without some success in taming this terror - in suppressing it from immediate consciousness - a person would be psychotically stunned and unable to maintain forward movement....

Strategies for taming this basic terror are myriad, but tend to reflect one of two basic types. The first tendency is to continue the movement of individuation and to try to symbolically earn personal immortality, even at the expense of others. This strategy allows one an illusory sense of superiority over the 'merely human' by attachment to a game in which one obviously stands above the rest. The second strategy is to move in the opposite direction, finding one's symbolic immortality in the eternal survival of the species....

It is the creation and participation in what Becker called 'immortality projects,' both on a personal and social/communal level, which is the very energy and substance of both individual human psychology and of human culture (Becker 1973; Farrell 1998 and 2002)....

According to this view, we all want to endure and prosper and in some sense gain immortality. But because we are mortal, and therefore subject to overwhelming anxiety in the face of our mortality, we must strive to mask the fact of mortality and suppress awareness of it from consciousness through participation in projects of immortality. Each and every person is doing this all the time. Each and every society and culture contains dominant immortality strategies, those shared by the largest number of people. These generally correspond to what Marx called the dominant social ideologies of a given society. There are subdominant immortality strategies at work as well and any human culture can be analyzed as a complex amalgam of hundreds and thousands of immortality games and strategies, which are offered to the people of that culture by which the people maintain a sense of individual and collective immortality. This view parallels closely the 'game' approach to understanding self-esteem maintenance in the context of communication strategies (Becker 1964; Goffman 1959; Greenberg et al. 1993)...

Lifton went on to outline five basic levels of symbolic immortality, each of which can be either healthy or unhealthy in the lives of people:

The biological mode, "epitomized by family continuity, living on through, psychologically speaking, in one's sons and daughters and their sons and daughters, with imagery of an endless chain of biological attachment" (p. 18).

The theological or religious mode, which "may include a specific concept of life after death" (p. 20).

The creative mode, experienced "through great works of art, literature, or science, or through more humble influences on people around us" (p. 21).

The mode of nature itself, "the perception that the natural environment around us, limitless in space and time, will remain" (p. 22).

The mode of experiential transcendence, a psychic state "so intense and all-encompassing that time and death disappear. This state is the classical mode of the mystic" (p. 24).

These modes of symbolic immortality serve as psychological buffers against naked death anxiety. There are healthy and unhealthy forms of each of these modes. Each mode can facilitate a life of love, compassion, and psychological and spiritual growth, or each mode can function as an immortality ideology that fosters a life of compulsive denial. We may notice also that each of these modes contains an element of encouraging further individuation and an element of encouraging transferential attachment and melting into that which is beyond the individual symbolic self.

Who in their right mind wants war? Further engagement with Christopher Hedges' book, [i]War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning

[WanderingTaoist]

Why would anyone in their right mind approve of acts of war?

What about self-defense?

[scameter]

"War is over (if you want it)." -John Lennon. People wage war because they want to, for whatever reasons. I do not consider self-defense war, because it is self-defense.

[WanderingTaoist]

I do not consider self-defense war, because it is self-defense.

What is a country is attacked by another country, and the country that has been attacked declares war on its aggressor?

[scameter]

Legally they would be declaring war, I think, but again I don't see that as war, because it is self-defense. What is an invaded country supposed to do?

[Michael]

good point and exactly what are the boundaries of what we feel requires defense - our yard - our country - the whole planet


Possession

We fence around our fields
To hold them to ourselves
As though we could.
The fields slip through
Our hands as life,
Then we have a little earth
to hold our bones.

[WanderingTaoist]

Possession

We fence around our fields
To hold them to ourselves
As though we could.
The fields slip through
Our hands as life,
Then we have a little earth
to hold our bones.


Since we can never truly keep anything material (land, property, etc), we should allow others to come and take them (or think they can take them)?

