Popular phrases like “give peace a chance”, “peace is a feeling” and “peace starts with the individual” are just NOT ENOUGH, good people.
We need more brains, intelligence & clarity in this uneven match.
We need a peace machine.
Words mean power in so many ways. Power to oppress, clarify, a possibility to direct a spotlight to dark corners of our lives (the subconscious layers of denied existence), even power to liberate to an extent.
When something is very present in your life but there are no words for it, then that something is like a cup filled with very hot coffee but no “ears”. You cannot hold it without burning yourself.
With non-existing words and concepts you cannot hold them at all if they are not named and christened.
When I watch this video the words “war porn” come to mind. Nothing to do with sex or eroticism (aspects of love), but with a certain kind of excitement related to weapons, and use of weapons.
There is much war porn around us, of different degrees and levels. From soft to hard, obvious like this video or non-obvious. Non-obvious is for obvious reasons the more dangerous.
I want to launch the term “war seed” as a useful piece of the peace-war puzzle. A war seed is something — usually a word connected to an emotion — that moves leftward on the peace map.
[left side] W A R /Agony<< Antagonism << Agon/
[right side] /Harmonizing >> Music >>/ P E A C E
War seeds are the enjoyment we feel when watching football or boxing (if we care for such sports, that is), heated discussions and debates, or action movies or thrillers. Generally material that feature conflict, battle, violence, killing.
An Enlightened Peacenik, which I try to be, recognizes these seeds in his own heart. No use denying them: it is much better to honestly admit that they hold a certain attraction and/or fascination.
Seeing and admitting the war seed, for example the interest some of us can feel for a battle tank, I see as an important peace step. Why?
Because we are being honest. Honesty, a form of clarity, is precursor to peace. We don’t want to build peace on lies. Let’s then admit that, Yes, we do feel certain attraction / fascination / interest for things to do with war. Most of us do.
As my map shows we have different levels of “leftist” energies. AGON, found in sports and contest can be rather neutral and even positive and benign. ANTAGONISM less so. AGONY even less so.
In a way it’s all about AWARENESS, being mindful of peace and war. And noting our words. And sometimes also inventing and adding words to our vocabulary.
This can be one step in our growing awareness-process.
Thoughts are things, this is an old (!) New-Thought concept, still alive and well. Thoughts and concepts also have different levels of quality, one could even say carats.
Imagine Christmas Eve when a quarrel ensues because one of the children thinks it unfair that his sister’s toy is bigger and more expensive. We tell the children that this is — childish. We inspire them to rise above that kind of thinking.
— Do not compare your presents in such a nitpicking, scroogy, mercantile way! Be happy for what you get, independently of what others get.
Adults regard this as a better, more mature way of thinking. Instead of comparing sizes and prices we can look at things from a higher perspective, something that also is needed in peace work and peace play.
So quite obviously there are different quality levels of thinking, perspectives with higher and lower carats. And this also concerns the terms and concepts of our everyday conversation and debates.
We talk about economy, democracy, growth, feminism, gender, leadership, industrial and developing countries, without making much distinction as to the levels of these words.
Simone Weil has an interesting perspective on this. She was a philosopher, a contemporary Christian mystic and almost (or actually) a saint, but what follows here is clear and tangible, practical enough even for a largely materialistic world.
According to her there are high, elevated words. Her examples are God, truth, justice, love, beauty, good.
And there are words coming from a lower, middle region: rights, democracy, persons.
She suggests that we as much as possible use the high words as guiding lights, not the lower ones. That might sound good in an abstract, religious way. But it also has a practical value in relation to peace and harmonious living on the planet.
“All that is necessary is to confine ourselves to those words and phrases
which always, everywhere, in all circumstances express only the good.”
In other words, use only the elevated, high carat words.
So how can this be tested? Let’s follow Simone’s thought and see where it leads us.
TEST FOR SUITABLE WORDS
Weil is very much concerned with the poor and afflicted. In a world with enormous inequalities between poor and rich (“asymmetry” is a non-committal word for it) this is something very relevant. How do we address the afflicted? What do we tell them, using what words?
