This time of year the question always comes up "What can I do to create peace in the new year?" I pledged 100 hours to the 1000 Years of Peace project. This is a good start for my participation on a global scale.
What can I do to create peace for those I love, I asked myself? I can try my best to make my interaction with everyone I love and those I will meet over the next year as full of compassion, caring, and understanding as possible. Passing judgement and in the harsher form hatred from person to person, sympathetically or in conflict does not lead to peace. I can practice freedom from hate and judgement. While my own biases are bound to creep in somewhere over the year, I can still strive to be as aware of my judgement as possible, if not in my thoughts, at least before I act. If I act out my judgements against others, I can make amends as soon as I realize I have done so.
I do not have to give up myself to accomplish these things. I can be aware of my needs and to the degree the do not require me to create conflict with others to get my needs met, peace will reign. When my needs conflict with others, I can choose to create the conflict or give up my need. Where the need involves basic security, shelter or nourishment, I will have a dilemma to overcome. My needs and conflict or not. I might be able to skip a meal or even allow my possessions to be taken. Can I allow my person to be injured to avoid my contribution to conflict? What of conflict involving the safety or well being of my family or loved ones?
Ultimately this is where the decision to create conflict for the protection of self, at an individual, family, group, or community basis kicks in. Fear will lead us to think we must act in cases we may not really have to. Freedom from fear will allow me to keep a clear mind and avoid unecessary conflict. Could the civilization of the human race involve overcoming fear and thus reducing conflict within the world?
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The nature of the conflict within
I have been dealing with emotions lately around a perceived conflict in my life that make it clear that sometimes there is a force within me that wants to act in defiance of any logic or rational premise.
This force is propagating conflict in my life, almost to the exclusion of everything else, even though logically it makes no sense to me. The force is effecting me by feeding my fears and creating doubt. Maybe in my genetic history this force was essential to my ancestors survival. It helped them avoid situations that could have caused their demise, thus allowing them to conceive each generation before me. Today it seems to have the opposite effect, it is pulling me down a path to end a very dear relationship, or dramatically alter it. This relationship in any known or logical sense is not threatening my life, so why the fear?
I wonder if the same things happens on a more grander scale around the world. If war is fundamentally based on a group version of this un-containable fear. Of course war is dealing with the issue by taking the step of trying to control what is percieved to be causing the fear. As opposed in my case of simply stepping away from the fear, removing from my existence what is related to the fear. Is this the difference between a pacifist and its opposite? We all at times feel the fear, we can step towards it and confront it to alter the world to eliminate the threat, or rise above sacrificing the conflict itself and step away. Is this possibly related to fight or flight instincts? But what I am describing is not an instinctual reaction, it plays in my subconscious eating away at my self confidence and rational thought to raise my fear to a level of action for self preservation.
I could in this case take action to resolve the conflict by asking the person I am in the relationship to change. But of course, I cannot expect that change to occur as I wish not to control the source of the conflict. I can only observe my own tolerance and compassion for this source and if required take action myself. This is obviously my pacifism. How was I ever successful in business with this attitude?
It is also important to note that in this particular case, I have made myself vulnerable to this relationship. So regardless of the grief of losing the relationship, I will continue to feel ramifications if I decide to step away. Much like the Palestinians, or Israelis would experience if they walked away from their conflict. If the Palestinians left the land Israel is occupying, they would have to make changes towards establishing a new life somewhere else. If the Israelis give up the occupied land, they will have to deal with the same type of change and insecurity it creates. So what does that have to do with me? It seems like a similar conflict with infinitely smaller ramifications.
Why am I vulnerable? Was it codependence? Not by the definition of codependency in Websters: "a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition". I chose willingly to make myself vulnerable in the spirit of partnership. It was not a pathological condition to which my partner existed or demanded me make myself vulnerable. It was simply, lets work together here. Committing myself, my whole self and all my resources to that journey. Not expecting the relationship to end, even expecting to abide by an agreement that the relationship would not end. Now I am faced with taking action to save my subconscious, since my subconscious cannot seem to live with the conditions as they are. Am I deciding to sacrifice or goto war to protect my investment? Is sacrifice living with the conflict and suppressing the subconscious? Is there a way to satisfy the subconscious with knowledge so that it is at peace?
In my case I have the option to ask questions, and a willing partner to answer them. So far each question who's answer brings new knowledge also brings new doubt, feeding the uncertainty, rather than satiating whatever causes the fear. Even though logically I think otherwise, something inside me is not happy with the situation and seems to distort any new knowledge to justify itself. Choosing to see that within the knowledge, or how it might be twisted, to support the fear and resulting conflict. So far there is no question I can ask that soothes the subconscious in any measurable way. This itself seems to defy logic. Why is it so hard to know what I need to allow the situation to reach a peaceful solution?
So I ponder my world and its similarity with the observable world around me.
This force is propagating conflict in my life, almost to the exclusion of everything else, even though logically it makes no sense to me. The force is effecting me by feeding my fears and creating doubt. Maybe in my genetic history this force was essential to my ancestors survival. It helped them avoid situations that could have caused their demise, thus allowing them to conceive each generation before me. Today it seems to have the opposite effect, it is pulling me down a path to end a very dear relationship, or dramatically alter it. This relationship in any known or logical sense is not threatening my life, so why the fear?