[namtso]

Why would anyone in their right mind approve of acts of war?
- CS Writer
how many people what percentage of people are in their right minds and is this general percentage greater or smaller than that special group of those who are in the position to 'approve'
- psyche

Those in power do everything they can to remain in power. It's a very ugly business. The alternative may be just as ugly but it has the potential for being far worse. Recall what a large percentage of people do when there are riots or natural disasters. Looting, victimization. History has shown when there is chaos like that which occurs during those sorts of events like the riots, hurricanes etc., a certain percentage of thug types end up going warlord on us and become extremely dangerous to the rest of the people who would like to pull together. For a government to remain in power it is absolutely necessary to have a strong military, access to almost limitless natural resources which includes oil to run the machines/vehicles etc, a huge supply of wealth that is needed to acquire and maintain those things. It's a harsh reality that in order to do that it seems that a government must be willing to do anything in order to accomplish those goals. Look at what happened to the USSR when we out spent them on military build up. They ran out of money and it crippled them. It set Russia back quite a bit in regard to wealth, military strength and even the ability to police it's own people. That should be a very clear example of how easy it is for a nation to deteriorate. Until the entire human race can collectively evolve to the point where there is not a large percentage of nasties that will victimize the rest, this is the sad and brutal reality we are left with. I am all for peace just so long as the blokes in the other countries are for peace. My current view is that all the war, all the overthrow of governments across the globe, overt or covert, all the manipulation of world markets whether it be oil, diamonds, food crops, gold, whatever, it's all in a constant effort for those in power to stay in power and maintain a certain overall semblance of order both inside and outside our own borders. At the same time the sad fact is that power does corrupt. The United States was created by the founding fathers of this nation who wholeheartedly believed this. That's why they built in a system of checks and balances, the three branches of government. And by the way, this 3 branch system is constantly being assailed, this is a very serious issue. If too much power shifts towards the administration then we will be in for some serious pain. It may have happened already and the effects of that will just become more obvious over time. If the American people are still able to make informed decisions, because our major media/news outlets are owned by people who should not have been allowed to own them, but if we are still able, we will hopefully realize that we need to continue to put pressure on the American government to take care of it's own citizens economically in our own borders, stop the horrendous influx of illegal aliens that forces us to pay for their health care, education etc. while their presence just hammers the living wage standard, there's just so much. But we need to vote and continue to vote and we need to try to hold our own government accountable. There are so many executive actions, bills etc. that are passed through that we have absolutely no say over and often times no knowledge of that it seems like our federal government is already out of control. There's a lot on our collective plate in order to maintain a decent life here in America. I've heard the joke quite a bit but there's a lot of truth to it - Tivo may be responsible for the downfall of Western Civilization. Whoever controls the media, the information, controls the minds of their people but worse still, if we all are apathetic or become that way, that will do the job just as effectively. The world is full of all kinds of people with a lot of different agendas. The only reason for waging war is for maintaining control over and creating unity within the masses of humanity, both within and without a nation's borders. It's all tribalism, it's just the scale that changes. Both on it's own and in groups, the human animal can be pretty dumb and dangerous to themselves and to others. Maintaining some semblance of order and holding back total anarchy and rule by local warlords is a difficult thing. Sorry if I am bumming people out here, it bums me out. But that's my current view. I also believe that many individuals absolutely have the ability and even the very strong desire to act ethically and with compassion just as often as they possibly can. If every single human being on the Earth felt that way then chances are we wouldn't even be talking about this. Thing is, I myself lose my temper periodically, the conflict is going on right in my own mind. It’s the human animal in general and how it operates that I don’t trust. I do cede the point that it may just be me and other people on the same point on the “evolutionary path” that cannot conceive of global peace without subordination of any group yet. Others may indeed be further along the evolutionary path, not all but some. The natural world is a violent place too, animals, viruses, bacteria and natural forces like weather and earthquakes. Is danger, violence and warring an undeniable and inescapable fact of our existence on Earth?

[namtso]

