Veleda negotiates peace. That sounds directly relevant to us now but, I think, only superficially. We have the language of peace.
Meditation and sunlight inspire me to think that we can share this Earth and contemplate its beauty, even that that is what we are here to do - except that I do not believe that anyone has put us here for any purpose. The one being has developed in such a way that it has become conscious of itself through us. What happens next is our responsibility, not anyone else's.
We can contemplate natural beauty either directly or through the shared world-views of those who in the past have personified aspects of nature:
"...whenever he saw the evening star or the morning star shine forth, he bowed low, for they too are Nehalennia's.
"Hers are the trees, the vine, and the fruits thereof. Hers are the sea and the ships that plow it. Hers are the well-being of mortals and peace among them." (III, p. 628)
We imagine Nehalennia and it is we that are responsible for well-being and peace.
37 comments:
Note that to Romans, 'peace' meant the "Pax Romana".
Peace meant force!
Kaor, Paul!
And I cannot regard trees, flowers, the sun, the sea, etc., in such mythological terms because I know they are natural things which have scientific explanations for how they "work."
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
As another Roman, Flavius Vegetius, said in DE RE MILITARIS, "If you want peace prepare for war." And I agree with him.
Ad astra! Sean
And I don't.
Kaor, Paul!
Recall what Commander Abrams said about pacifism in ENSIGN FLANDRY, and why he rejected it, for reasons I and Vegetius would agree with.
Ad astra! Sean
I do not espouse pacifism. (We shouldn't have to spend time saying what we don't say.)
Kaor, Paul!
But many of your oft stated beliefs can reasonably be interpreted as leading to pacifism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
They cannot. I believe in self-defence. But my idea of it is very different from the ruling idea. When the USSR collapsed, NATO did not disband but spread eastward, threatening Russia.
When society is being fundamentally changed, e.g., when Apartheid was being ended (that was not really a big fundamental change but it will serve as an example), some beneficiaries or supporters of the old regime might use violence to resist change. They have to be overcome. (As I remember it, the South African white supremacists just faded away in any case. Expected violence does not always happen.)
Paul.
Since NATO is a defensive alliance, it isn't threatening Russia. Russia is indulging in 'imperial nostalgia' and Putin is trying to recreate the Soviet Union's sphere of influence.
I would also point out that the ex-Warsaw Pact nations, once they had democratic governments, clamored and begged to be allowed into NATO. They had Russia's measure.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I have to sit corrected, while still disagreeing with much of what you say.
But your comments about NATO are not true. I was always a defensive alliance. See Stirling's comments.
Mr. Stirling: What worries me is that NATO might be shown as reacting too weakly to Russian testing of its resolve. Putin, or his successor, might eventually decide NATO won't fight decisively and make a grab for, say, the Baltic states, and end up starting a major war with the US/NATO.
Weakness, denial, wishful thinking, etc., in Western leaders can be just as dangerous as Russian aggression.
Ad astra! Sean
Well, Putin is insulated from bad news, and is increasingly given to wishful thinking. They may have to be slapped down.
Paul: the saying about preparing for war being the best guarantee of peace is true, because deterrence is the best way to prevent an attack on your territory or interests. Plus, of course if you -don't- get peace, you're ready for war.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That's one of the disadvantages of dictatorship, underlings telling the Boss only what he wants to hear, not what he should be told.
Absolutely, what you wrote about the necessity of being prepared for war.
Ad astra! Sean
Guaranteeing peace by preparing for war makes sense, or at least arguably makes sense, in a world that is divided into armed nation states. But many other arguments remain to be had about the best uses of resources, technology etc. Someone can make a break from current priorities by doing more about pollution, poverty, underlying causes of war etc.
Kaor, Paul!
At least you agree that deterrence makes sense in a world with contending states. The rest, what you would like to see, will not happen unless the world is unified in some kind of global State.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
At least I agree about something! Is there an expectation that I disagree about everything? Some of us continue to campaign for different priorities.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe many of those "priorities" are hopeless, futile, unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
I do not.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Well, of course. I think that that is what we have been doing all along.
Paul: war and the threat of war are universal constants of human history. If they've always been there, and are there now... well, expecting them to continue indefinitely is the way to bet. As long as there are distinct sovereignties, there will be a threat of war. A Universal State might prevent it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly what I think and believe as well. Unless some Napoleon type conquers the world the best we can reasonably hope for is something like Anderson's Solar Commonwealth or the United Commonwealths. Or maybe the World Federation seen in STAR FOX.