I wonder if the same things happens on a more grander scale around the world. If war is fundamentally based on a group version of this un-containable fear. Of course war is dealing with the issue by taking the step of trying to control what is percieved to be causing the fear. As opposed in my case of simply stepping away from the fear, removing from my existence what is related to the fear. Is this the difference between a pacifist and its opposite? We all at times feel the fear, we can step towards it and confront it to alter the world to eliminate the threat, or rise above sacrificing the conflict itself and step away. Is this possibly related to fight or flight instincts? But what I am describing is not an instinctual reaction, it plays in my subconscious eating away at my self confidence and rational thought to raise my fear to a level of action for self preservation.
I could in this case take action to resolve the conflict by asking the person I am in the relationship to change. But of course, I cannot expect that change to occur as I wish not to control the source of the conflict. I can only observe my own tolerance and compassion for this source and if required take action myself. This is obviously my pacifism. How was I ever successful in business with this attitude?
It is also important to note that in this particular case, I have made myself vulnerable to this relationship. So regardless of the grief of losing the relationship, I will continue to feel ramifications if I decide to step away. Much like the Palestinians, or Israelis would experience if they walked away from their conflict. If the Palestinians left the land Israel is occupying, they would have to make changes towards establishing a new life somewhere else. If the Israelis give up the occupied land, they will have to deal with the same type of change and insecurity it creates. So what does that have to do with me? It seems like a similar conflict with infinitely smaller ramifications.
Why am I vulnerable? Was it codependence? Not by the definition of codependency in Websters: "a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition". I chose willingly to make myself vulnerable in the spirit of partnership. It was not a pathological condition to which my partner existed or demanded me make myself vulnerable. It was simply, lets work together here. Committing myself, my whole self and all my resources to that journey. Not expecting the relationship to end, even expecting to abide by an agreement that the relationship would not end. Now I am faced with taking action to save my subconscious, since my subconscious cannot seem to live with the conditions as they are. Am I deciding to sacrifice or goto war to protect my investment? Is sacrifice living with the conflict and suppressing the subconscious? Is there a way to satisfy the subconscious with knowledge so that it is at peace?
In my case I have the option to ask questions, and a willing partner to answer them. So far each question who's answer brings new knowledge also brings new doubt, feeding the uncertainty, rather than satiating whatever causes the fear. Even though logically I think otherwise, something inside me is not happy with the situation and seems to distort any new knowledge to justify itself. Choosing to see that within the knowledge, or how it might be twisted, to support the fear and resulting conflict. So far there is no question I can ask that soothes the subconscious in any measurable way. This itself seems to defy logic. Why is it so hard to know what I need to allow the situation to reach a peaceful solution?
So I ponder my world and its similarity with the observable world around me.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Join the March on Washington
"The people must demand: End the War Now"
Saturday, September 15th, march on the White House and Congress.
Can we get more Americans to use their voice, than Iraqis that have been killed since we went their to liberate them?
Do you think there are fewer terrorists determined to strike in the US now, than before the war? Do you think we are closer to ending the war than ever? Do you think the war is winnable? Do you think your child will be safer during their lifetime if we "win" this war?
National Security my arse. US Intelligence analysts have concluded there are more terrorists willing to commit violent acts, because of the war, and the number is increasing faster than America's efforts can reduce it. Do we kill the whole world if they get mad enough to try and stop us by force from invading and occupying their country?
National Economy neither. Lets try protect the wealth of the wealthiest. Fill the coffers of the wealthiest. Unless your way of life depends upon the price per share of war profiteers, the major oil companies, or the largest western banks, you have nothing to lose by ending this war.
For the future of our Energy Policy, oh please. "The only real and lasting solution to energy security, these wise men proclaim, is to change consumption patterns here at home." Raymond J. Learsy
Seven Generations
Would the world be a better place if the decision makers in our country thought through every decision's impact on the next seven generations? Not that decision making should be slowed any further, come on is it fast now?
Had the current wars been concerned about seven generations of Americans, Afghanis and Iraqis would we still have gone to war in both cases?
I first heard about decision making for seven generations in Lakota teachings. I also see it now coming up in consideration of new legislation.
Suggestion: All legislation passed must deal with impacts of the legislation seven generations (100 years) into the future, or have an automatic expiration date. Nothing can be permanently put into place with less than seven generations of forethought. Of course all the forethought in the world can be a failed or false prediction, but at least there will be a mandatory debate.
Suggestion: Panel for the American Future (PAF). A strategically focused, politically independent board that will consider subjects for seven generations of future impact and issue statements as to the impacts considered. This panel will be structured much like the supreme court with opinion transparency, lifetime appointments, majority and minority opinions, a democratic decision making system as opposed to a chief justice, and autonomy from current political culture.
The purpose of mandatory transparency is simple, issues relating to the long term health of America concern every American and are not subject to short term, tactical, secrecy needs (as might war plans be). Lifetime appointments allow continuity of thought. Majority and Minority opinions will allow both sides of very subjective issues to be heard. A democratic decision making process , such as which issues will be considered by the PAF, will insure that important issues cannot be blocked from consideration by an individual. Autonomy from current political culture will best insulate the panel from being swayed by the inevitable short term interests backing any elected or appointed politician.
The strategy that the long term health of our nation can be determined, or even effected, by politicians focused on issues related to their short term appointments is a flawed strategy. Strategy needs to be influenced only by long term outlooks. It might have once been that humans in power were more worried about their long term legacy, how the history books would favor them, but more recently it is obvious that short term rewards, perks of office, re-election, paybacks to those who got you there this time and will effect you staying there are far more important to our appointed or elected officials.
Americans effect the health of America. Americans require knowledge of long term impacts of the most important issues facing them at any given moment. That long term impact knowledge cannot come from sources that might skew it to meet political goals. Political goals can be swayed by short term financial interests. Americans need knowledge to properly participate in the long term health of America!