In regard to those in power. Power corrupts. History proves it. Only the wisest of leaders can come to a point where they decide that they have enough power, whatever that is. As soon as any leader decides that they are “strong enough”, the leaders of other nations just to continue to accumulate wealth and continue to develop military technology and may eventually be in a position where they will be able to challenge and even overthrow the guy who decided he was “strong enough” and could safely take a rest and cruise for a while. Resources and technology are what wins war. Period. The consent of the people is of course necessary but that can be attained by various means. The consolidation of power is what scares me the most. If we truly enter an age of one world government I fear it could get very bad for the majority of us. We are pretty much there already from an economic standpoint. Very little is actually manufactured in the United States any more. I realize this is a process that has been going on for a very long time and it seems as if one country after another ends up taking over the manufacture of the products (lowest wage for the worker wins every time) we buy in America but I think it's much worse right now with the trade deficit and all. So many white collar jobs are going out of the U.S. too now and at an alarming rate. It's criminal to me and it's hacking away at the tax base which is part of the dynamic I just don’t get except if the size of the population just continues to grow, then it will offset the lower wage per individual. For some reason China just popped into my head, I just can’t imagine why. If economic trends continue, we will become so dependent on other countries for pretty much everything we use and even a lot of things we eat, that if war is waged between any two major countries it would be like waging war on ourselves on some level. We will be or already have been led right into one world government whether we like it or not. Combining the actual governing bodies will just be the very last step. Some people believe that has happened already and we just don’t realize it. Look how illegal aliens are allowed to flow in from South America almost entirely unimpeded. And see the comical lip service where the administration tells us they are going to build a 720 (+/-) fence when the border is actually about three times that long. And construction hasn't even started, has it? You have to have funding in order to follow through. It was crap to begin with anyway. Both the Democrats and the Republicans endorse the influx of illegal aliens by their obvious inaction. I’ve read somewhere that we actually have a formal agreement with the Mexican government to not militarize our borders. I’ve even heard that during a U.S. Presidential election one of the candidates openly admitted that we have agreements with South American governments to accept a certain percentage of their citizens as illegal aliens in order to take the economic pressure off of those countries. I haven’t fact checked those last two though. I have nothing against anyone, Mexican, Brazilian, Chilean whatever, taking great risk to improve his life by coming to American any way they can so they can make more money as long as they have respect for the United States and the opportunities that this country affords and respect for the American people for that matter. Most of us come from family lines that immigrated anyway, unless you are Native American Indian. The problem is the governments. If a government is not corrupt and it provides the necessities for it's people then they will have much less reason to leave their own countries. Why would anyone leave their country of birth unless conditions there were terrible or war was actively going on there? I suppose that those countries could be poor in natural resources but I honestly doubt that’s the problem. I think its corruption and mismanagement of those resources. So here we are with the United States where our police actually do police and not victimize people (most of the time) and at least for the moment there seems to be enough food and jobs although that may not last much longer. And our Federal Government seems to protect us from outside aggressors depending on your point of view and what you consider to be a threat. I guess I can cite the attack at Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attack where our government did react. Then again I personally see the influx of illegal aliens and how it drags down our collective standard of living as a direct attack on the American citizens and I see that as the U.S. administration waging an economic war on the American people. My point is that for the moment, life in America is much more appealing to many low income South Americans and so it's understandable that they would want to come here. When the entire time the governments of the countries they are coming from should become self sufficient and take care of their own people. I really miss the part of my life when my biggest concern was how I was going to get down to the beach that day.

[MidnightSun]

well we take over wild animal's habitat and then shoot them for trying to surive by coming on 'our' property looking for food

is that f...ed up or what

Thats the same what animals do to other animals. ****ed up is everyones nature.

[WanderingTaoist]

Those in power do everything they can to remain in power. It's a very ugly business.

namtso, those two sentences perfectly capture the harsh reality of politics. Well done!

It's a harsh reality that in order to do that it seems that a government must be willing to do anything in order to accomplish those goals.

Enter Machiavelli.

The only reason for waging war is for maintaining control over and creating unity within the masses of humanity, both within and without a nation's borders. It's all tribalism, it's just the scale that changes. Both on it's own and in groups, the human animal can be pretty dumb and dangerous to themselves and to others. Maintaining some semblance of order and holding back total anarchy and rule by local warlords is a difficult thing. Sorry if I am bumming people out here, it bums me out. But that's my current view.

I have to agree with you---grasping after more power and trying to maintain one's power is a never-ending task, and it's this constant grasping that causes war amongst nations on a large scale, and war of the heart on a personal scale. Knowing when to stop, you avoid all danger, as the Tao Te Ching says.

I also agree with you about the immigrant situation in North America--it's terrible, and it doesn't look like any of the governments involved are doing anything to change it. What's especially troubling is that many of the biggest companies in Central and South America (especially in Mexico) are, you guessed it, US companies! It's a vicious cycle, and I don't think there will be any real improvement until the central and south american governments get their act together, and to do that we'd have to seriously reform NAFTA, amongst other things. It's immensely complicated, and immensely unjust to the Hispanic workers who are just trying to get by. This whole situation arguably is a sort of economic war.

