To Whom This Might Concern: Designing a Lasting World Peace.
Since time immemorial people have wished for a lasting Peace. The reason that no lasting world Peace has, as yet, manifested on Earth is that we all wish for a different kind of a Peace. Naturally enough--we all go to a war again to resolve our differences on a battlefield, because the differences in our visions of what a state of Peace on Earth should be differ; sometimes our visions are even very contrary to each other.
It is first necessary to unify, to harmonize all the individual notions of what a world Peace should be into one coherent vision by using what-so-ever non-violent means available, and then (and only then) it would be possible to start realizing this unified vision. If this unification, this harmonizing of all the various individual visions doesn't occur first, then we will continue to reconcile our differences in real life, causing real damage. We, collectively, whether we like each other, or not, have to agree on what kind of a future we, collectively, want to have.
If you agree with the foregoing, and are interested in co-operating (in any kind of capacity) on developing the means by which this unified, harmonized vision of what a real world Peace could be achieved, please visit www.modelearth.org/peace.html (https://www.modelearth.org/peace.html) to read more about the idea.
If you think that there are any flaws in the idea, any mistakes that I am making, I would very much appreciate that you would let me know, please!
May all differences, all controversies, and all conflicts resolve harmlessly in meditations, prayers, models—using what-so-ever wholesome and expedient means—into the benefit to all beings, starting with all beings that there are here and now in this world! May there be no beings that would not benefit optimally!
Thank you, sincerely -
Mr. Jan Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace than what we spend on the military!
Shandi
10-07-2008, 08:36 AM
Since you asked if there are any flaws in your idea of "world peace", I feel compelled to give you my response.
Some definitions of peace are:
absence of hostility, a state of harmony, freedom from dissension, freedom from civil commotion, freedom from anxiety or annoyance, untroubled, tranquil.
How can anyone truly believe that "world peace" is possible? Is peace even possible between friends, family, neighbors, co-workers or intimate partners, except on a limited basis? Are you a "peaceful" person on a continuous (uninterrupted) basis?
If someone or something threatens your basic survival or well being, will you be at peace with that? If you perceive injustice, will you remain peaceful, silent? If you or your children are hungry and you see an opportunity to steal food, will you meditate instead? How do you respond when someone steals from you, cuts you off while driving, or crashes into you? Would you remain at peace?
The reason that no lasting world peace has manifested is not that we wish for a different kind of peace; it's just that it is simply not possible. Even in the animal kingdom, there is no lasting peace.
War is waged because, not as you state, because our visions of peace are "contrary to each other", but due to various other reasons having nothing to do with peace. Some of these are greed, dominance, territorialism, or even basic survival needs.
Your words "it is necessary to unify, to harmonize all the individual notions of what a world peace "should" be, into one coherent vision. There will always be those willing to sacrifice their individual notions of peace, in favor of increased power or possessions (including food, shelter, and other basics that many of us take for granted). Some have to fight for survival.
Consider the "protests" against the various wars, wages, or whatever . Can a "protest" be a peaceful act? When words are linked such as a "peaceful protest", something doesn't ring true. To protest is to disagree, dissent, object.
Rather than putting so much energy into "Designing a Lasting Peace", I'd be more in favor of creating more opportunities for people to learn "non violent communication, so that more "peaceful moments" are a possibility with people in our own circle.
I don't understand how we will ever agree on what kind of future we want,
collectively. Our individual human needs and desires will always take us in many directions. Survival may become more important than peace, and that may not look very peaceful.
Let us as individuals strive for continuous peace, a day at a time, and see how far we get, and become aware of what gets in our way. There's a reason that the word "peaceful" is rarely applied to individuals, but mostly to scenes, situations, and activities that are free of disturbance at a particular time.
Sandy Murphey
To Whom This Might Concern: Designing a Lasting World Peace.
Since time immemorial people have wished for a lasting Peace. The reason that no lasting world Peace has, as yet, manifested on Earth is that we all wish for a different kind of a Peace. Naturally enough--we all go to a war again to resolve our differences on a battlefield, because the differences in our visions of what a state of Peace on Earth should be differ; sometimes our visions are even very contrary to each other.
It is first necessary to unify, to harmonize all the individual notions of what a world Peace should be into one coherent vision by using what-so-ever non-violent means available, and then (and only then) it would be possible to start realizing this unified vision. If this unification, this harmonizing of all the various individual visions doesn't occur first, then we will continue to reconcile our differences in real life, causing real damage. We, collectively, whether we like each other, or not, have to agree on what kind of a future we, collectively, want to have.
If you agree with the foregoing, and are interested in co-operating (in any kind of capacity) on developing the means by which this unified, harmonized vision of what a real world Peace could be achieved, please visit www.modelearth.org/peace.html (https://www.modelearth.org/peace.html) to read more about the idea.
If you think that there are any flaws in the idea, any mistakes that I am making, I would very much appreciate that you would let me know, please!
May all differences, all controversies, and all conflicts resolve harmlessly in meditations, prayers, models—using what-so-ever wholesome and expedient means—into the benefit to all beings, starting with all beings that there are here and now in this world! May there be no beings that would not benefit optimally!
