peace

help edit space_dashboard

If we are talking about defining how the word is used in common parlance, it is almost irrelevant if the values implied by the world are authentically in progress. A definition, in this instance, is concerned with how people use the word "peace", not whether they practice it as well. However, some words, like "peace" seem to demand praxis in order to be used in a context other than critique or satire.

 

Saying "peace" becomes necessary, as does any word used well, when a distinction is necessary. I use the phrase "peace is conflict done well" in most of my professional materials not because that phrase is an adequate definition, but because it makes a distinction, drawing attention to the part of a complexity that I believe is most often overlooked. While all the things people mention in association with peace are relevant to human experience and an Archetypal understanding of Peace, a sufficient definition of peace must not stretch to include all shades of understanding. It must account for the items without which a given process cannot be called peaceful. Perhaps a process of interpretation is required for the adequate understanding of any Big Idea?


A state of tranquility, quiet, and harmony often masks a profoundly violent undercurrent of activity. Likewise, a state free from civil disturbance often follows or immediately precedes a period of unrest and state-related violence. I may discover myself in a state free of oppressive and unpleasant thoughts and emotions and, one moment later, undergo/collude with oppression or experience upheavals the origin of which are less than obvious. This may effect my "peace of mind" and ability to pursue harmony in personal relations, not tomention the tendency to help create a state or states free of/at war, between different persons or governments. Perhaps the acknowledgment of the pairings above is part of Peace.

 

In my experience, it is practice with these dynamics that make peace possible, much like the practice of physical conflict makes it possible to handle fear differently an forbear the natural desire for self-protection and retribution. That is why I began using the phrase "peace is a martial art" in the late 1990's and offer my students Peace Practices on a daily basis.

 

 

 

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150326239888485&id=685603484&cmntid=10150326318778485&ref=notif&notif_t=comment_mention

 

What is "peace?"

 

    • Tamon Mark Uttech I think you can tell when something looks "peaceful"...

    • Neil Mick ‎...not if I am searching for a definition.

    • Neil Mick and, I can think of myriad instances that "looked peaceful:" but were anything but...

    • Tamon Mark Uttech just describe a peaceful scene...

    • Tamon Mark Uttech nothing is hidden

    • Neil Mick Two people, sitting at a coffee-house, chatting amiably. However, under the surface she hates him for snoring; and he hates her for ignoring most of what he says.
      Looks peaceful (to outsiders)...is anything but.

    • Tamon Mark Uttech Ah,the whole peace includes the not-peace...
    • Neil Mick But, I wouldn't want to describe any abstract by "knowing it when I see it." This is a poor way to define "art," for example.

    • Neil Mick ‎...so, what is it? "Peace?"

    • Tamon Mark Uttech you have to be it, I think

    • Neil Mick Hm. That's an interesting response. Have to chew on that one.

    • Tamon Mark Uttech I heard it is good to chew something 50 timesw before swallowing. I think Gomer Pyle said that...

    • Neil Mick ‎...TV characters do not help your case. :p I recently noted that TV has absolutely nothing to teach on harmony. Not sure how much it has to teach on peace...

    • Robert Kent Peace is obviously more (or we want it to be) than the absence of war. Peace presumably is what you call a healthy relationship between individuals, communities, or countries characterized by mutual respect, justice, and unfettered expression of individual expression.

    • Robert Kent or, more simply, a state of genuine connection.

    • Neil Mick OK, then...if peace is a genuine connection: then is it possible to live "peacefully" in this warlike, internet-laden society: when our only genuine connections can amount to 150-200 people?

    • Justine Adair Aileus a lack of conflict.

    • Neil Mick Yes, that's my default answer. But I then get socked by my default question...is peace only able to be defined, as something other than a "lack of conflict?"

      And, is there such a thing as a "peaceful conflict?"

    • Justine Adair Aileus Cordial conflict but not peaceful. Language has its limits to be sure. We don't really have a word for 'lack of being in a state of pain' other than painless, but it doesn't mean that the state does not exist.

    • Janet Rosen Neil, this is exactly the conundrum health professionals get when trying to define "health" in terms other than the absence of or opposite of illness. It generally results in mealy-mouthed, jargon-laden crap about optimization, potential, etc.

    • Janet Rosen ‎"Peaceful conflict" I think can exist if one posits "conflict", like "stress" as potentially value-neutral.

    • Robert Kent Conflict is not inherently the problem - as conflict, as Brandon WilliamsCraig notes, can be done well. Conflict is also both normal and expected, so we set ourselves up for real problems if we define the inevitable as undesirable. The problem is disconnection - the ability to decide, in the midst of conflict, that some other person does not deserve respect or justice.

    • Janet Rosen
      Robert, is that disconnection or more accurately "alienation" or perhaps "reification" ? I don't think that it is that often a conscious decision or an ability to decide - the great problem, it seems to me, is that via fear or cultural pressure it happens withOUT a purposeful decision - it's a classic slippery slope that unfortunately is part of humankind across all eras and societies. BTW, not criticising your post, just taking it as a springboard for my own thoughts...

