Peace Starts With Us

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Is that a reason to NOT be kind? How sad...

reply to post by Starchild23


It's not about US not getting along.

The average person will get along with the average person anywhere else in the world, just fine.

The problem, is when resources are involved. Simply put, at present, resources are finite, and it is this contest for resources that is at the root of any conflict. Whether religion or politics is given as a reason or not, in the final analysis, it's ALWAYS about control of resources, whether money, food, weapons, oil, land, etc.

So, until resources are infinite (i.e. we travel the stars), there will always be war.

This is a sad world. Individuals may be kind to one another, but this is a world that does not tolerate uniqueness in almost any way, unless that person is making lots of money for someone.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Not the world. Humankind.

That's why we need to change...and apparently, you believe it isn't worth the effort.

Have fun with that.

reply to post by Starchild23


Not a question of desiring to be better...

If someone wants what another has, there is conflict. Whether land, money, food, power, etc.,
So, until we no longer have a reason to want what another has, peace will be an illusion.

If you look at the world's hotspots right now, you'll see it easily enough. Warring groups fighting over the power over resources. But, even on a local level, if a street thug wants your money, conflict. Simple as that, it's really not a complex thing....why we don't have universal peace.

reply to post by Gazrok


There is conflict because we have not learned to see things in an INTELLIGENT perspective.

If you can share, where is the conflict? Conflict only arises when there is no desire to share, or to cooperate. It's not an inability, so much as an unwillingness.

And whose fault is that?

reply to post by Starchild23


That's just it, it only takes the fault of ONE side to make an argument or conflict. So, if I worked hard for something, like the steak in my fridge, and a homeless crack addict wants it, and breaks into my house to take it, I should just let them have it? No.

Conflict.

The only way to have zero conflict is to have zero difference of opinions. Even if all of our needs were cared for, we still wouldn't have complete peace, as we'd have differing opinions then as to what defines true peace, for example. We are beings of conflict. If we all thought and acted the same, the world may be a more peaceful place, but it'd also be terribly boring and dull.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Gazrok

 

There is conflict because we have not learned to see things in an INTELLIGENT perspective.

If you can share, where is the conflict? Conflict only arises when there is no desire to share, or to cooperate. It's not an inability, so much as an unwillingness.

And whose fault is that?

edit on CThursdaypm030335f35America/Chicago03 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

The intelligent perspective recognizes the need for conflict. Conflict is a condition which drives change. Change brings about growth and progress.

“In Paradise there are no stories, because there are no journeys. It's loss and regret and misery and yearning that drive the story forward, along its twisted road.”

~Margaret Atwood

The misconception that you appear to be operating from is that conflict is negative. When you understand that conflict is neither negative nor positive, you will understand that conflict is necessary and intrinsic to life itself.

It's only when human beings desire to do harm when confronted with conflict that problems arise.

“Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict -- alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.”

― Dorothy Thompson

You'll come to realize this eventually....

reply to post by Blarneystoner

The intelligent perspective recognizes the need for conflict. Conflict is a condition which drives change. Change brings about growth and progress.

A somewhat accurate statement. My opinion on that differs slightly. Conflict is an indicator that change is needed, as well as the motivator for that change. If there is no conflict (and all involved parties are not brainwashed or conditioned) then there is no need for change. A need for change will (again, assuming brainwashing and conditioning is not involved) instigate, of natural course, conflict.

The need for conflict is applicable with need for change. No need for change automatically means no conflict. So you're right, and yet wrong...in my humble opinion, of course.

The misconception that you appear to be operating from is that conflict is negative. When you understand that conflict is neither negative nor positive, you will understand that conflict is necessary and intrinsic to life itself.

I never said this. Continual conflict is a bad thing, just as grinding gears in a clock is a bad thing. Eventually, one or more pieces will break, and the clock will stop working. However, occasional conflict reminds us of what we need to improve, and how we have room to grow.