Thank you, sincerely -
Mr. Jan Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace than what we spend on the military!
MsTerry
10-07-2008, 09:08 AM
Peace might just be another figment of our imagination.
Evolution is at risk if we attain a state of peace.
After we attain this state of bliss would we have to impose this kind of thinking on all of nature?
joyma
10-08-2008, 09:49 AM
Thank you for your efforts and inspiration. I fee sad and surprised that the only two public responses on this forum were somewhat oppositional. I applaud you for standing for peace and doing your part to make a difference. If every single person took a stand, and a vow to live and act in a more peaceful way (whether through nonviolent communication or ending world hunger) - we would simply be that much closer to living peacefully. Maybe our whole dynamic would shift and evolution would not rely on survival of the fittest but rather the mutation of DNA toward a harmonious world. Nothing is written in stone. The world/different species don't have to "evolve" by being the most aggressive. Mutations occur based on what allows for the the most number of a particular species to survive in any given situation, so if the "situation" happens to be peace and harmony - well then, those who adapt will be the ones to survive :heart:
P.S. to avoid a backlash of hard core Darwinians, I do realize that certain species have to at this point in our evolution, be aggressive to survive (i.e., animals in the wild who are carnivores). So , I'm not blindly advocating non-aggression across the board...but in species who can think, it is definitely a possibility and should be a priority!!
To Whom This Might Concern: Designing a Lasting World Peace.
Since time immemorial people have wished for a lasting Peace. The reason that no lasting world Peace has, as yet, manifested on Earth is that we all wish for a different kind of a Peace. Naturally enough--we all go to a war again to resolve our differences on a battlefield, because the differences in our visions of what a state of Peace on Earth should be differ; sometimes our visions are even very contrary to each other.
It is first necessary to unify, to harmonize all the individual notions of what a world Peace should be into one coherent vision by using what-so-ever non-violent means available, and then (and only then) it would be possible to start realizing this unified vision. If this unification, this harmonizing of all the various individual visions doesn't occur first, then we will continue to reconcile our differences in real life, causing real damage. We, collectively, whether we like each other, or not, have to agree on what kind of a future we, collectively, want to have.
If you agree with the foregoing, and are interested in co-operating (in any kind of capacity) on developing the means by which this unified, harmonized vision of what a real world Peace could be achieved, please visit www.modelearth.org/peace.html (https://www.modelearth.org/peace.html) to read more about the idea.
If you think that there are any flaws in the idea, any mistakes that I am making, I would very much appreciate that you would let me know, please!
May all differences, all controversies, and all conflicts resolve harmlessly in meditations, prayers, models—using what-so-ever wholesome and expedient means—into the benefit to all beings, starting with all beings that there are here and now in this world! May there be no beings that would not benefit optimally!
Thank you, sincerely -
Mr. Jan Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace than what we spend on the military!
hearthstone
10-08-2008, 12:29 PM
There has to be a unified vision of what the state of World Peace should be, because if we do not sort out our differences by what-so-ever, preferably peaceful, expedient means, we will continue to sort out our differences by what-so-ever, not always peaceful, means in real time and space with results that we are all-too familiar with--social injustice, wars, ecological vows, etc., all which are increasing frighteningly with time--we do not really have the leisure anymore to deal with those by using any methods we have inherited from the past.
More-over: this unified vision of what the state of affairs on Earth should be has to be accessible and amendable by virtually anyone, in order that there is no-one on this planet who would feel that his/her wishes are ignored; this would foster resentment that would cause problems for the whole world society sooner, or later--again and again.
The question is not--is a lasting World Peace possible?
The question is--is a lasting World Peace desirable?
If we would collectively decide that indeed a lasting world Peace is desirable, then we would have to find out what (as exactly as possible) this thing--a lasting World Peace--actually is.
How we decide what this thing--a lasting World Peace--is would be, perhaps, open to discussions. But we, collectively as the entire humanity, have the means and the knowledge to realize it.
Thanks, Hearthstone.
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
Peace might just be another figment of our imagination.
Evolution is at risk if we attain a state of peace.
After we attain this state of bliss would we have to impose this kind of thinking on all of nature?
Who says that Peace equals stagnation?
It would require a constant attention to maintain a state of Peace, it would require a high level of intelligence (that we--the homo sapient--are famous for), it would require vigilance--lest we descend to our current level of existence again.
Thanks, Hearthstone.
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
Evolution follows the koan "Everything changes, Life is suffering"
Don't you agree that Peace doesn't fall in that category, but is only part of it?
As for human intellignece, can you give us an example of that, (since we have to come up with a definition for Peace really means) it seems like a real contra-dictionary
Who says that Peace equals stagnation?
It would require a constant attention to maintain a state of Peace, it would require a high level of intelligence (that we--the homo sapient--are famous for), it would require vigilance--lest we descend to our current level of existence again.
Thanks, Hearthstone.
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
We do not have to come up with yet another definition--there are way too many of them already.
What is needed now is to go beyond defining, and as directly as possible implement the actual lasting World Peace; in order to do that we have to know what this thing--lasting World Peace--should look like: we need as detailed as possible "blueprints" (models) of the world that would show (among many other things) how resources would be distributed (from the general global view to the local community one), where and how everybody would live, etc.