Had the current wars been concerned about seven generations of Americans, Afghanis and Iraqis would we still have gone to war in both cases?
I first heard about decision making for seven generations in Lakota teachings. I also see it now coming up in consideration of new legislation.
Suggestion: All legislation passed must deal with impacts of the legislation seven generations (100 years) into the future, or have an automatic expiration date. Nothing can be permanently put into place with less than seven generations of forethought. Of course all the forethought in the world can be a failed or false prediction, but at least there will be a mandatory debate.
Suggestion: Panel for the American Future (PAF). A strategically focused, politically independent board that will consider subjects for seven generations of future impact and issue statements as to the impacts considered. This panel will be structured much like the supreme court with opinion transparency, lifetime appointments, majority and minority opinions, a democratic decision making system as opposed to a chief justice, and autonomy from current political culture.
The purpose of mandatory transparency is simple, issues relating to the long term health of America concern every American and are not subject to short term, tactical, secrecy needs (as might war plans be). Lifetime appointments allow continuity of thought. Majority and Minority opinions will allow both sides of very subjective issues to be heard. A democratic decision making process , such as which issues will be considered by the PAF, will insure that important issues cannot be blocked from consideration by an individual. Autonomy from current political culture will best insulate the panel from being swayed by the inevitable short term interests backing any elected or appointed politician.
The strategy that the long term health of our nation can be determined, or even effected, by politicians focused on issues related to their short term appointments is a flawed strategy. Strategy needs to be influenced only by long term outlooks. It might have once been that humans in power were more worried about their long term legacy, how the history books would favor them, but more recently it is obvious that short term rewards, perks of office, re-election, paybacks to those who got you there this time and will effect you staying there are far more important to our appointed or elected officials.
Americans effect the health of America. Americans require knowledge of long term impacts of the most important issues facing them at any given moment. That long term impact knowledge cannot come from sources that might skew it to meet political goals. Political goals can be swayed by short term financial interests. Americans need knowledge to properly participate in the long term health of America!
Monday, September 3, 2007
Songs of the Vietnam Conflict
A interesting book that for the 45+ crowd (or younger people hoping to understand that time) will bring back many memories of a bygone era.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Give Peace A Chance - not a chance
Why is it hard for our government, those in power, those with the guns, to give peace a chance?
Could it be that, out of fear those in power are protecting a way of life, or protecting their certain privileges within the social order. Could it be those with guns (police or military) have been trained to follow orders, not to question the orders, are given laws to protect the current social order and are just trying to do the best to perform their job.
I do not think we should blame the police, they are doing what they think is right within their heart, not seeing the larger picture of the nature of social change. Although at times you have to wonder, how their conscience allows them to follow orders to take actions they feel will incite violence. Do they not see the nature of violence begetting violence?
In the case documented in the video attached to this post, it seems as if police were doing what they thought was necessary to not disrupt a deployment to war, thus protecting the larger social order of the war authorized by congress, and the wishes of one of their constituents (the US Army). During the eleven day resistance as documented by US Navy veteran Wally Cuddeford, it would have seemed clear that the overall resistance was going to be peaceful unless provoked into something more. Although news reports of the incident seemed to take the more "official" side of the explanation and not provide a self documented version, nor the protesters version, as additional points of view.
Every conflict has multiple points of view. A judgment has to be made in the peaceful resolution of any conflict what actions are to be taken, or what point of view will be honored. It would make sense that all parties agree to the actions, thus merging the points of view, thus the most complete form of peace. In many cases this might not be possible because of the opposing nature of the points of views. Then a sacrifice must be made. It could be a sacrifice on both sides, again, seemingly the second most complete form of peaceful resolution. The third and final form, is obvious, one side sacrifices and gets their way. It would seem most likely that a one sided sacrifice could only be made by those in power, and it is their choice who sacrifices what. A right to protest, a right to health, a right to life, that is the decision the people in power must decide when an agreed upon solution is not available, and a solution with sacrifices from both sides is not allowed to happen.
The odd thing is that this country was founded specifically to put the people in power, and keep power from accumulating by birth or in other ways for the sake of power itself. So when those in power make the decision of who sacrifices, wouldn't the US Constitution always protect the citizens, not the government? Meaning the government sacrifices to the wishes of the people? But up to what cost should the Government sacrifice?
According to the US Constitution, the US guarantees to every State "a Republican Form of Government". The definition of a Republican Form of Government includes "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote". The Ninth and Tenth Amendment also protects the rights of the people, not otherwise discussed in the constitution. Which would indicate the people should usually be the benefactor of sacrifices made to reduce internal conflict.
You might say, whoa, here we go flaunting around the Constitution as if it were the ten commandments or something. For American Citizens, it is the equivalent of the ten commandments, in fact superseding the ten commandments in areas of conflict. Every American should be familiar with the rights imparted to them by the US Constitution and how they are embodied in Federal, State and Local laws, or they will lose those rights at times. As is discussed in the testimony referenced here, protesters seeking peace asked about laws that might limit their rights, and in so doing won temporary victories to document the peaceful nature of the protest. This is an important example of the value of the rights imparted upon American citizens and restricted from Government.
Back to the question, up to what point should the government sacrifice to the people? It is clear that to the point that other laws are not being broken, always. The primary conflict comes up when it is the government's duly elected or appointed representative's prediction that a law will be broken and action to prevent should be taken. At this point, resolving the conflict between government and people's rights, becomes very sticky. The government might justify such actions away from peace to protect a larger peace. There are no boundaries to "I thought taking action would prevent the breaking of laws". This can justify any action, even murder, to protect some potential, but not yet real, threat to peace. This cannot be the definition of peace, nor resolve conflict. It will leave open the door for future conflict as the different points of view have nothing specific to base their opinions upon, thereby creating an unending conflict. One only resolved by sacrifice of the people to move past the transgression.
