talk about blameless approaches to take
what action can you take against somebody who claims to be moving in the name of peace?
this observation is applicable to 2 things
1. if you find yourself in opposition to somebody who is acting in the name of peace, you can not take action against them until they literally interrupt your shit personally
2. using this line as your foundation is a great first step in whatever you do
obviously it is up to you to stay consistent
but
if you say you move in peace - if you keep that on the tip of your tongue - it puts you in a great strategic position
also - it helps A LOT if that is actually your motivation
when you do something that 'appears' not peaceful
and somebody steps in opposition
then it becomes a clash of perspectives and a matter of how effectively you can provide foundation for your peaceful ways and actions
and right here we are in a environment where we understand the wisdom of the law of fives...
ultimately - wickedness will beget punishment inflicted on the trespasser (call it a hunch)
so if you are not accustomed to actually trying to move with peace and respect - maybe you should look into it
that being said - from a objective viewpoint - it is still seems to be a great strategic device to employ in 2007
Pls to define 'Peace'
Cos, right now, this is sounding like hippy bullshit to me
you define it
im not Merriam Webster
i guess it would have something to do with not waking up in a place where wars get fought because of the inability to communicate
whats peaceful?
not being interrupted?
being allowed to rest?
i dont know - whatever you find peaceful
often i think not being interrupted is 'peace'
then i think back, and there are long periods of not being interrupted, even expanses of boredom. but i'm still annoyed when i'm interrupted. so maybe i just hate interaction with people.
i think peace is freedom from frustration.
don't ask me to qualify that, i've only had 3 cups of coffee so far.
Peace is the end of the world. They don't write 'RIP' on your gravestone fro nothing.
The war/peace issue is the tip of the iceberg. It's what miss world is talking about when she says 'world peace and an end to hunger'
But that kinda thing is just a large scale extrapolation of a necessary dynamic.
Everything is war-war-war, right down to the very cells in your body.
I strongly suspect peace, real total peace, would suck.
I'm all in favour of people ceasing to shoot each other but we need a little conflict in our lives, otherwise we'd have nothing to do but rot.
I think that's the point. the many definitions of peace some of which can be crafted for potentially nefarious purposes.
to me peace is the state of being with the least amount of worry and concern. The problem is, until you are about to kick the bucket, you never really know when that is.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/NORESTFORHTEWICKED.gif)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on May 31, 2007, 03:44:11 PM
I think that's the point. the many definitions of peace some of which can be crafted for potentially nefarious purposes.
to me peace is the state of being with the least amount of worry and concern. The problem is, until you are about to kick the bucket, you never really know when that is.
Thing is your body is designed to operate under optimal conditions of stress (the opposite of peace in this context?)
You'll feel better and live healthier if you're being subjected to the right ammount of hassle.
Real peace is lying on a sofa staring into space with a drip feed and only blinking when it's absolutely necessary.
I'm labouring this point, not to be a twat but because I seriously think the best path lies in the middle somewhere. Not War, not peace but sorta half and half.
Can't think what I'd call it but 'peace' to me is as bad as war
Silly, I think you're saying that to you, "Peace" means "Absolute Order".
As in, everything being static and unchanging.
Yes?
Yes but I think it gets annoying well before that stage.
'Utopia' gives me the heebies
What if "peace" meant "a balance of Order and Disorder where monkeys weren't trying to kill each other"?
I can't picture it tbh, and I have tried, trust me on this.
I can't help thinking the only thing that would prevent monkeys trying to kill each other would be something along the lines of alien invasion.
I know it's possible, in theory, I'd go so far as to say that I feel I'm already evolved to this level. I still thrive on stress but I pursue it in constructive ways. There's prolly quite a lot (yourself included?) like me in this respect. I really don't know how the hell to bring the general population up to speed tho and I can't see it working on a global scale.
Maybe in another couple of hundred years or so but right now most of the monkeys wanna fight. Even the ones that claim to want peace. Especially those ones, in fact.
There was world peace, briefly, right after World War 2
who fed you THAT one?
:lulz:
SC:
Peace is not unconsciousness
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 31, 2007, 04:41:07 PM
There was world peace, briefly, right after World War 2
Tell it to the Chinese Nationalist Army.
They live in Taiwan now.
the Israelis come to mind as well.
also: the resistance to the Raj broke out after WW2 as did the start of the French-Indochine war, which morphed into what Americans call "Nam".
Argentina's fun was just beginning, come to think of it.
Uh....Berlin? Try crossing into the wrong zone in the wrong uniform. Or being a spy, or even unknowingly being linked to one.