This task would require all the intelligence that we do have.
Who should be drawing those "blueprints"?
If the same political processes that are responsible for this world's sad state are used for deciding what a lasting World Peace should look like, no changes for better in the world would be a certainty.
However--it is within the realm of human knowledge and power to enable virtually everyone on Earth to take a part in the planning process; a process that would require of every participant to educate oneself on all the issues involved--fortunately the same process of drawing the "blueprints" could be used for this kind of education. I offer some thoughts on that in a paper--Ecologically and Socially Sustainable Education.--that is at
https://www.modelearth.org/ecosocsused.html .
Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org
Evolution follows the koan "Everything changes, Life is suffering"
Don't you agree that Peace doesn't fall in that category, but is only part of it?
As for human intellignece, can you give us an example of that, (since we have to come up with a definition for Peace really means) it seems like a real contra-dictionary
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
Some years ago I wrote an article that might be somewhat to your point, you might, perhaps, find it interesting?:
Petri Dish Called Earth.
at https://www.modelearth.org/petri.html
It happens, now and then, that when microscopic organisms grow in a petri dish that a species starts suddenly taking over all the available "lebensraum", crowding all the other cultures out, and suddenly disappears after having killed most of its fellow organisms, not having any more room to expand in. It is wholly natural happening, observable also during the stages of developing ecosystems before they reach a state of a relative stability. A species suddenly flourishes, seemingly triumphing over other species, to disappear in a blink of an eye, as if. This phenomenon might happen a few times during ecological successions that ensue when an ecological system gets disturbed from the outside of that system, and that continues till the ecosystem reaches a state of a dynamic balance in which ecological processes cycle around their mean values.
Analogically, one could see the entire earth system as being a vast petri dish that got disturbed from the outside by an asteroid some sixty million years ago, whose impact caused the demise of a vast number of faunal and floral species. Ever since then the earth ecological system has been recovering from the disturbance, going through successional stages that eventually will result in a relatively stable climax, unless another asteroid, or other unusual catastrophe would cause a process of re-stabilization anew. And, as in any other isolated system that is undergoing a process of stabilization, we might be able to discern the evidence of species coming and going in ongoing successions. One of those species in our giant petri dish earth is a hairless ape that is coming to a prominence currently, one that started over-crowding the earth, crowding out many other fellow "petri dish" species. Most likely this species will also suddenly disappear after its bloom and will be replaced by some, till now insignificant, contender. These goings-on will continue till the earth system reaches a relative stability again, eventually (unless disturbed from the outside of this relative system again, etc.).
This currently on earth dominant species is us, humans, of course, and we are not the only species that happens to ever have been dominant (from time to time) in our giant petri dish. Our behavior is nothing unnatural, we behave as a myriad other species in a myriad of ecosystems would - we are fully natural, and so is everything we do. We are an indelible part of the nature. We might even expedite our own (and most of other species around us) extinction, but that would be also fully natural, judging by what we know about ecological developments. Looking at our earth petri dish from a macroscopic point of view, business is always as usual. So - why should anyone care about what humans are doing?
The answer is that we, humans, should care, for purely selfish reasons, if we ever do care about ourselves and about our offspring. It is very obvious that most calamities and sufferings that humans are subject to are human made. Humans are their own main source of their miseries. They are very much like any microscopic organism (presumably non-intelligent) in a petri dish that by its very own success as a species undermines its own future continuity and well-being. Humans do not seem to be any different from any such species, despite their own self-declared superiority to all other life. We even call our own species "sapient" ("full of knowledge", "sagacious", according to Webster's). This self-denomination, obviously, is not true, judging by the overall human behavior which is not different from the behavior of any "successful" species in any petri dish. It would very much seem from observing life in petri dishes that the real recipe for a real long term success for any truly intelligent species would be to strive for a stability of existence of all the different microorganisms in any petri dish, including the petri dish Earth, and if there is a real intelligence in any petri dish (be it a glass one, the petri dish earth, or the petri dish universe), it would be undetectable, not distinct from any other organisms around, because an intelligent species would have to, for purely selfish reasons, in order to succeed in the long term, care as much about any other species as about itself. This paradoxical recipe for success might not make sense to many humans today, but unless it does, we cannot call ourselves "Homo sapient". Judging by our "success" we are enjoying now at the expense of other life in our petri dish, we are not enough "full of knowledge" yet.
Thank you for your efforts and inspiration. I fee sad and surprised that the only two public responses on this forum were somewhat oppositional. I applaud you for standing for peace and doing your part to make a difference. If every single person took a stand, and a vow to live and act in a more peaceful way (whether through nonviolent communication or ending world hunger) - we would simply be that much closer to living peacefully. Maybe our whole dynamic would shift and evolution would not rely on survival of the fittest but rather the mutation of DNA toward a harmonious world. Nothing is written in stone. The world/different species don't have to "evolve" by being the most aggressive. Mutations occur based on what allows for the the most number of a particular species to survive in any given situation, so if the "situation" happens to be peace and harmony - well then, those who adapt will be the ones to survive :heart:
P.S. to avoid a backlash of hard core Darwinians, I do realize that certain species have to at this point in our evolution, be aggressive to survive (i.e., animals in the wild who are carnivores). So , I'm not blindly advocating non-aggression across the board...but in species who can think, it is definitely a possibility and should be a priority!!