Thus conditioning the people to a level of relative peace, always to be at the whim of the government's ability to create conflict. They have the guns, they have the power, unless we stand up and utilize the rights given us to force decisions that reduce conflict and bring about peace for all the common people.
Could it be that, out of fear those in power are protecting a way of life, or protecting their certain privileges within the social order. Could it be those with guns (police or military) have been trained to follow orders, not to question the orders, are given laws to protect the current social order and are just trying to do the best to perform their job.
I do not think we should blame the police, they are doing what they think is right within their heart, not seeing the larger picture of the nature of social change. Although at times you have to wonder, how their conscience allows them to follow orders to take actions they feel will incite violence. Do they not see the nature of violence begetting violence?
In the case documented in the video attached to this post, it seems as if police were doing what they thought was necessary to not disrupt a deployment to war, thus protecting the larger social order of the war authorized by congress, and the wishes of one of their constituents (the US Army). During the eleven day resistance as documented by US Navy veteran Wally Cuddeford, it would have seemed clear that the overall resistance was going to be peaceful unless provoked into something more. Although news reports of the incident seemed to take the more "official" side of the explanation and not provide a self documented version, nor the protesters version, as additional points of view.
Every conflict has multiple points of view. A judgment has to be made in the peaceful resolution of any conflict what actions are to be taken, or what point of view will be honored. It would make sense that all parties agree to the actions, thus merging the points of view, thus the most complete form of peace. In many cases this might not be possible because of the opposing nature of the points of views. Then a sacrifice must be made. It could be a sacrifice on both sides, again, seemingly the second most complete form of peaceful resolution. The third and final form, is obvious, one side sacrifices and gets their way. It would seem most likely that a one sided sacrifice could only be made by those in power, and it is their choice who sacrifices what. A right to protest, a right to health, a right to life, that is the decision the people in power must decide when an agreed upon solution is not available, and a solution with sacrifices from both sides is not allowed to happen.
The odd thing is that this country was founded specifically to put the people in power, and keep power from accumulating by birth or in other ways for the sake of power itself. So when those in power make the decision of who sacrifices, wouldn't the US Constitution always protect the citizens, not the government? Meaning the government sacrifices to the wishes of the people? But up to what cost should the Government sacrifice?
According to the US Constitution, the US guarantees to every State "a Republican Form of Government". The definition of a Republican Form of Government includes "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote". The Ninth and Tenth Amendment also protects the rights of the people, not otherwise discussed in the constitution. Which would indicate the people should usually be the benefactor of sacrifices made to reduce internal conflict.
You might say, whoa, here we go flaunting around the Constitution as if it were the ten commandments or something. For American Citizens, it is the equivalent of the ten commandments, in fact superseding the ten commandments in areas of conflict. Every American should be familiar with the rights imparted to them by the US Constitution and how they are embodied in Federal, State and Local laws, or they will lose those rights at times. As is discussed in the testimony referenced here, protesters seeking peace asked about laws that might limit their rights, and in so doing won temporary victories to document the peaceful nature of the protest. This is an important example of the value of the rights imparted upon American citizens and restricted from Government.
Back to the question, up to what point should the government sacrifice to the people? It is clear that to the point that other laws are not being broken, always. The primary conflict comes up when it is the government's duly elected or appointed representative's prediction that a law will be broken and action to prevent should be taken. At this point, resolving the conflict between government and people's rights, becomes very sticky. The government might justify such actions away from peace to protect a larger peace. There are no boundaries to "I thought taking action would prevent the breaking of laws". This can justify any action, even murder, to protect some potential, but not yet real, threat to peace. This cannot be the definition of peace, nor resolve conflict. It will leave open the door for future conflict as the different points of view have nothing specific to base their opinions upon, thereby creating an unending conflict. One only resolved by sacrifice of the people to move past the transgression.
Thus conditioning the people to a level of relative peace, always to be at the whim of the government's ability to create conflict. They have the guns, they have the power, unless we stand up and utilize the rights given us to force decisions that reduce conflict and bring about peace for all the common people.
Best of YouTube for Peace
- Mother's Day for Peace 2007, Powerful celebrity mothers stand up for peace!
- STAND UP for WORLD PEACE , cute
- The Bob Thurman Podcast, Bob explains how Buddhism is the acceptance of the inifinte effect of everything you do; and how human language developed because we weren't trying to eat each
- Why Walk 1000 Miles? If we all walked a thousand or 28,000+miles, could we have peace?
- Sharon Katz & The Peace Train Movement, in concert
- Give Peace A Chance - John Lennon, John and Paul's classic - lyrics
- Beyond just words, a 21st century method of replying to the above video post
- Imagine, John Lennon "I hope some day you will join us and the world will be as one"
- If Everyone Cared, Nickelback video from Warner Music Group - lyrics
- I am already there, Lonestar tribute to Steve Irwin, rest in peace Wildlife Warrior
- Spinal Tap - (Listen to the) Flower People
- The Doors Peace Frog
- Ocean Colour Scene - Profit In Peace, gold, platinum, best seller?