Even then the paranoid in me would give some thought to fretting about alien invaders from other worlds conquering Earth. Anderson touched on that in some of his stories as well, such as THE WAR OF TWO WORLDS.
Ad astra! Sean
Those of us who think that humanity can do better than this have to demonstrate it in practice. Certainly, world peace is not an immediate prospect.
Powerful forces are determined to continue current conflicts. Ceasefires are only pauses.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe people who think as you do will be perpetually and forever disappointed, because the sheer intractability of our innate flaws cannot be removed.
Ad astra! Sean
I believe that we can create conditions in which there is no longer any reason to fight. Nothing is innate. We have come into existence by a process of change and will eventually go out of existence and meanwhile can continue to change our technology, natural and social environments, understandings and perceptions further. If we continue to survive into an indefinite future (If...), then we can show that the change from hunting-gathering to the present global economy was just a first step. I do not understand how anyone who reads sf can deny that this is at least possible.
Paul: Actually, a good deal is innate. Humans have a genetic nature.
Genetic nature, yes, but our behaviour is plastic, very different in different situations. There are many situations in which we have no need to be either acquisitive or aggressive.
Well, if we didn't have an inherent nature, we'd be the only mammals that didn't...
Paul: certainly there are situations in which we have no need to be acquisitive or aggressive. There are, however, many situations in which we -do-, and the "need" is subjective, not objective.
The nature of anything is what that thing is. In that sense, every "nature" is inherent in something.
Our "human nature" is that our pre-human ancestors became differentiated as a distinct species by cooperatively changing their environment with hands and brains and changed themselves into rational, linguistic organisms in the process. Thus, our nature is active change. As Poul Anderson pointed out, human societies can differ so much as to seem like different species.
There are now situations in which people are aggressive etc but we can eliminate such situations in future. We do not fight for the air that we breathe but most of us would fight for the last oxygen cylinder in a space station. We can use advanced technology and social reorganization to build societies in which there is no longer any need to fight for any of the things that are now fought about. Treating others with respect and hospitality instead of suspicion or hostility will become the accepted, taken-for-granted norm and people will read of past conflicts with horror as we now read of racking and burning heretics.
Paul: rationality is usually rationalization, and the smarter and better-informed a human being is, the better they are at rationalizing what they want to believe anyway.
Paul: human beings aggressively contend for power.
They do that in flower-arranging societies as well as in politics.
What you -do- with the power is secondary (though often not in the mind of the person doing the contending) but the drive is inherent.
'tis why 10% of East Asia is descended from Temujin (Genghis Khan) and his sons and grandsons. And that's not because they were such charmers.
In my teens, I tried to rationalize the beliefs in which I had been brought up but I also inquired more widely and wound up completely changing my beliefs. I am still learning. I support particular movements without always agreeing with what is said by other people in those movements and I also practice meditation while remaining agnostic about rebirth. The truth is out there somewhere - as well as within - and we can keep enquiring. I have perhaps less than two decades left.
Kaor, Paul!
Your arguments are not convincing. It boils down to nothing more than hope and wishful thinking. That truth you are looking for can be found in what the Church teaches about Original Sin and in what Stirling and I have been trying about human drives, passions, urges, etc. Such as the drive or craving to be aggressive and to seek power.
The true way to go is not to deny what human beings are like, but to cope with how and what we are, to manage those drives and passions, to redirect them into channels where the harm we can get from them is lessened. E.g., seeking office and power by counting noses is better than shooting one's way to power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My arguments are not convincing to you nor do I expect or by now even intend them to be. We have to stop thinking that the purpose of an exchange like this is for either of us to convince the other. If we continue to think that, then we will continue to state that we have not been convinced - by now, completely unnecessarily.
The truth is in Church teaching? A dogmatic statement. There are many mutually incompatible teachings in the world. Each of us must find his own way.
There is no drive to be aggressive or to seek power. There is a mixture of motivations which includes a lot of goodwill and solidarity. I am about to walk into town but not to attack anyone else or to try to control what they do. I will make way for others on the street and will buy some milk. The people of Lancaster will cooperate with each other. This is the norm until someone sets out to disturb it.
I do not deny what human beings are like. I have analyzed what they are like: cooperating to change their environment instead of merely adapting to it like other species. Democracy is more than counting noses. Full democracy is collective discussion and decision-making. I do not propose that anyone should shoot his way to power. You reply to things that have not been said.
I have to keep asking why we keep saying all this.
Paul.
Post a Comment