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
I truly don't understand how we human beings can "sort out our differences". If you could give me a simple explanation of how the multitude of differences such as cultural, environmental, genetic, religious, political, preferred, etc. can be "sorted out", I'd like to see it.
You mention "ecological vows", a term I'm not familiar with. However, I am familiar with the word "vows". I've heard the term with regard to marriage or celebacy. Vows are made by human beings, whose "feelings" may be very sincere in the moment, but feelings change, which is another part of being human. Sometimes vows are kept out of fear. I like "re-newable" vows that consider the changes that constantly occur in evolving human beings.
I believe that conflict is also part of being human. Does anyone actually go through the day, or a week, without conflict of some kind?
How about a renewable vow to peace each day? A promise to ourselves that we alone can monitor, or enlist the help of a friend or lover to remind us when we break our vow to peace. What great feedback that might be!
I do not believe World Peace is possible, and I can't see wasting my time on a model that I see as a never-ending project, How can we decide if World Peace is possible, when we don't even have a definition of it?
It doesn't make sense to me to ask if I want something that I don't even know how to define.
example:
"If we would collectively decide that indeed a lasting world Peace is desirable, then we would have to find out what (as exactly as possible) this thing--a lasting World Peace--actually is
My basic intention regarding peace is to look at my daily life, and ask myself "Have I been completely at peace today?" Until we individually can answer this question affirmatively, any attempt at world peace is futile.
My belief is that "It's an inside job!" We can read about peace, We can talk about peace. We can try to define peace. We can blame others because we don't have peace. We can even put energy into a "model" of World Peace, but if we ourselves don't feel at peace each and every moment of every day, we're in a grand delusion of the highest order.
Can eveyone who commits to participating in the World Peace Model be an example of unwavering, lasting, and continual peace throughout their day?
Harthstone, are you an example of lasting peace, 24/7 ? Will your friends and family give testimonial to this?
Is there anyone who can speak as a true model of ongoing, lasting peace?
Anyone who can feel peaceful in the midst of these human emotions?
Anger, jealousy, fear, depression, lonliness, pain, insecurity, grief, frustration, overwhelm worry, disappointed, impatience, irritation discouragement, etc.
I personally don't know anyone who fits this category....maybe the Dali Lama? Anyone else? According to the Bible even Jesus Christ showed anger, and that wasn't very peaceful at all.
******************************************
There has to be a unified vision of what the state of World Peace should be, because if we do not sort out our differences by what-so-ever, preferably peaceful, expedient means, we will continue to sort out our differences by what-so-ever, not always peaceful, means in real time and space with results that we are all-too familiar with--social injustice, wars, ecological vows, etc., all which are increasing frighteningly with time--we do not really have the leisure anymore to deal with those by using any methods we have inherited from the past.
More-over: this unified vision of what the state of affairs on Earth should be has to be accessible and amendable by virtually anyone, in order that there is no-one on this planet who would feel that his/her wishes are ignored; this would foster resentment that would cause problems for the whole world society sooner, or later--again and again.
The question is not--is a lasting World Peace possible?
The question is--is a lasting World Peace desirable?
If we would collectively decide that indeed a lasting world Peace is desirable, then we would have to find out what (as exactly as possible) this thing--a lasting World Peace--actually is.
How we decide what this thing--a lasting World Peace--is would be, perhaps, open to discussions. But we, collectively as the entire humanity, have the means and the knowledge to realize it.
Thanks, Hearthstone.
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
SMurphey: I truly don't understand how we human beings can "sort out our differences". If you could give me a simple explanation of how the multitude of differences such as cultural, environmental, genetic, religious, political, preferred, etc. can be "sorted out", I'd like to see it.
Hearthstone: I meant "differences" in the sense of a "cause of a disagreement or controversy" (www.thefreedictionary.com/difference (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/difference))
You mention "ecological vows", a term I'm not familiar with.
Hearthstone: Should have been woes.
I do not believe World Peace is possible ...
Hearthstone: Why couldn't you imagine what a "World Peace" would be like? What is stopping you?
Thanks, Hearthstone.
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
SMurphey:
I do not believe World Peace is possible ...
Hearthstone:
I feel that I did not follow your previous post very satisfactorily--let me try a different approach:
Would you think that a lasting World Peace is desirable? Never mind, for the nonce, whether such a thing is considered possible, or not?
Thanks, Hearthstone.
N.B. Credit for approaches to reasoning used in this thread is due to The Path of Least Resistance
by Robert Fritz, Salem, MA, DMA Inc., 1984, ISBN: 0-930641-00-0
and to the Mahayana philosophy.
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
I am looking to you as a "model" of what you propose, and rather than address my sincere questions about your daily actions towards your philosophy of World Peace, you avoid responding to them.