- Peace Train, Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), Peace Train, Dolly Parton, Ask Don't Grab version, Jann Arden's version
- Ron Paul Speaks for me. Set to good music
- When Others Were Silent, Dennis Kucinich
- Peaceman vs Chenguin, Dennis Kucinich again, but comically done in the style of Batman
- John Lennon - Happy Xmas (War is Over) showing in a graphic way the reality, adult only
- Lost in a Lost World
Peace Train performed live by Cat Stevens
Lyrics from allspirit.co.uk:
Now I've been happy lately, thinking about the good things to come And I believe it could be, something good has begun
Oh I've been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one And I believe it could be, some day it's going to come
Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again
Now I've been smiling lately, thinking about the good things to come And I believe it could be, something good has begun
Oh peace train sounding louder Glide on the peace train Come on now peace train Yes, peace train holy roller
Everyone jump upon the peace train Come on now peace train
Get your bags together, go bring your good friends too Cause it's getting nearer, it soon will be with you
Now come and join the living, it's not so far from you And it's getting nearer, soon it will all be true
Now I've been crying lately, thinking about the world as it is Why must we go on hating, why can't we live in bliss
Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again
Finding Internal Peace
In my life I have been plagued with periods where internal peace is difficult to find. Sometimes I allow external events and external influences to effect my ability to find inner peace. If I logically recognize this as a weakness why can I not easily find it within myself to turn the page and find inner peace? Could it be that my ego would hold onto the attachments and allow them to create conflict within me, against my will?
Occasionally I can find it within myself to funnel such unrest into fruitful endeavors, this blog itself is a testament. Forsaking more lucrative endeavors to create here, with the intention to share my journey for the record. With an intention to explore my soul to understand why I torture myself so. Will this exploration lead to inner peace, or provide a place to record attachments, so that I might hold onto them longer? Hmmm........
Related to the source of my restlessness in the moment, I can but share part of myself and see how it helps to heal, or tear at the wound I create within me. So that I may learn, and hence others may learn how peace comes about in the smallest of circumstances so that in the larger sense it may also become manifest.
Recently a force has entered my life that has very mixed benefit/costs for me. As a benefit I have a somewhat stronger overall relationship with those I love most. As a cost, I seem to have to forgo things that are very important to me to win this appreciation. Is this a sacrifice for the greater good? Is this a sacrifice I must make to achieve peace within my life? Are my attachments to these things "very important to me" the source of my restlessness, conflict and lack of inner peace?
Interestingly what I have to sacrifice is time and shared connections to external places and endeavors in order make my most desired relationships stronger. Sacrifice some time with those I love and things I love to do all to make other time with them more connected. Sacrifice certain connections to things I love, to enhance my most meaningful connections.
"If you love someone set them free and when they come back to you, then you know they are truly yours". As stickmanBob says "If you love something and you have to keep it against its will then you don’t truly love it. You are keeping it for selfish reasons. Don’t drive it away but don’t force it to be yours, that would cause it pain and causing pain to one you love is unthinkable."
In this case those I love are subtly asking I forgo my needs and hence temporarily not enjoy these common connections, so that they may enhance connections with others outside of our relationship to create a stronger connection overall. If not explicitly then at least as interpreted implicitly. Somehow in the process of my sacrifice I shall be rewarded in other ways, without any other sacrifices on other peoples part, in fact to their greater gain. Am I supposed to believe if that is what makes them happy, I should allow them to do it even if it makes me sacrifice? Can my sacrifices allow them greater happiness without me, and in turn be more connected with me overall? Can I find happiness forgoing connections to those things I must give up to make those I love happy? Trade my own happiness for theirs, and find that it is enough, that I have set them free to be happy in whatever way they want, and find it within myself to be happy in other ways.
What makes it harder to achieve are the deep roots I have, and the permanent scars that will be left upon these places in memory of the sacrifice I have made, and the happiness achieved without me. Am I supposed to find it within myself to continue to hold those deep connection s of love regardless of the loss I feel at letting my love go in this way?
Must my humble soul appreciate times when my ego driven goals are not peaceful, but a source of conflict, and my goals must be forgone to achieve external peace, in the hope that it will lead to inner peace. Can my ego take this information and allow me to find inner peace, or might it by it's nature rebel and cause further conflict? Can I turn the page and let go my attachments to further the greater connection? Is this the root of sacrifice for a greater good?
For these answers, I am restless.
Occasionally I can find it within myself to funnel such unrest into fruitful endeavors, this blog itself is a testament. Forsaking more lucrative endeavors to create here, with the intention to share my journey for the record. With an intention to explore my soul to understand why I torture myself so. Will this exploration lead to inner peace, or provide a place to record attachments, so that I might hold onto them longer? Hmmm........
Related to the source of my restlessness in the moment, I can but share part of myself and see how it helps to heal, or tear at the wound I create within me. So that I may learn, and hence others may learn how peace comes about in the smallest of circumstances so that in the larger sense it may also become manifest.
Recently a force has entered my life that has very mixed benefit/costs for me. As a benefit I have a somewhat stronger overall relationship with those I love most. As a cost, I seem to have to forgo things that are very important to me to win this appreciation. Is this a sacrifice for the greater good? Is this a sacrifice I must make to achieve peace within my life? Are my attachments to these things "very important to me" the source of my restlessness, conflict and lack of inner peace?
Interestingly what I have to sacrifice is time and shared connections to external places and endeavors in order make my most desired relationships stronger. Sacrifice some time with those I love and things I love to do all to make other time with them more connected. Sacrifice certain connections to things I love, to enhance my most meaningful connections.
"If you love someone set them free and when they come back to you, then you know they are truly yours". As stickmanBob says "If you love something and you have to keep it against its will then you don’t truly love it. You are keeping it for selfish reasons. Don’t drive it away but don’t force it to be yours, that would cause it pain and causing pain to one you love is unthinkable."
