|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 27, 2006 12:07:30 GMT -5
That speaks volumes, S. And the battle has just begun
There's many lost now tell me who has won?
The trenches dug within our hearts
Mothers, children, brothers, sisters torn apart. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jun 27, 2006 13:39:01 GMT -5
The "War on Terror" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There is no "War on Terror." It essentially boils down to a lack of peace. I would have much rather seen the "administration" look towards the reasons behind why this situation exists, and go from there. Instead, the administration turned the public eye towards the basic underlying idea that "these people are evil" and go from there. What a ridiculous notion. Yes, people who commit terrorist acts are doing something "evil," but it's also "evil" to throw a bomb into a city and if innocent people get hurt then it was "just part of the war." This creates more hatred and fuels the fire. How do we break the cycle? This, indeed, is the question we must ask. How DO we break the cycle-? |
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Jun 27, 2006 13:40:06 GMT -5
it's all i could muster. CE just makes me want to crawl into a snowcave and die sometimes...makes me echo the sentiment in the end of Candide: ignorance is bliss. let's all be subsistence farmers. hooray. www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38157/ |
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Jun 27, 2006 13:45:01 GMT -5
sometimes i think the only way to break the cycle would be to invent a modern "religion" so pervasively persuasive and powerful that it would move millions beneath it's weight. unfortunately, the religion invented would have to be corrupt, and would only replace old wounds with new ones. people aren't usually interested in the "truth" as such; ethics and morality for their own sakes... people crave "crowns of glory" and "seats at the right hand of god" and all sorts of ridiculous abstract asinine bullshit, instead of peace and progress here and now.
(modified to add, per thorn's post, "in our lifetimes."
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jun 27, 2006 13:45:13 GMT -5
The "War on Terror" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There is no "War on Terror." It essentially boils down to a lack of peace. I would have much rather seen the "administration" look towards the reasons behind why this situation exists, and go from there. Instead, the administration turned the public eye towards the basic underlying idea that "these people are evil" and go from there. What a ridiculous notion. Yes, people who commit terrorist acts are doing something "evil," but it's also "evil" to throw a bomb into a city and if innocent people get hurt then it was "just part of the war." This creates more hatred and fuels the fire. How do we break the cycle? There's no way to break the cycle. War is part of human nature, as any demagogue and his god can incite the masses into a fervor and lead them in a crusade against their fellow man. Even education can't fix this. I respectfully disagree w/your assessment that "There's no way to break the cycle", kMc. Upon deeper reflection. . . I must consider the impending possibility that ultimately, there is no way to AVOID breaking the cycle; all paradigms naturally must come to an end. The question then becomes. . . . "How do we break the cycle during our lifetimes?" Or : "What can we do to help provide impetus towards the already naturally-ocurring 'breaking of this cycle' -?" i.e, To help speed up the process. Although the chances are very slim any of us will live to see this cycle utterly broken, we CAN get together and show - by setting an example for others - just what it is we can DO and AVOID doing, to help usher in a future age wherein our children's children may stand an opportunity to live gracefully, and breathe clean air, and live in relative peace. In the meantime, all we can do is survive, whilst enacting this example for others to follow. After that. . . it's all "crossing our fingers" and hoping for the best. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jun 27, 2006 13:48:08 GMT -5
^ It means we must perforce think of ourselves as "Leaders", rather than Follwers.
We must - at all cost - take it upon ourselves to do this "leading". By setting the example. In due course, those who can see for themselves the harmony of our lives - might eventually "get the picture", and join in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jun 27, 2006 21:34:01 GMT -5
Proactive.
I think it's best to show people that it's in their best interest to understand the law of cause and effect. It's not about right and wrong, but it's about what actions do we take in order to create a better future for EVERYONE. A better future for EVERYONE means the best future for all of us, and not just as individuals. The understanding the people are made up of the same shit, and nothing, I mean nothing is greater than the progress of HUMANITY... not just one man, one group, one nation, or a group of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jun 27, 2006 21:34:22 GMT -5
I'm such an idealist.
|
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Jun 27, 2006 21:40:03 GMT -5
oh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jun 27, 2006 21:42:15 GMT -5
Okay, cautious idealist.
|
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Jun 27, 2006 21:44:06 GMT -5
idealism with a healthy dash of cynicism is a good recipe, i think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jun 27, 2006 21:48:35 GMT -5
Especially coming from my perspective...
It's what some would call a religious perspective, but I definitely believe that my idealist wants are in direct contrast to human desire, which is wanting for the self alone. This ultimately is what I believe must be fought...
|
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Jun 27, 2006 21:51:54 GMT -5
you're saying that your ideals are selfless, whereas your more personal desires are more selfish, and therefore in direct opposition to your ideals? what sorts of ideals are you speaking of? do you think there's a way to satisfy both personal and collective needs/desires?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jun 27, 2006 22:07:23 GMT -5
you're saying that your ideals are selfless, whereas your more personal desires are more selfish, and therefore in direct opposition to your ideals? what sorts of ideals are you speaking of? do you think there's a way to satisfy both personal and collective needs/desires? Yes, I'm saying that my own desires are in conflict to the selfless desires I think are needed from a collective mass of people that could ultimately change the world. It's not just my own desires, but the desires of everyone, because we all have them. I personally think about keeping them in check, but they do win over more than I'd like. The ideal that I'm speaking of is the idea of brotherly/sisterly love--caring for each other. I know it sounds really cliche, but it's the truth. In order for people to understand the idea of cause and effect, and using that to propel the world as a collective we need to look at the base thing that could do that... which is love and care for others. I try to look at it on a micro level... the love for my family, my friends, my boyfriend, etc. and transpose that to a macro level and say that love could be held high enough, and felt for humanity in general to a point where there could be a change in my mindset. And yes, I do think my desires can exist while propelling the collective mass, as long as I'm desiring things that are truly substantive to what I feel is true happiness... the deeper stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Jun 27, 2006 23:08:18 GMT -5
i'm a naive optimist, but i think things are slowly working in that direction sometimes. there are a lot of us out there who share the same ideal and work toward it. there are a lot of people doing amazing things for the betterment of humanity every day. don't be too hard on yourself. just work toward becoming the person you want to be. if that means spending more time helping others, do it. motivate yourself by reminding yourself of the friendship and happiness you'll feel following each step/act toward brotherly/sisterly connection.
|
|