Your own words give revealing clues: "I did not follow your previous post very satisfactorily--let me try a different approach"
You didn't follow my post; in other words you didn't understand what I was saying, so you're going to "try a different approach" rather than ask me to explain further.
Than you go back to repeating your ongoing question, which I repeatedly have answered:
"Would you think that a lasting World Peace is desirable? Never mind, for the nonce, whether such a thing is considered possible, or not?"
And again I answer "I do not believe World Peace is possible ..."
Even in our simple communication, I do not think that you are sincerely interested in my perspective because it conflicts with your own position. So, this is a perfect example of what I've been trying to get across.
If a simple disagreement of belief between the two of us cannot be "sorted out", that alone stands in the way of peace between us. But the aspect that bothers me the most, is your unwillingness to answer my questions about how peaceful your own life is.
I see your avoidance of my questions, and unwillingness to question what you don't follow in my post, as glaring proof that you have no desire to understand my perspective. All you really do is repeat what I consider an inane question, which I've answered several times:
"Would you think that a lasting World Peace is desirable? Never mind, for the nonce, whether such a thing is considered possible, or not?"
Do you think that if you keep asking the same question, without regard to my answers, that at some point I will change my mind? It seems that the only answer you want is "yes". My answer stands as a reflection of my true belief. So, I leave you to "sort it out".
Sandy Murphey
SMurphey:
I do not believe World Peace is possible ...
Hearthstone:
I feel that I did not follow your previous post very satisfactorily--let me try a different approach:
Would you think that a lasting World Peace is desirable? Never mind, for the nonce, whether such a thing is considered possible, or not?
Thanks, Hearthstone.
N.B. Credit for approaches to reasoning used in this thread is due to The Path of Least Resistance
by Robert Fritz, Salem, MA, DMA Inc., 1984, ISBN: 0-930641-00-0
and to the Mahayana philosophy.
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
Hearthstone,
You didn't follow my post; in other words you didn't understand what I was saying, so you're going to "try a different approach" rather than ask me to explain further.
Smurphey, I am interested in and appreciate you explaining your feelings further. do you really feel the need to be asked to explain yourself further before you do it or do u feel at peace at just 'doing it' ? Curious minds wish to know :hmmm:
Than you go back to repeating your ongoing question, which I repeatedly have answered:
"Would you think that a lasting World Peace is desirable? Never mind, for the nonce, whether such a thing is considered possible, or not?"
And again I answer "I do not believe World Peace is possible ..."
* My intent and desire is to hear what you are saying and understand.
I am hearing that you do NOT believe World Peace is possible, but from you posts, I imagine you DO believe inner peace is possible just not on a continuous basis . Is this accurate?
*Question: Am I hearing you equate that because you do not believe World Peace is possible, therefore it is not desirable?
Even in our simple communication, I do not think that you are sincerely interested in my perspective because it conflicts with your own position.
If a simple disagreement of belief between the two of us cannot be "sorted out", that alone stands in the way of peace between us
* Perhaps you both can find a way to be at peace by agreeing to disagree!
I am sure there are many who feel very similar to both perspectives on whether World Peace is actually possible.
I for one am interested in everyone's perspective on this issue and feel Hearthstone has good intents regardless of what is or is not possible.
Of course, I tend to leans towards the phrase, " Anything is possible".
Especially when the passion of desire is there!
But the aspect that bothers me the most, is your unwillingness to answer my questions about how peaceful your own life is.
I too would enjoy hearing how peaceful Hearthstone's life is!
In fact, I would enjoy hearing how peaceful anyone and everyone's life is or might be!
I feel and support the belief that Life can be whatever we want or choose it to be. We are blessed with a choice on how we respond or react to experiences in Life.
And even though conflicts, challenges and obstacles are a part of the journey, learning what i can from them, helps contribute to my peace of mind. And I have actually made it a week or more without conflict!
However, I have never made it through a day without some challenge(s)!
Best to all & wish to hear from all !
:heart:
hearthstone
10-12-2008, 06:29 AM
Dear SMurphey,
when I opened the thread, I asked:
"If you think that there are any flaws in the idea, any mistakes that I am making, I would very much appreciate that you would let me know, please!"
What I heard from you so far mainly was your telling me that a lasting World Peace is impossible. That you thinks so, doesn't make it a flaw in what I would like to see happening--resolving the differences among the ideas of what a lasting Peace should be of people who do think that a lasting Peace is possible!
It doesn't matter that there is only a handful of people who consider a lasting World Peace possible! Once there would be a start of portraying in models what such a world at Peace, I believe that eventually other people would get interested.
A possibility of something is much easier to present in a model than trying to show people that something is impossible to do!
I also think that what we individually do with our individual lives is not important as much as what we all do collectively in deciding what our collective lot in this world becomes--let us imagine that we all sit in a hell-bound hand-basket; we fight and bicker instead of steering the hand-basket to a desirable destination that we all have to agree upon.
Thanks, Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
[quote=nurturetruth;71823]Smurphey, I am interested in and appreciate you explaining your feelings further. do you really feel the need to be asked to explain yourself further before you do it or do u feel at peace at just 'doing it' ? Curious minds wish to know :hmmm:
I appreciate your sincere interest in the communication between Harthstone and myself.