In this case those I love are subtly asking I forgo my needs and hence temporarily not enjoy these common connections, so that they may enhance connections with others outside of our relationship to create a stronger connection overall. If not explicitly then at least as interpreted implicitly. Somehow in the process of my sacrifice I shall be rewarded in other ways, without any other sacrifices on other peoples part, in fact to their greater gain. Am I supposed to believe if that is what makes them happy, I should allow them to do it even if it makes me sacrifice? Can my sacrifices allow them greater happiness without me, and in turn be more connected with me overall? Can I find happiness forgoing connections to those things I must give up to make those I love happy? Trade my own happiness for theirs, and find that it is enough, that I have set them free to be happy in whatever way they want, and find it within myself to be happy in other ways.
What makes it harder to achieve are the deep roots I have, and the permanent scars that will be left upon these places in memory of the sacrifice I have made, and the happiness achieved without me. Am I supposed to find it within myself to continue to hold those deep connection s of love regardless of the loss I feel at letting my love go in this way?
Must my humble soul appreciate times when my ego driven goals are not peaceful, but a source of conflict, and my goals must be forgone to achieve external peace, in the hope that it will lead to inner peace. Can my ego take this information and allow me to find inner peace, or might it by it's nature rebel and cause further conflict? Can I turn the page and let go my attachments to further the greater connection? Is this the root of sacrifice for a greater good?
For these answers, I am restless.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Incredible Courage, Persistance, Ability
Kyle Lograsso is an example for all of us. After watching the first video, learn exactly how much of a miracle of hope Kyle really is.
If I could:
end world hunger by sharing a meal,
heal the sick by nurturing,
ease someone's pain with natures gifts,
educate a mind by sharing my thoughts,
visualize peace in a picture,
change the world with my voice,
save a species, save a tree,
or save a bug
I would. Not government, nor predijuice, nor fear, nor tradition, nor greed could stop me.
Come to think of it, I will....
end world hunger by sharing a meal,
heal the sick by nurturing,
ease someone's pain with natures gifts,
educate a mind by sharing my thoughts,
visualize peace in a picture,
change the world with my voice,
save a species, save a tree,
or save a bug
I would. Not government, nor predijuice, nor fear, nor tradition, nor greed could stop me.
Come to think of it, I will....
Activities for Peace
Sing, write, teach, discuss, create, draw, photograph life, travel, shake hands, say hello, smile, hug, kiss, make love, love unconditionally, foster good intentions, praise good deeds, pass the word of peace, protect the abundance of nature, save a bug's life, gift away your excess to those in need, mentor a child, speak up to effect an injustice, love they neighbor, and embrace diversity.
Reject: politics as usual, life as it is, corporate greed, consumerism, over consumption, judgement, fear, loathing, collateral damage, profit as an end, poverty as acceptable, sickness as necessary, wealth determining social privilege, illiteracy, children as acceptable victims, and war as a means to security.
May peace be with you!
Reject: politics as usual, life as it is, corporate greed, consumerism, over consumption, judgement, fear, loathing, collateral damage, profit as an end, poverty as acceptable, sickness as necessary, wealth determining social privilege, illiteracy, children as acceptable victims, and war as a means to security.
May peace be with you!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Who Dies and who profits from war?
A great link about who is really behind the war and who is being most effected by it.
Reading for Peace
Is the first step towards peace, one of education? Can reading about peace, bring peace about?
I don't think anyone stopped writing about peace, nor burned all previous books about peace, prior to the current state of the wars surrounding America. It didn't mean that peace prevailed, unless this is a serious "wag the dog" type of operation, America does not have the most peaceful existence on earth.
In a discussion with a Christian friend recently, he mentioned being more involved in peaceful activities in, around and through Church. That somehow despite not "signing up" for activities, he has a 15 month old son so he is plenty busy, he has been doing a lot around church. But he didn't think about it much, it just was. He enjoys it, seemed to enjoy talking about it, and seems to feel good about himself surrounding it.
His task is done, at least in the short term anyway. He has contributed in what he has believed to be a good cause, gives himself credit for it, probably makes his son and wifes happier because he is happier, etc...
This is one way, healthy happiness is meant to impact our lives. Just one simple act, self-recognition of the act, passing along the good feelings, makes our lives more peaceful and full.
Note to self, one act of happiness, each day, keeps the doldrums away :)
I don't think anyone stopped writing about peace, nor burned all previous books about peace, prior to the current state of the wars surrounding America. It didn't mean that peace prevailed, unless this is a serious "wag the dog" type of operation, America does not have the most peaceful existence on earth.
In a discussion with a Christian friend recently, he mentioned being more involved in peaceful activities in, around and through Church. That somehow despite not "signing up" for activities, he has a 15 month old son so he is plenty busy, he has been doing a lot around church. But he didn't think about it much, it just was. He enjoys it, seemed to enjoy talking about it, and seems to feel good about himself surrounding it.
His task is done, at least in the short term anyway. He has contributed in what he has believed to be a good cause, gives himself credit for it, probably makes his son and wifes happier because he is happier, etc...
This is one way, healthy happiness is meant to impact our lives. Just one simple act, self-recognition of the act, passing along the good feelings, makes our lives more peaceful and full.