I suppose my question to you, namtso, is this: given the fact that the political scene is always "a war of all against all", what is a nation to do? Should a nation perpetuate this cycle, or should they try to end it, even if it means their own destruction? Does any nation even have a choice with regards to war?

well we take over wild animal's habitat and then shoot them for trying to surive by coming on 'our' property looking for food

is that f...ed up or what

Interesting....psyche, would you say our destruction of the environment consitutes a sort of war?

I think this thread was started with the intention of talking about "political" wars, but it seems like we're sort of broadening the topic to include other sorts of war...war of the self, war with the environment, economic war, etc. Which is fine, it makes for a more interesting discussion. :thumbsup:

Do you think we should perhaps try to define what we mean by war? scameter mentioned that he does not think self-defense counts as war except in a nominal or legal sense...what do the rest of you think? Is self-defense on the part of a nation war? Or at what point does self-defense become something more...?

And to go off of some of namtso's comments, is peace ever really achieveable, on the national level? Is there even such a thing as "peace"? Isn't there always a war going on, somewhere?

[DRImperius]

It seems that so broad a topic this has become...quite interesting to say the least.

But, who starts a war they are certain they would lose? Presuming this the answer, "no one," it can be said that the question on wars being dumb and contradictory to our nature, as we humans do fear death, is no longer. This is so specially when you consider that those in power, those who officiate such bloodbaths are themselves not physically fighting. Now, based on the previous statements, would it not be safe to say that greed is the chief reason for war?

Men want something, then that thing becomes a need. This lack causes suffering. The suffering must be alleviated. If it cannot be had nicely, it will by force, granted possible of course be taken (if not, we connive and plot and wait for our chance--a covert war, if you please). This is the nature of all wars...all wars, whatever the scale, is economic: of power; of property; of affection and belonging....

-----

On a different note: self-defense, i.e.

The definition of self-defense must also be greatly restricted; if not, pre-emptive strikes are always self-defensive by nature. In that manner, one can also say that war for the acquisitions's sake is also defensive; afterall, the people need that which they are taking (by argument previously stated).

[Michael]

Since we can never truly keep anything material (land, property, etc), we should allow others to come and take them (or think they can take them)?

I have to understand that you missed the intention of the poem which is to express the understanding that we possess, own, nothing, not even our lives, and perhaps not even our ideas :unsure: Perhaps you might like to reconsider your question in this light?

[WanderingTaoist]

I have to understand that you missed the intention of the poem which is to express the understanding that we possess, own, nothing, not even our lives, and perhaps not even our ideas Perhaps you might like to reconsider your question in this light?

I'm well aware of the intent of the poem. In many respects I happen to agree with it. I was attempting to ask you how you relate this to war.

[Michael]

I'm sorry, I don't believe I quite understand your question. If we don't own our land, our bones, our lives, our country or our ideas, what do you want to go to war about? What justifies burning villages, bombing cities, killing children? How can anyone not recognise the false self-rightiousness of the justifications for such acts?

You see, I know I am a fanatic, therefore I can rein it. It is what I do not know I am which presents the danger.

[WanderingTaoist]

I'm sorry, I don't believe I quite understand your question. If we don't own our land, our bones, our lives, our country or our ideas, what do you want to go to war about? What justifies burning villages, bombing cities, killing children? How can anyone not recognise the false self-rightiousness of the justifications for such acts?

I wasn't making any claim with regard to going to war; I was asking what your opinion was regarding war.

Given that the vast majority of individuals do not hold those views, and that they can, and will, go to war and declare war, what are you going to do if your country goes to war? What are you going to do if you country is attacked? If you yourself are attacked?

Please notice the lack of any sort of claim here; I'm just asking about your views on the subject, not stating any of my own.

[Michael]

From your posts I have deducted that you are not totally against war. On one level I agree with you. On another I feel you bring Toaism into disrepute by chosing to use that appelation while holding beliefs which are in conflict with the Way. While the fraility of my human condition may lead me into emotional and consequently actual support for or participation in war, when speaking from the point of view of higher belief, there is no justification for war.

A simple example against my belief. The Vikings used war, became powerful, embraced Christianity and became a vehicle of civilisation.

Even so, allow me to use a poem once again to convey my purpose

Believe

Believe what you want,
It is yours.
That is why
I choose
light and love
and all impossibility.