I do not have a need to explain my feelings further, but I would if asked.
If there's something that you don't understand, please clarify your question.
I have gone into detail of why I don't believe World Peace is possible, but if there's a specific part about my perspective that is not understandable, then I'd appreciate a specific request to clarify. If this were a face to face communication, and the person said to me "I didn't quite follow you, let ME
try another approach." Does that seem like a normal response? It seems like the receiver doesn't want to understand, but rather wants to try to convince me by saying it differently, rather than say "Could you clarify this point for me?"
I have asked questions of Harthstone that have been either overlooked, several times, or ignored because they may point out a glaring truth that he doesn't want to face. This, as I see it, is the crux of my point.
If individuals cannot live day to day in peace (with themselves and others), without conflict or disagreement, how can the entire world population be in peace? It's really a simple concept. Whether or not it's desirable is a moot question. I usually don't desire something that isn't possible. My desires focus on what I perceive is possible. This is based on my observations and experience of living on this planet.
Having intelligence and knowledge is only one part of the equation. We, also have emotions which easily over-ride our intelligence and knowledge, and actually are the best guide we have.
* My intent and desire is to hear what you are saying and understand.
I am hearing that you do NOT believe World Peace is possible, but from you posts, I imagine you DO believe inner peace is possible just not on a continuous basis . Is this accurate?
Inner peace is a "feeling", and as such, is subject to change.
I do believe that a feeling of inner peace is possible, as is joy,
passion, enthusiasm, optimism, hope, contentment, along with the unwanted
feelings of frustration, disappointment, doubt, worry, blame, anger, revenge, rage, jealousy, insecurity, fear, depression, and despair.
*Question: Am I hearing you equate that because you do not believe World Peace is possible, therefore it is not desirable?
As I said previously, it's a moot question. Example: My favorite color is rose, therefore it is desirable that all things be rose, even though my intelligence tells me that it's impossible, unless I wear rose colored glasses. I think that those who believe that World Peace is possible are wearing "World Peace colored glasses. The words sounds so wonderful, and are repeated so often, without much intelligent thought behind it.
* Perhaps you both can find a way to be at peace by agreeing to disagree!
I am sure there are many who feel very similar to both perspectives on whether World Peace is actually possible.
How can I feel peaceful towards a person who doesn't acknowledge my questions, or ask for more clarification when he doesn't understand my words? I have no respect for people who don't "walk the talk". How does his communication show me that he is really interested in peace? His desire to build a model for World Peace doesn't quite do it. He fails in the most basic test; the ability to communicate in a way that shows his true interest in understanding a perspective that is different than his own.
This is the beginning of a step towards peace between 2 people, and he is unable or unwilling to take a stand for his words.
I think that my perspective is not a popular one. I also think that because the words (WP) sound "desirable", people don't even think about what it really means, to them, even on a personal level.
Harthstone has not even defined what he believes World Peace would look like. Wouldn't that be desirable to know? Is it possible for him or anyone to articulate what that means to them? Is Harthstone an example of how World Peace can be initiated between the two of us, and beyond?
I for one am interested in everyone's perspective on this issue and feel Hearthstone has good intents regardless of what is or is not possible.
Who can fault someone with such a grandoise perspective? I, personally cannot respect anyone who proclaims a desire for World Peace and wants to create a "model", yet is not willing to try to understand another person's perspective, which is different than their own. This alone illustrates what I've been trying to say.
Of course, I tend to leans towards the phrase, " Anything is possible".
Especially when the passion of desire is there!
I am also an optimist, and believe that "anything is possible", within the range of possibility, on our planet. There are certain things that I have a passion and desire for. 1) I desire to fly 2) I desire to be taller 3)I desire to be free of pain 4)I desire to feel at peace in every moment, and many other things I won't go into.
I have a question for you. Is there anything you desire, that your own intelligence, observation, and experience tell you isn't possible, even with your optimistic outlook?
I too would enjoy hearing how peaceful Hearthstone's life is!
Thank you! It feels like an acknowledgement of my question.
In fact, I would enjoy hearing how peaceful anyone and everyone's life is or might be!
I feel and support the belief that Life can be whatever we want or choose it to be. We are blessed with a choice on how we respond or react to experiences in Life.
Yes, I believe that choice is our point of power. It's always "an inside job"!
And even though conflicts, challenges and obstacles are a part of the journey, learning what i can from them, helps contribute to my peace of mind. And I have actually made it a week or more without conflict!
However, I have never made it through a day without some challenge(s)!
Your words illustrate my point. "conflicts, challenges and obstacles are a part of the journey". If that is reality, how is ongoing peace possible?
How wonderful that you've gone a week or more without conflict. Thank you for sharing that. I see "challenge" as very different from conflict or even obstacles. I desire challanges, because they call on me to use the skills and talents that I have, which may mean doing something myself, or finding someone to do it.
Right now I have a challenge to transfer some information from a mini-cassette to a CD. It's a short poem by a man who died recently, and his family wants several copies of it. So, if anyone reading this knows how to do this, please let me know. I'll also put a post up.
Sandy Murphey
Best to all & wish to hear from all !