Note to self, one act of happiness, each day, keeps the doldrums away :)
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Ramifications of not living in Peace
On a darker note, my community of Portland OR could have sent 27,000 students to public university on a four year scholarship, for the locally subsumed debt of just one of our current wars. This is more than the number of students that attend the university full time. How can we afford to sacrifice this much education, indefinitely as the politicians are discussing. I am not talking about the national cost of war categorized at a local level, I am talking about the local impact of the war. Our community made a choice to pay for war, and sacrifice the free college education of 27,000 students, or 9,500 public school teachers, or to not provide health insurance to over 300,000 children.
Never in my lifetime have I ever even used the phrase, "just one of our current wars", until now.
As I see it we have sacrificed the education or health of our own youth, all for the privilege of killing hundreds of thousands, injuring millions, displacing millions from their homes, leaving tens of millions without the basic necessities of adequate food, clean water, electricity, and sanitation. Theoretically, based on one of the excuses for the war, we did this so we could save the lives of thousands who might have died at the hands of a dictator, who shortly before the war was one of our top 5 best weapons customers.
Never in my lifetime have I ever even used the phrase, "just one of our current wars", until now.
As I see it we have sacrificed the education or health of our own youth, all for the privilege of killing hundreds of thousands, injuring millions, displacing millions from their homes, leaving tens of millions without the basic necessities of adequate food, clean water, electricity, and sanitation. Theoretically, based on one of the excuses for the war, we did this so we could save the lives of thousands who might have died at the hands of a dictator, who shortly before the war was one of our top 5 best weapons customers.
What a wonderful world
"I see trees of green, red roses too...And I think to myself what a wonderful world."
"My whole life, my whole soul, my whole spirit is to blow that horn," Louis Armstrong told a doctor a few months before he died in 1971. No, he wouldn't cancel an upcoming date at the Waldorf-Astoria. "The people are waiting for me," he said. "I got to do it, Doc, I got to do it."
"He left an undying testimony to the human condition in the America of his time"
- -- Wynton Marsalis
You have to see it for yourself, it is beyond adequate description:
Imagine a world where we spent more time creating, than making bombs or prosecuting war. How would the people feel?
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Today's advice to myself, "As I am"
Note to self:
As I accept, so can I be..............................lest I die;
As I am whole, so can I give.......................else I take;
As I hurt, so can I heal, be healed.................else I suffer;
As I teach so I learn..........................................or I stagnate;
As I am light hearted, so can I laugh......................lest I cry;
Mission: Go forth to be, give, heal, learn and laugh all that I can;
As I am whole, so can I give.......................else I take;
As I hurt, so can I heal, be healed.................else I suffer;
As I teach so I learn..........................................or I stagnate;
As I am light hearted, so can I laugh......................lest I cry;
Mission: Go forth to be, give, heal, learn and laugh all that I can;
The rest will happen, as I am but a humble human.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Actions towards Peace and Prosperity
For some time now, I have been musing about how my inner strength can contribute to perpetual peace in this world. Like a growing number of others I would sacrifice much to foster peace and prosperity for more of the world's citizens.
My homeland in recent decades has had a far too superficial look of peace. Most recently there have been many lies about how we are seeking peace, but behind the cameras, pens, and microphones we are "in reality" not so peaceful. Elective wars, secret private militias, increasing incarceration for crimes against the government, increasing pardons for government officials convicted of crimes, increasing wealth of those who are not in need, and decreasing resources to those that are. Progress some might say, those who benefit from this progress I suppose, I am one, but I do not call it progress, but rather regression towards surprisingly barbaric times. Times not of peace.
I ask myself, how far I would go to effect peace? What would I give up to get a lasting peace across our land?
If ordinary Americans started to give their own life to make a difference in the lives of future citizens, would their stories be heard? Would you call them crackpot or hero? A soldier puts their life on the line to save the homeland everyday they are on an active battlefield. If they die is it a reasonable expenditure of life to protect the homeland, suicide because like hara-kiri or jumping off a bridge, they knew the risk of death. What is it, when they are there, in harms way, under false pretenses? What is it when a soldier returns home to mother, father and family in a coffin, when the reason they put themselves in harms way was only a lie? What is it when our elected congress authorized the military response that put the soldier there, kept them their, but made such a decision based on lies? What if such an "authorized" war is more costly to the average citizen than the war was meant to revenge, or more costly than a thousand such future acts it was meant to prevent, what if such a war guaranteed future acts of revenge against us and others seen as our allies?
Did that soldier ask to be there? In some cases maybe yes. In these cases, would it be suicide? If they did not ask to be there, but were sent their against their will, on the strength of some contract with the government, would it be justified, or if those contracts were fraudulent...? If the politicians and military leaders that asked them to be there did so in bad faith (lied, benefited financially from that soldier being in harms way, etc...), would it be just a bad decision, or a decision worthy of re-election? What if those same politicians who's decision was to perpetrate war, also controlled how the war was portrayed in the media or described in the history books?
I have heard many people complain about the war, as I was one of the early ones. I am very empathetic to their plight. When I look at how strongly I feel, I would give anything to change the destiny of this world for my kids, granddaughter and their children. To allow them to know a world full of diversity of life, a world that feeds them, heals them, supports their happiness, and a world free of the strife of many at the benefit of a few.
My homeland in recent decades has had a far too superficial look of peace. Most recently there have been many lies about how we are seeking peace, but behind the cameras, pens, and microphones we are "in reality" not so peaceful. Elective wars, secret private militias, increasing incarceration for crimes against the government, increasing pardons for government officials convicted of crimes, increasing wealth of those who are not in need, and decreasing resources to those that are. Progress some might say, those who benefit from this progress I suppose, I am one, but I do not call it progress, but rather regression towards surprisingly barbaric times. Times not of peace.