    • Robert Kent
      Fear does seem to be the largest single contributor, much more so than fully conscious greed or venality (though both of these are in prominent use by politicians who choose to exploit the fears of ordinary people). I use "disconnection" as the lack of awareness of the inherent and irrefutable connections that join us to each other, to the planet, to history, etc. Everyone of us shares more than 99% of the same DNA, yet we make so much of the 1% that is different . . .

    • Brandon WilliamsCraig Started to take up Robert Kent's invitation (by embed) and realized I was re-writing this http://culturesmith.com/peace. One complaint about Facebook is the reduction of everything to few words in small boxes :-) Can we comment there and here too, so the two stay linked? Might be a challenge...
      culturesmith.com
      If we are talking about defining how the word is used in common parlance, it is almost irrelevant if the values implied by the world are authentically in progress. A definition, in this instance, is concerned with how people use the word "peace", not whether they practice it as well. However, some w...
    • Neil Mick ‎@Brandon: that will be tough...but I'm game. It's the whole reason for Peace Training, after all.

      We can also comment on the Peace Training Group (any1 who wants to join, drop a line). Now, on to the rest of your very thoughtful comments...

    • Neil Mick ‎@Robert: So, is it possible to have a "peaceful Empire" if, by definition: an empire cannot be inherently aware (at least, on a level of empathy) of everything it does outside of its borders...or that it even cares?

      Every empire I can recollect has a clear designation of citizenship--is this not a form of alienation? Us vs them?

      What do you think?

    • Neil Mick ‎Brandon WilliamsCraig: thanks for that link. One question for you...is "peace" a mechanism or process; or is it more like a neutral, homeostatic "calm-state" where all concerned actors are engaging in "conflict done well?"

    • Jo Qatana Adell Have you shared this to your PAGE?

    • Neil Mick You see? This is why your skills are so needed. Didn't even know I could do that.

    • Jo Qatana Adell You are an Admin. You can even delete the page if you want! But better to post in the Group if you want conversation. Pages are sucky for dialog.

    • Jo Qatana Adell I'd like to encourage you all to join this Group, it opens the conversation up to a bigger gene pool...

    • Jo Qatana Adell https://www.facebook.com/groups/155201937895414/
      This group issues releases and latest news for the Peace Training Project. PEACE TRAINING, is my effort to explore the meaning and mechanism of peace, within and without the aikido community. On Int...

    • Robert Kent
      Every instance of Empire we've seen - whether it's Persian, Athenian, Napoleonic, British, or American, has been fed by a desire for material riches and political control. Theoretically, there could be other organizing principles - the Federation in the Star Trek universe is about as benevolent as one could imagine, and back on earth there is no hunger or even need to work for a living - but that's why they had to set it 400 years in the future as nobody could believe we'd pull that off now . . .

    • Neil Mick I was thinking about a Roman citizen born around the time of the Pax Romana. Was such a person living in a delusion? (Of course, slavery was prevalent and accepted, at that time...but ignoring, for the moment, the issue of slavery...could that person be considering as living a "peaceful life?" Or would that be an oxymoron?)

    • Neil Mick PS I always look at scifi as a metaphor for current events. In the Federation's case: it's pretty obvious (to me) that it was a whitewashed version of the American empire.

      I don't think it was any accident that William Shatner bore a resemblance to Kennedy, at the time.

    • Robert Kent As for the Pax Romana - if you don't look very far, yes life looked fairly peaceful. If you look out to the edges of Empire, the Celts, Jutes, Picts, Goths might not see it that way . . .

    • Robert Kent As for Shatner, I think it was an accident that they thought he could act . . .

    • Robert Kent i was thinking more of Picard, at which point there was some backstory about the nature of civil society - no longer needing money, free education for everyone, etc.

    • Neil Mick
      Don't razz on the Shatner, now. I thought he was quite good in that Twilight Zone episode, pre-Trek. He just took his acting "method" a little too seriously...

      And re Picard...yes, there was some backstory. But some of the details on the free education; no money, etc were strangely absent.

      All we know is that there was a lot of strife and killing, before we get to Fed-Shangrila: with a hint being dropped here and there with time traveling. It's the part about Star Trek that bothers me the most.

      Which brings me to my Star Trek joke. Apparently, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia once visited George Bush: and as they were having dinner, the President asked the Prince what he thought of America.

      "Oh, very nice," he said. "Especially your American television. So many channels! But still, I like your old reruns. This show you call "Star Trek."

      "Oh, yeah," said Bush. "I like that one, too. That Shatner-fella..."

      "But there's something I don't understand," said the Prince. "You have all these aliens...you have klingons, vulcans, and the like...where are the Arabs...?"

      "Oh, that's EASY!" said the President. "You see, it takes place in the future..."