What we have here on Earth is continual conflict. As I said, broken gears...

reply to post by Gazrok

So, if I worked hard for something, like the steak in my fridge, and a homeless crack addict wants it, and breaks into my house to take it, I should just let them have it? No.

What if they need it more than you do? Kindness is giving something without expecting anything in return. You just did that man a favor...are you going to feel bad because now he has a full belly, or are you going to ignore that you just inadvertently helped him and decide to be mad because he broke your window?

The choice to view things in a negative or positive way affects us just as much as the circumstances that provided that choice.

The only way to have zero conflict is to have zero difference of opinions.

I would respectfully disagree with that. My buddy has anger issues...I disagree with the fact that he continually punches mailboxes and trees in an effort to release that anger, but I see no issue compared with the alternative of him breaking a car window or busting someone's head open.

When there is a difference in opinion, we have the choice to accept that difference, or reject it. If we reject that difference, we have assumed the position of an authority attempting to oppress someone else's method of thinking or coping.

Conflict is a direct result of the choice to either accept or reject. If you accept a difference, there is no conflict. If you reject it...that's a personal problem. And really, between accepting differences and finding peace in life...or rejecting all variation and finding that everything gives you hell...

It's survival. In a world where differences meant possible problems with surviving, it would be a different story. In this world, we have no such concerns. We simply don't acept variation because it offends our sense of comfort. Should we impose our comfort upon someone else? That's a violation of their right.

So what it comes down to is whose rights we respect more: ours, or theirs. That is the problem this world faces...service to self, or service to others. There are times when conflict arises as a direct result of someone unreasonably impinging upon our god-given (so to speak) rights, and that is when service to self is perfectly acceptable. But when service to self offends someone else's rights...that's when you need to back down and let them have their share, whatever the case may be.

Conflict, in short, arises from the inability to concede someone else's rights. In a world where survival in no longer an issue, this is an obsolete reaction. That is my point.

If we all thought and acted the same, the world may be a more peaceful place, but it'd also be terribly boring and dull.

As opposed to a world with war and plague and murder and deceit and all of that good stuff?

Okay. If that's your preferred lifestyle.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

I never said this. Continual conflict is a bad thing....

Do you not realize that you are contradicting yourself here?

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Explain, if you would. I'm a little busy and don't feel like reviewing my previous posts.

reply to post by Starchild23


I said: "The misconception that you appear to be operating from is that conflict is negative."

Then you said: "I never said this. Continual conflict is a bad thing... "

The amount of conflict has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad. Again, you're assigning a value to conflict when none is required. Conflict drives everything and it's how we react to it that should be judged.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


I said that you were both right and wrong.

I explained exactly what I meant by that, as well. Reread my previous posts if necessary.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

I said that you were both right and wrong.

I explained exactly what I meant by that, as well. Reread my previous posts if necessary.

Err... no.

You said too much conflict is a bad thing... did you not?

I responded directly to that statement.

I'm beginning to understand why you are having a hard time with conflict... it's because you cannot admit that you are mistaken or have more to learn.

Peace to you, Herald of Awareness

reply to post by Blarneystoner


What if no change is necessary? Is conflict then still required?

That's what I'm getting at in my response to you. Conflict is a symptom, not the medicine.

reply to post by Starchild23


I firmly believe that without conflict humanity would stagnate mentally and probably wouldn't have evolved into what we know today as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

For lack of a better word; Spirituality mirrors the physical world....

The way I understand what you are saying is this: You believe that conflict is unnecessary and that harmony is ideal but I contend that conflict is absolutely necessary for anything to exist, let alone grow and evolve.

If you subscribe to the Big Bang theory (not the TV show) then without conflict, our universe would not exist. As the theory basically says that before the Bang, all matter existed as a single mass in harmony until there was a disruption which in turn started the chaotic chain reaction that became our universe.

Chaos (conflict) is intrinsic to existence itself and without it there would be no universe at all....