I ask myself, how far I would go to effect peace? What would I give up to get a lasting peace across our land?
- Would I give up my possessions? Or to create more debt than wealth. A debt on the plague of our time which is the illusion of material wealth. A debt to starve those holding the carrot of success and all too willing to starve those pursuing it in order to gorge themselves. Working towards the peace of moderation and equal opportunity and prosperity of all the worlds inhabitants.
- Would I give up the security of my abode? To live as a vagabond, a nomad, if the land I traveled had the hope of existing in true peace upon my doing so.
- Would I give up my acquaintances, friends, family and commit myself to a life pursuing true peace? To leave behind a legacy of doing what is right, and expecting those who love us to understand our calling.
- Would I give up the ease of my existance based on a glutenny of quickly and in relevant luxury transporting myself to a myriad of destinations of pleasure, with no real benefit those in dire need in this world.
- Would I give up my life, if in my death there was a chance at true peace and prosperity (such as Ghandi's hunger strike)? And in the process not take another's life or not wasting my own precious life in a selfish act of martyrdom without a reasonable chance that peace would ensue afterwards.
If ordinary Americans started to give their own life to make a difference in the lives of future citizens, would their stories be heard? Would you call them crackpot or hero? A soldier puts their life on the line to save the homeland everyday they are on an active battlefield. If they die is it a reasonable expenditure of life to protect the homeland, suicide because like hara-kiri or jumping off a bridge, they knew the risk of death. What is it, when they are there, in harms way, under false pretenses? What is it when a soldier returns home to mother, father and family in a coffin, when the reason they put themselves in harms way was only a lie? What is it when our elected congress authorized the military response that put the soldier there, kept them their, but made such a decision based on lies? What if such an "authorized" war is more costly to the average citizen than the war was meant to revenge, or more costly than a thousand such future acts it was meant to prevent, what if such a war guaranteed future acts of revenge against us and others seen as our allies?
Did that soldier ask to be there? In some cases maybe yes. In these cases, would it be suicide? If they did not ask to be there, but were sent their against their will, on the strength of some contract with the government, would it be justified, or if those contracts were fraudulent...? If the politicians and military leaders that asked them to be there did so in bad faith (lied, benefited financially from that soldier being in harms way, etc...), would it be just a bad decision, or a decision worthy of re-election? What if those same politicians who's decision was to perpetrate war, also controlled how the war was portrayed in the media or described in the history books?
I have heard many people complain about the war, as I was one of the early ones. I am very empathetic to their plight. When I look at how strongly I feel, I would give anything to change the destiny of this world for my kids, granddaughter and their children. To allow them to know a world full of diversity of life, a world that feeds them, heals them, supports their happiness, and a world free of the strife of many at the benefit of a few.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Opening Ceremony
All hail to the power of expression, creativity, compassion and understanding.
I don't have a clue whether or not I will keep blogging, but the concept appeals to me. Life sometimes moves so fast, it is hard to keep in mind what is important. I found a friends blog and I have to say I was inspired.
The purpose of this blog? To record those moments in time that define an individual, record their legacy, communicate their inherent value to future generations, inspire others with wit or wisdom, sarcasm or spontaneity.
I have already started using too big of words. I would like to communicate, really communicate, what is inside me at any given moment I am drawn to blog. I would like the words to not impose a barrier to those reading or commenting upon my musings. There are those not unfortunate enough to encounter the more esoteric words of our impossibly arcane language, and those fortunate enough to speak other languages as a tradition or choice. I would like it to be easy for such souls to understand. Please feel free to comment on any regression, which there will most likely be on a frequent basis. I am human after all, this is not an agent of the electronic ether, I am a product of the universal laws of physics, manifest destiny, and the creator's intention all at the same time. In the moments I am drawn into blogging, look for significance of what triggered the effort. If I haven't posted in a while, well then, rather than lose interest, stay tuned to see what compels me the next time.
While some of us can change the world in small or large ways through active efforts to do so, I prefer the humans of this world choose, at their option, to change after considering me. As for the rest of the world and the change I undoubtedly effect, I will tread lightly (hybrid, biodiesel, carbon offsets, composting, recycling, low rate of consumption, compassion for all living things, natural order of life, etc...).
I don't have a clue whether or not I will keep blogging, but the concept appeals to me. Life sometimes moves so fast, it is hard to keep in mind what is important. I found a friends blog and I have to say I was inspired.
The purpose of this blog? To record those moments in time that define an individual, record their legacy, communicate their inherent value to future generations, inspire others with wit or wisdom, sarcasm or spontaneity.
I have already started using too big of words. I would like to communicate, really communicate, what is inside me at any given moment I am drawn to blog. I would like the words to not impose a barrier to those reading or commenting upon my musings. There are those not unfortunate enough to encounter the more esoteric words of our impossibly arcane language, and those fortunate enough to speak other languages as a tradition or choice. I would like it to be easy for such souls to understand. Please feel free to comment on any regression, which there will most likely be on a frequent basis. I am human after all, this is not an agent of the electronic ether, I am a product of the universal laws of physics, manifest destiny, and the creator's intention all at the same time. In the moments I am drawn into blogging, look for significance of what triggered the effort. If I haven't posted in a while, well then, rather than lose interest, stay tuned to see what compels me the next time.
While some of us can change the world in small or large ways through active efforts to do so, I prefer the humans of this world choose, at their option, to change after considering me. As for the rest of the world and the change I undoubtedly effect, I will tread lightly (hybrid, biodiesel, carbon offsets, composting, recycling, low rate of consumption, compassion for all living things, natural order of life, etc...).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