:heart:
Shandi
10-12-2008, 09:58 AM
OH, I get it now! If I had realized that this post was only for those who believed that World Peace was possible, and wanted to "sort out" the differences in what that should look like, so that there is total agreement,
I wouldn't have wasted my precious time on this.
Harthstone quotes:
"It's only about resolving the differences among the ideas of what a lasting Peace should be of people who do think that a lasting Peace is possible!
and.....
what we individually do with our individual lives is not important as much as what we all do collectively in deciding what our collective lot in this."
I will continue to follow the responses of those who really resonate with your premise. I'm interested in seeing what others have to say, if only for the entertainment value of watching people in a "hell-bound hand-basket, fighting and bickering" about what World Peace should be. It would make a great comedy show. I may write up a proposal, and make some money off this.
I rest in peace, and prosperity!
Sandy Murphey
Dear SMurphey,
when I opened the thread, I asked:
"If you think that there are any flaws in the idea, any mistakes that I am making, I would very much appreciate that you would let me know, please!"
What I heard from you so far mainly was your telling me that a lasting World Peace is impossible. That you thinks so, doesn't make it a flaw in what I would like to see happening--resolving the differences among the ideas of what a lasting Peace should be of people who do think that a lasting Peace is possible!
It doesn't matter that there is only a handful of people who consider a lasting World Peace possible! Once there would be a start of portraying in models what such a world at Peace, I believe that eventually other people would get interested.
A possibility of something is much easier to present in a model than trying to show people that something is impossible to do!
I also think that what we individually do with our individual lives is not important as much as what we all do collectively in deciding what our collective lot in this world becomes--let us imagine that we all sit in a hell-bound hand-basket; we fight and bicker instead of steering the hand-basket to a desirable destination that we all have to agree upon.
Thanks, Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
"We will only survive and thrive if we recognize the central power of our meals to shape our consciousness. Food is eaten and becomes the physical vehicle of consciousness, and consciousness chooses what to incorporate into itself from itself. Do we cultivate and eat fear or love? Terrorized animals or nurtured plants? We cannot build a tower of love with bricks of cruelty."
This is an exerpt from "The World Peace Diet" by Dr. Will Tuttle. I highly recommend it!
WorldPeaceDiet.org (https://worldpeacediet.org/)
CSummer
10-12-2008, 01:01 PM
World peace is possible. Let us not define it so restrictively as to make it seem impossible. Peace is not an absence of conflict or disagreement; peace is an absence of violence as a way to deal with conflict or as a way to have power over others.
Is world peace likely? Probably not without a major catastrophe that enables us to see that we are here together, struggling for survival in a small craft that is in grave peril.
Is this a reason to give up on creating peace where we are and where we can? I don't believe it is, because if peace doesn't start with us - right here, where we live - then where will it start?
Does everyone need to have the same vision or agree on a common vision in order for there to be peace - either globally or locally? I don't believe so. We do need to agree not to use - or support the use of - violence as a way of dealing with conflict, having control over others or gaining access to resources. This is asking a lot. Our very way of life (if we live as the vast majority of Americans do) supports violence, so if we truly want to live peacefully, we must come together and develop ways of meeting our needs that don't depend on violent systems.
Is there a peaceful and sustainable way to live? I believe there is and that it must be created in cooperation with others who share this belief. It requires learning to live and work together in harmony - recognizing that dissonance is part of harmony and that conflict can be resolved. It will require giving up many addictive (self-distracting) patterns so we can focus on meeting our real needs. It means supporting each other in healing the wounds from which our addictions arise and recognizing that true community (a way of life based on mutual trust, caring and support) can only be created when we're coming from inner wholeness.
Restoring wholeness - both to our selves and to the planet - is possible. It becomes likely though only when there is a supportive environment that enables us to outgrow the sense of powerlessness that leads us to give up our power and responsibility to others to meet our needs and manage "the world" for us. We cannot make the world be peaceful as long as violence is an acceptable option. We can, however, create community as a place of peace, healing, mutual caring and empowerment - as our true home where all of our real needs can be met.
May we find our way - together!
greeness
10-12-2008, 05:43 PM
“Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.”
- Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization
https://www.veganvoices.net/vegan/pics/blondie.jpg:heart:
hearthstone
10-13-2008, 03:18 AM
Dear SMurphey,
for the sake of clarity, could you, in a only couple (or so) of sentences, re-state what flaw(s) you found in my proposal, and why you think so?
The sheer volume of your response makes it very difficult for me (I am that challenged!) to conduct a meaningful and constructive dialog.
Thank you sincerely, Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
Your renewed Question, (where you blame Smurfy for giving to much info to your questions) kind of exposes what Smurfy is saying in response to your response of her response.
You are only willing to hear from people that agree with your proposal.
I don't think it is fair to ask to ask someone to clarify her position after you tell her that she is giving you too much info to clarify her position.
After rereading her responses, I think she makes a clear case for what she believes in. If there is someone who needs to clarify her position, I think it should be you, for you have not answered her questions completely.
:2cents:
for the sake of clarity, could you, in a only couple (or so) of sentences, re-state what flaw(s) you found in my proposal, and why you think so?
