[Octavius] and [Haseo] are a couple of people that I've had this discussion with and they each make valid points -- well, okay: Octavius made several valid points -- but at the same time, I find myself unable to disagree for the simple and most overlooked point of such an argument: we haven't had a world like that to know.
I imagine a world where I don't have to strive to beat someone to a particular type of knowledge because no one is withholding any. A world where we can know each other and be known, help one another in weakness, be happy with those who are happy and sympathize with those who are not. A world in which every step is made in safety and every word is said with honesty. A world in which we have no motivation for doing something other than the good of doing it. In such a world, as Octavius pointed out, we would be prone to laziness since strife or ambition is a driving force for most people in the world as we know it, but being in such a world would also mean that we would be different people.
I mean, what would the world be like if everything we did was motivated by peace that had existed as long as war has existed in our world? What would be be like if the concept of war were foreign and even abrasive to our ears?
I would love to see world peace although I am promised on Good Authority that I won't while I'm alive, but if we conceptualize of anything resembling an afterlife or a spiritual world of peace (heaven, shangri la, nirvana, etc), then at what point would be okay with that? Heaven would seem to a "normal" person like an incredibly dull and boring place unless you look at Heaven as it is -- a place of infinite possibilities for learning and growth without any negative influence of any kind.
How could that be boring? We could play games and lose without feeling badly or win without making others feel bad (imagine Halo 3 without the trash talking)... it's endless. I really could get lost in this and that mostly because I've had that for a while. I've known what it is like to be around people that love each other and give and they do it right. Not perfect, but it was as close to heaven as I might experience here and I hold those moments in my heart as I write this.
Does anyone understand what I'm talking about here?
Your last paragraph - could we then actually HAVE games with winners and losers? To win, implies to be victorious over a loser, which is a form of conflict, no matter how minor, is it not? If everyone was at Peace, the only games that would work would be communal games of cooperation (if we're talking video games, I would say some of those roleplaying games where players work together to achieve goals).
ReplyDeleteEven simple games however, are in essence a conflict. Chess - one player triumphs over another (using strategy, admittedly not violence) but still, in a perfect peace, both players would simply share each victory and each loss, and no one would ever finish/win/triumph after all.
@anon: i see your point, but i don't think the essence of conflict relates to that. games, of a nature have conditions even if you are playing by yourself. if you fulfill the conditions, you win the game. if not, you lose the game. there is a difference between playing a game and winning/losing and the emotions that people attach to them. for instance, in competition between two martial artists that don't have a desire to kill one another, there exists no malice. i have experience this in sparring with my friends. we do what we do, but in all of it, we experience no feelings of malice. i am not in conflict with them nor they with me. at that point, it is simply play. i believe play can exist without conflict existing and therefore winning/losing can also exist without conflict arising.
ReplyDeletefor that matter, i believe that competition could possibly exist without negative feelings leading to conflict.
back to the topic, it is possible to win without trying to be a dominating force (leading to conflict) and it is also possible to lose well and seek to learn instead of sulk (leading to conflict).
thanks for the write in, though.
Synx!
ReplyDeleteThe concept of world peace is a noble one, there's no doubt about that but it's also unrealistic IMHO.
All people grow and develop at different stages. Some of us learned life lessons already while others are still in the mistake-making stage. Some of us are quite angry while others are happy. Countries are dirt poor while others are extremely wealthy. Many are starving while many are eating more than they need.
We can never live in perfect harmony unless everyone is on a relatively even playing field. This includes financially, spiritually, and physically.
Since this is impossible (again, since we are all at different stages in our lives around the world), it's not likely that world peace can exist.
There will always be human suffering as long as there are humans.
That doesn't mean we can't strive for peaceful lives however and that we can't have peace within our families and communities.
I just don't think we all can have peace all around the world all at once. Ah, but who knows. Anything is possible, right?
-Dean
@dean: trust me, it's well noted -- "I would love to see world peace although I am promised on Good Authority that I won't while I'm alive". I know it's something we can't have. It's against the very nature of the world as is to even approach it. We are, quite technically, in a world of rain and clouds through which we see a peek of sunlight every now and then.
ReplyDelete