Perhaps what I am saying is, have the courage to be what not is.

[WanderingTaoist]

From your posts I have deducted that you are not totally against war

That is quite an assumption, my friend. I have been asking questions, nothing more.

On another I feel you bring Toaism into disrepute by chosing to use that appelation while holding beliefs which are in conflict with the Way

Again, quite an assumption! Both that I am "in favor of war" and that if I am "in support of war", that somehow brings Taoism into disrepute!

Have you heard of The Art of War, by Sun Tzu?

Are you familiar with tai-chi, akido, tae-kwan do, and other martial arts, which incorporate Taoist principles?

Perhaps this is more familiar to you, from the Tao Te Ching:

Weapons are not proper instruments for gentle people;
they use them only when they have no other choice.

Violence is shunned, but perhaps there are times when it is necessary. The Hua Hu Ching also says "The Masters did not lay down one measure for all".

Peace is indeed highly valued, but it's fallacious to claim that Taoism is completely pacifistic.

It's also something of a false dichotomy to say that somebody is "for war" or "against war".

[Michael]

I should probably change my name to 'hewithhisfootinhismouth'. No, you never in any way supported war or anothing that might contribute it. I am correctly corrected. My comment was inappropriate, I apologise. Though it would be interesting to get your take on things.

We are not talking martial arts, we are talking war.

Was Sun Tzu Taoist ?

False Dichotomy? You mean I am falsely dividing into two? Nonsense. Some people are for war. Some people are against.Simone Weil described the former as the 'Men of Iron', these were civilisations which used war to enhance their power.

Don't find any support for war in your Taoist extracts. Use of a weapon and war are two different concepts.

[WanderingTaoist]

I should probably change my name to 'hewithhisfootinhismouth'. No, you never in any way supported war or anothing that might contribute it. I am correctly corrected. My comment was inappropriate, I apologise.

No worries! :)

Was Sun Tzu Taoist ?

His name and work are often mentioned when discussing Taoist texts. Whether or not he considered himself "Taoist" is debatable. It's uncertain exactly when he was writing, anywhere from 500 to 320 BC.

Regardless though, The Art of War is essentially about applying wu wei to strategy, and it employs a line of thought that is recognizably Taoist. Its esential message, written by somebody who was all too familiar with the horrors of war, is this: War is terrible, but oftentimes inevitable, therefore it is best to be skilled enough at war that you are able to end conflicts swfitly and with minimal loss of life. It brilliantly combines ethics with strategy, since the more effective one is in applying Sun Tzu's strategic insights, the less likely one is to make stupid decisions--including the decision to go to war at all! The strategy applies equally to diplomacy as well as to actually moving men around in the field.

We are not talking martial arts, we are talking war.

The word martial (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/martial), by definition, refers to something "of, suitable for, or associated with war".

Use of a weapon and war are two different concepts

Granted, but in warfare one employs weapons. Given that in the rest of that passage (31) there are references to generals and armies, I think it is safe to say that the passage in question is refering to warfare. Given that the passage in question also states that there are times when it is necessary (though regretable) to take up arms, I think we can say that while Taoism advocates peace, it also acknowledges that there is a time for war as well.

False Dichotomy? You mean I am falsely dividing into two? Nonsense. Some people are for war. Some people are against

This doesn't strike you as something of an oversimplification? It seems to me that many nations do not seek war, but have war thrust upon them by others, and defend themselves. Is the country that defends its people "for war"? Or is that they are for peace, and in order to maintain that peace they are forced to take up arms?

Though it would be interesting to get your take on things.

My own take on the matter is that war is, 9 out of 10 times, absolutely unnecessary, and completely avoidable. Wars are almost always started for the wrong reasons and the few times they are started for the right reasons, they are fought in the wrong way.

Having said that, I do think that occasionally countries are forced to defend themselves, in order to maintain peace. Peace should be our highest value, and it is when we lose sight of this that atrocities occur. Just as one doesn't have to kill one's assailiant to stop him from attacking onself, nations don't need to lay waste to other countries in order to achieve peace, or to use pre-emptive strikes to achieve it, either. But it seems to me there are times when it is necessary. I hate to use the cliche of World War II, but to date that is the best example. This isn't to say everything done in World War II by the Allied forces was appropriate, but regardless I don't think it outrageous to say that something needed to be down about Hitler and about the Japenese Empire, and that something had to involve, to some degree, military action.