The sheer volume of your response makes it very difficult for me (I am that challenged!) to conduct a meaningful and constructive dialog.
hearthstone
10-14-2008, 02:26 PM
Some days ago I wrote in reply to Sandy Murphey:
"... for the sake of clarity, could you, in a only couple (or so) of sentences, re-state what flaw(s) you found in my proposal, and why you think so?
The sheer volume of your response makes it very difficult for me (I am that challenged!) to conduct a meaningful and constructive dialog."With her permission I am reprinting here what she wrote back to me in private, together with my comments (her original reply is at the foot of this post):
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Sandy Murphey wrote:
> From my perspective, the basic flaw lies in the nature of humanity. As long
> as we have people that desire control of others by force (Hitler, Saddam,
> etc), laws (governments), or intimidation (IRS), or "computer hacking",
> peace is not possible.
Hearthstone:
Many people, maybe the majority of people, might feel that world peace is impossible.
However, it is very well possible to start designing it--even people who do not believe that peace is possible might want to see some improvements in their lives; even they would be able to input the models that would essay to portray better possible ways for humans to exist--virtually everyone would have access to the modeling process; the process would be anonymous, thus ensuring that the qualities (whether those would be positive, or negative) of personalities would not interfere with the modeling process--only do-ability and realizability of ideas being inputted would matter.
Sandy Murphey:
> If individuals cannot live peacefully with others in their own lives and
> relationships, I don't see how peace is possible on a the larger planetary
> scale. To say that it doesn't matter how peaceful people live individually,
> is illogical.
Hearthstone:
Many people throughout the course of human existence lived exceptionally blameless, peaceful lives, yet their individual lives could not prevent what is happening to this planet now-a-days--an unprecedented global wide catastrophe that still is possible to revert, but if we don't act soon and decisively, and if we don't start addressing the root causes of this planet's woes, we shall not succeed.
It is already possible to start devising ways of how to harmlessly, peacefully resolve controversies, conflicts, differences that there are among all on a global, local, whatever scale.
Sandy Murphey:
> And, to think that the way to World Peace is to build a model to "sort out"
> the differences among people, to come up with one agreed upon perspective,
> also seems illogical.
Hearthstone:
A model that could do the job is not only a possibility, but a necessity (especially on a larger than a small community scale; we have all the know-how needed for the job already), if we want to stop resolving our differences, etc. in real life causing real damage.
Current ways of doing politics are inadequate to deal with the enormity of what is happening in the world today without resorting to harsh methods that would result in the existence of dictatorships, police states, increasing social injustice, etc.
We can be resolving the very same differences, etc., without causing any harm to anyone, in models and such.
Sandy Murphey:
> So, basically I see that your thinking is flawed because it doesn't take the
> reality of humanity into consideration, disregards the inability of people
> to live peacefully in their own lives, and proposes that all perspectives be
> aligned into one.
Hearthstone:
My reasoning says that *NO* methods and ways of resolving conflicts that humans have been using so far have had any success so far. QED--most indices show trends that offer no hope for any fundamental betterments on Earth any time soon what-so-ever.
We have to come up with something that would actually be *geared* for profound and very much needed healing of this world. We have to do it on a scale from the basic local community to the whole globe.
Modeling of a better existence for the whole Earth could sway even the less-than-holier--no one wants to suffer--they could positively influence their future by being able to learn how to take part in the modeling process. Currently this is mostly impossible for social outcasts to do; their resentments just result in procreating more future problems, usually.
Thank you, Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .
---
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful means--than what we spend on the military!
From my perspective, the basic flaw lies in the nature of humanity. As long
as we have people that desire control of others by force (Hitler, Saddam,
etc), laws (governments), or intimidation (IRS), or "computer hacking",
peace is not possible.
If individuals cannot live peacefully with others in their own lives and
relationships, I don't see how peace is possible on a the larger planetary
scale. To say that it doesn't matter how peaceful people live individually,
is illogical.
And, to think that the way to World Peace is to build a model to "sort out"
the differences among people, to come up with one agreed upon perspective,
also seems illogical.
So, basically I see that your thinking is flawed because it doesn't take the
reality of humanity into consideration, disregards the inability of people
to live peacefully in their own lives, and proposes that all perspectives be
aligned into one.
Remember, it's only my view of your proposal. As you continue on this path,
realizations will be part of your own enlightenment.
Sandy
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:21 AM, hearthstone @ WaccoBB
<[email protected]>wrote:
> From: hearthstone
> Category: WaccoTalk
> Thread: To Whom This Might Concern: Designing a Lasting World Peace.
>
> Dear SMurphey,
>
> for the sake of clarity, could you, in a only couple (or so) of sentences,
> re-state what flaw(s) you found in my proposal, and why you think so?
>
> The sheer volume of your response makes it very difficult for me (I am that
> challenged!) to conduct a meaningful and constructive dialog.
>
> Thank you sincerely, Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .
>
> ---
> If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the
> world, we would spend more on actively creating Peace--by using peaceful
> means--than what we spend on the military!
>
> Creating Lasting Peace:
> https://www.modelearth.org/peace.html</[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]>