Simone: “The afflicted are overwhelmed with evil and starving for good. The only words suitable for them are those which express nothing but good, in its pure state.”
So let us skip words of the middle region and go straight to the higher concepts.
— Sounds fine again, you say. In an idealistic, religious, philosophical way.
Well, being “philosophical” is doctor’s orders for a creature that calls himself Homo sapiens. So let’s go beyond surfing the surface of things and dive deeper. In the gym we understand the value of heavy weights; let’s lift some substantial thoughts.
The way to discriminate between higher and lower, Simone suggests, is to look at kinship, associations and corruptibility. “Words which can be associated with something signifying an evil are alien to pure good.”
If a concept has a reverse, a dark downside, let’s be wary of it.
Such a word can be “person”. “We are criticizing a man when we say: ‘He puts his person forward’; therefore the person is alien to good.”
Clear enough. Putting personal considerations first — for example if you are the leader of a state, thus having the job of serving and helping your country — is considered base and low.
“Democracy”, an immensely popular and viral word and concept, also needs to be looked at. “We can speak of an abuse of democracy; therefore democracy is alien to good.”
Nothing shocking here; we knew this. Democracy has a reverse, a downside, and many stupid and downright awful things can be committed in its name.
“Rights” are next. “To possess a right implies the possibility for making good or bad use of it; therefore rights are alien to good.”
Now, rights (The Rights of Man) are considered holy by many. Which in effect means that we are not inclined to actually THINK about them, just sing AMEN and HALLELUJAH. Again not a very sapient thing to do.
Simone perceptively points out the nuances of the word “right”. (My underlining throughout.)
The word “evokes a latent war and awakens the spirit of contention. To place the notion of rights at the center of social conflicts is to inhibit any possible impulse of charity on both sides.”
The word does not bring charity or generosity, it rather helps us (and often we do not require pressing) to move into conflict, competition and strife. Maybe even war.
A longer quote.
“Thanks to this word, what should have been a cry of protest
from the depth of the heart has been turned into a shrill nagging of
claims and counter-claims. The notion of rights … has a commercial flavour, essentially evocative of legal claims and arguments.
“Rights are always asserted in a tone of contention; and when this tone is adopted, it must rely upon force in the background, or else it will be laughed at.”
“This bargaining spirit was already implicit in the notion of
rights which the men of 1789 so unwisely made the keynote of their
deliberate challenge to the world.”
BETTER THAN RIGHT
So the word “right” brings into our discussions (which are perhaps already directed towards personal or group advantages) a shrill note, a commercial flavour, a bargaining spirit. It is often plain egoistical.
There is also a difference in carat between working for the rights of others and ourselves. The former activity can be driven by a genuine sense of justice coming from the heart, while the latter can be an official formality, or egoistical hunt for personal gain.
Clearly the difference is not that hard to see.
–Good enough, you say. What word should we use instead?
Good is not a bad word. Simone herself suggest “justice” as a higher concept. I do not fully agree. For me that word sounds very vague and it is not a clear concept. Very often it is aligned with, almost a synonym to, rights.
I would suggest that a concept like fair-play could be better than rights. Why? Because it takes both sides into consideration, and also appeals to our sense of justice, not just points to a set of legislative rules and regulations.
When considering peace, moving towards cordial harmony rather than egoistical discord, the question of right words is not marginal but central. Harmony is higher than discord or dissonance – which can be a matter of just letting things devolve into entropy and emotional-intellectual chaos.
Harmony demands much more: heart, attention and true intelligence, which partly means discrimination. So let us, in the name of peace, even Venusian peace, discriminate between high and low, mercantile and truly humane words.
One can discuss not only the building bricks (words) but also the manner of speaking / writing. Writing can be more or less including or excluding, populist or elitist.
My aim is basically always to write for, not the masses or the specialists but the intelligent laymen — those who ARE stressed by information overload but still not so averse to thinking outside the box that they want everything to be instant, pre-chewed, totally painless and soundbite-y. Bon appetite.
Man oscillates between alone and together, solo and communal activities.
We also oscillate between consuming and participating.
Passive consuming is just fine if you eat a meal. You buy food, serve it, eat it. No problem. Breathing is also solo activity, not something we do in a team.