With regard to your original poem, conveying that we "possess, own, nothing, not even our lives, and perhaps not even our ideas", where does self-defense, either of an individual or a nation tie in? To me it seems that one is not defending one's own self, but the self of the attacker. One is preventing the attacker from making him or herself worse by their actions, one is preventing a deviation from Peace.

[MidnightSun]

Some people are for war. Some people are against

That is very so. You cant afford to be neutral on a moving train.

[Michael]

The poem was less equivocal than I. It said that nothing is ours, therefore what is there to fight for or against?

I won't say I am right, what I can say is that this is how I feel.

I know that I am potentially a fanatic. Therefore I can have no absolute credo. Though I do have an absolutist position on killing.

My position within this forum has constantly questioned absolutist positions.

Your understanding of Taoism is exactly that (your understanding of Taoism) and I can appreciate the position in which it places you.

For me to war or to kill is to step into nihilism. And where there may appear to be marginal justification for killing within Taoist texts there I must depart from Taoism which I greatly love.
But we eat around the bad parts of an apple and peel them off the potato.

As for the semantics, that's what they are, semantics(martial, war etc).

Regarding the defence of the attacker - why does the rational that allowed the US to rape Iraq spring to mind? Nothing like a bit of pre-emption.

While you have a very clear intellectual grasp of your subject, I find disquieting subtexts in your expression.

[WanderingTaoist]

Alpha: While you have a very clear intellectual grasp of your subject, I find disquieting subtexts in your expression.

Well thank you, but I must admit I'm somewhat confused by the second part of that statement. I'm assuming by "disquieting subtexts" you're refering to:

Alpha:the rational that allowed the US to rape Iraq spring to mind? Nothing like a bit of pre-emption

Whereupon I would redirect you to my previous post, where I said:

W.Taoist:Just as one doesn't have to kill one's assailiant to stop him from attacking onself, nations don't need to lay waste to other countries in order to achieve peace, or to use pre-emptive strikes to achieve it, either.

I'd also direct to the Politics Forum, where it should become evident that I in no way support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or the Bush Administration's doctrine of pre-emption.

It's also interesting that if one applies Sun Tzu's criteria to the invasion of Iraq, it will quickly become apparent that the people in charge did essentially the opposite of what he advises in The Art of War. Actually, if they had applied Sun Tzu's strategy, they probably would have chosen not to go to war in that particular circumstance. Maybe I'll start a thread in the politics forum going into this comparison in more detail....

As for the semantics, that's what they are, semantics(martial, war etc).

Semantics are necessarily tied to meaning, in this case, the meaning of "martial arts" is that the skills involved are to be used in time of war. A good martial artist would probably qualify that by adding that they are only to be used for the purposes of self-defense, not for aggression.

I won't say I am right, what I can say is that this is how I feel.

That is your position, and I respect that. I think you will find, however, that despite the apparent differences in our respective theories, in practice our positions are much closer than they appear. For example, we have rather similiar views on the Iraq war. And while I am not willing to say violence is never an option, I do feel that it should only be used when one has thouroughly exhausted the other alternatives, in particular the practice of Satyagraha as pioneered by Gandhi.

[Michael]

My views on Iraq are not my views on Iraq in particular, but on war and how we do business together.


It is not about countries or politics, it is about how we are and how we practise what we are.

It is not about what you said and I said. I'm sorry, I'm not a rationalist( probably don't have enough brain cells). As Scam observed elsewhere, I'm more intuitative. And that's where the sub-texts bit come in I caught them way before Iraq. It's a matter of demeanor.

Violence is always an option.

Choosing that option, that's the rub.

To be scrupulous I also recognise the violence of words. Bit prone to that on occasion :nono: not to mention judgementalism.

[WanderingTaoist]

To be scrupulous I also recognise the violence of words. Bit prone to that on occasion not to mention judgementalism.

To whom are you refering?


It is not about countries or politics, it is about how we are and how we practise what we are.

Indeed. And yet, how we are, and how we practice what we are has a profound effect upon both countries and politics. Aren't countries and politics products of what we are and how we are?

My views on Iraq are not my views on Iraq in particular, but on war and how we do business together.

Just as my views are also about war and how we do business together. And when one looks at how those views influence our positions on a particular issue, one finds we have arrived at a similiar conclusion from different angles.

[Michael]

Refering to myself.

Countries and politics are products of what we are ?

Very big question. Deserves a post on its own. Can be understood from many different viewpoints - from the political to the mystical. My feeling would be, yes, they are, as we are Christ on the cross and Gautama under the tree.

Is that conclusion similiar or the same? Horses and Zebras are similiar, but the Zebra won't get you where you want to go.

[WanderingTaoist]

Refering to myself.

Well in that case I disagree :)

Is that conclusion similiar or the same? Horses and Zebras are similiar, but the Zebra won't get you where you want to go.

Fair enough.

[Michael]

Thank you for your generosity of spirit.

I'm just wondering which of us is on the Zebra and which on the horse :huh:

[WanderingTaoist]

Hmm....well, I've always been partial to stripes. Make me look thinner :lol:

[bito]

Alpha and Wandering, have either of you read The Hindu spiritual text, The Bhagavad Gita ("Song of the Divine One"), subtitled (in my translation) as "Krishna's counsel to Arjuna in time of war"?

[WanderingTaoist]

Unfortunately, I haven't read the Gita, or much of any Hindu scriptures, although from the little I know of it I think I can see how it might be pertinent to this discussion...anything you'd care to share from it, bito or anyone else who's read it?

[MidnightSun]

Have you people ever played Civilization IV ? Its about leading ur civilization through all the ages to achieve victory and defeat other civilizations. Believe me I played it and if you want to survive on the game the best solution is war. If ur neibour civilization has (for example) iron and you dont, you must strike as quick as possible before you loose advantage.

Why we war? Because we afraid to be warred.

[bito]

Arjuna is a warrior in the battle of Kurukshetra and as he stands in his chariot, posed on the verge of meeting the enemy, he experiences agony over the moral dilemma that presents itself to him. If he kills the enemy, he is destroying life. If he does not kill the enemy, he is failing in his duty. Neither option seems the right one, the good one, the perfect one to take. What to do, what to do?

The story that enfolds from Arjuna's moral questioning is the poetic story of the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna, the latter eventully revealing Himself to be none other than the Supreme Being Himself (the Absolute, Bhagavan). To comfort and inspire Arjuna, who is a devout disciple of Krisha, the Supreme Being reveals to Arjuna His divine absolute form in all its magnificient and horrible glory - the message being that in all things, no matter how good or evil is the individual's subjective interpretation, God is the doer.

We must act, says Krishna, we have no choice, even when the choice seems excrutiatingly difficult. If we act in complete surrender to God, with no thoughts of personal glory or shame, our actions will always be pure.

[WanderingTaoist]

- the message being that in all things, no matter how good or evil is the individual's subjective interpretation, God is the doer.

We must act, says Krishna, we have no choice, even when the choice seems excrutiatingly difficult. If we act in complete surrender to God, with no thoughts of personal glory or shame, our actions will always be pure.

That I have always believed, and always will believe. Thanks for the insight (as always) :)

[Michael]

yes

[venom mama]

May the Lord of day grant us peace.
May the Lord of night grant us peace.
May the Lord of sight grant us peace.
May the Lord of might grant us peace.
May the Lord of speech grant us peace.
May the Lord of space grant us peace.
I bow down to Brahman, source of all power.
I will speak the truth and follow the law.
Guard me and my teacher against all harm.
Guard me and my teacher against all harm.

-Taittiriya Upanishad



:peace:

[Starry_Canopy]

War results from extreme unwillingness to let contrary ideas co-manifest or co-exist. This extreme unwillingness is because of deep rooted self definitions of who we are, to the extent that we believe that our very survival depends upon what we allow to exist or manifest.

J Krishnamurti said something similar along these lines: "If you firmly adhere to an ideology, even if you call it religion, you will be the cause of strife and tension in the world."

[abaris]

War results from extreme unwillingness to let contrary ideas co-manifest or co-exist. This extreme unwillingness is because of deep rooted self definitions of who we are, to the extent that we believe that our very survival depends upon what we allow to exist or manifest.

and it doesn't?

[Starry_Canopy]

They co-exist to the extent that none of us see them as threats to the survival of our ideas, with which we have identified ourselves so closely that we think that we will perish if they perish. When that threshold is crossed, violence results as a means for self preservation. Violence on a large scale is war.