But when it comes to questions beyond individual bodily needs, beyond the close circle of family and friends, our motivation and emotional investment dwindles.
Which is not so strange. Far too many demands are made on our attention in this era of digital-media.
— And now you are also making demands, asking me to be not just a consumer but a joiner??
Yes. Or no. I am extending an INVITATION to you, offering to bring new values into your life: a chance to be a peace partisan.
— What on Earth is a peace partisan? Some kind of bird…?
Partisan is in a way the wrong word, since it embodies what is NOT helping peace — namely partisan interests, part interests, special interests, pressure groups and lobbies.
All of these say WE, but it’s a small WE. It is our interests against their interests.
Sure, in this way we can can enjoy the communal, bovine warmth of being part of a group, mooo! But as soon as we meet a partisan from another camp, our hearts grows cold and reserved.
The larger our WE can be, the more peace we can have, the fewer collisions, conflicts and wars. If we realize that we are sitting in the same boat, things can change.
I use the word “partisan” in a different way.
PARTISAN = one who takes part, not just watches as passive onlooker or consumer
“Venusian Peace Partisan” thus means a person who takes part in the Venusian Peace Project.
HOW CAN I TAKE PART?
There are different ways to support the Venusian Peace Project., from material/economical to purely mental.
- Support V.P.P. on PATREON, a site that tries to revive the old patronage tradition (if you hurry you might be the very first patron)
- Support through Swish, in Sweden (0765-740140)
- Share the site (this can be of tremendous help. Consistent sharing can raise awareness in a short time.)
- Involve your local politicians
- Arrange a concert around peace (if you book them they will come)
- Start a study circle
- Start a festival
- Start a philosophical cafe (I have done this, feel free to ask how)
- Start a peaceful fire in the hearts of your circle of friends
But merely pondering these things can also change the world, only a bit slower. Mental waves influence feeling, which influence our acts. Through these we come into contact with kindred souls and the peaceful waves move on.
Yes, there’s one more thing you can do:
DON’T GIVE IN TO APATHY!
Apathy is a worse enemy than war. Not having faith in change is one of the worst diseases on the planet.
And I am not talking about changing things just for your self, but changing conditions on the planet.
Don’t say “it’s impossible!”. The impossible is often the untried. Be a self-sufficient Jedi and do what Yoda told you NOT no.
3 ₪ Mindfulosophy
Opinions occupy an interesting place in our mental repertoire. [Or pantry. Other stuff to look at is “convictions”, “conclusions” (things that close something), “leanings” and “prejudices”.]
Opinions are not “truths”, not “facts” — those elements have a different taste and weight — but rather a way of positioning ourselves. Opinions represent a maneuver, more or less war-like.
Think of the classical tale about the elephant and blind men. Each of them stand in a different relation to the animal, thus “see” different sides of it, which they take for the whole.
Blind men can be excused for misunderstanding the animal thus.
It is a different case with people with eyesight who still choose to view the elephant, the world, other people, phenomena, situations, from one specific angle — without bothering to or even refusing to move around. Thus not seeing that identity depends on angle.
Some people are probably totally convinced of their opinions, but many of us, if we practice inlook (introspection), can see that this is more of a game, a “truth-contest”, a trial of strength, a showdown.
An important step towards clear-thinking is separation of opinion from “fact” or “truth”, seeing that holding (holding on to) an opinion has very little to do with thinking.
Opinions have a Martian, fighting element, but also an element (perhaps Lunar) of emotional security and safety. They can be like soft pillows, giving us a sense of warmth in an unkind, competitive world.
Mars and Moon seem to go well together: Barricading yourself in one corner of town, or in one square, armed and prepared to defend that corner with all your might, DOES confer a sense of wild and homely security. “At least we have a corner…!”
If you are actually attacked, this is somewhat understandable. But if you aren’t (and we often fool ourselves in this respect), if you just imagine that you are attacked while actually YOU are the attacker, we have a different situation.
Just defending what we already have does not lead forward. We are moving not weiter but rückwärts.
Much shorter: Opinion is a stance, usually static. Thinking is dynamic dance.