Practical Peace

Philip Burgess wrote: The time O'Sensei developed his philosophy was an unique time in Japanese history and that really only applied to Japan, and not universally to the rest of the world, or in our times, where you deal with an attacker on drugs. I think , with all due respect to O'Sensei, it was pretty nieve of O'Sensei to think it could be and he could make a change- that is understandable considering Japan being a closed nation for so long, and what he went through in his life. ...there are people which can't be reached with peace. I add these people are not going to respond to peace either- sadly.

Hey Philip,
If I'm reading you right, I think I disagree. What is it that makes his philosophy inapplicable today? I think O Sensei's general philosophy of accordance with the universe and interpersonal harmony applies very widely across cultures. Certainly the specific ways he expressed some of this are culturally rooted, but the philosophy itself (as I think I understand it, at any rate) seems pretty wide open. I don't see it as being very different from other figures of different times and locations.
Also, I think I disagree that there are people who cannot be reached with peaceful actions. I think it's all too easy to forsake troubled people. I guess my fear is that through the convenience of practicality, good ideals might not be given the chance they need to find actualization.

Onegaishimasu. In my early studies of the way of the Samurai and particularly zen buddhism, I read that sometimes the most compassionate act can be to cut your opponent's head off without a single word. It is the way many of us act today with insects; not cutting off their heads, but annihilating them altogether. So is peace not practical? Tough subject.

In gassho

Mark

Mark Uttech wrote: So is peace not practical?

Hello Mark,

I think you need to expand the question--or the background.

The references to cutting off heads in silence do not supply sufficient background. For example, samurai who committed seppuku specifically had someone to do this, to spare them the pain of opening their hara to the world in such a direct fashion. Though such a practice is practical, in some sense, in what respects was it 'peaceful'?

Best wishes,

PAG

As to whether there are some people who "can't be reached" except by acting -- as they are perceived as acting -- in a brutal and violent way, consider this: A number of professional interrogators have testified before Congress that methods based on creating a personal relationship actually worked, and even were the methods that produced the valuable intelligence from victims who were also waterboarded. Moreover, according to one US interrogator with extensive field experience in Iraq, the majority of foreign fighters he questioned reported US abuses of Islamic captives was one of the main reasons they joined up. Keep in mind these were among those who carried out suicide bombings targeting US (and likely British, etc.) military.

To me, rei is relevant here.

cdh

Good point about the relative perception of peace. Some folks simply feel more peaceful in the middle of a storm than in the middle of the dead quiet...and I can certainly understand the idea of peace found in a quick death. Suicide would be another form of this example, though one which is usually the result of tumult, so to my mind really isn't the product of peace. It is a tough question for several reasons I guess, not the least of which is exemplified by the fact that mankind has had thousands of years to find some lasting form of it, yet I would argue we're more or less where we probably began...I would say in all that time only our tools have really changed, and even that isn't as big a change as we tend to like to believe.
At any rate, I would argue that peace is actually quite practical...the most practical even.
I'll try to write something more when I have more time: hi ho, hi ho, it's off to slave away I go.
Take care, all,
Matthew

Mark Uttech wrote: Onegaishimasu. In my early studies of the way of the Samurai and particularly zen buddhism, I read that sometimes the most compassionate act can be to cut your opponent's head off without a single word. It is the way many of us act today with insects; not cutting off their heads, but annihilating them altogether. So is peace not practical? Tough subject.

From one zen perspective, our heads are cut off simply in considering the question.

The only peace I can ultimately ensure is my own---and I do not mean this in a physical sense, since I cannot ultimately ensure that at all. However, if I am a lion, I can be at peace with stalking and hopefully killing a gazelle; and, if I am a gazelle, I can be at peace grazing in the field and hopefully evading a lion.

When I am at peace, the world is at peace.

Joe McParland wrote: From one zen perspective, our heads are cut off simply in considering the question. The only peace I can ultimately ensure is my own---and I do not mean this in a physical sense, since I cannot ultimately ensure that at all. However, if I am a lion, I can be at peace with stalking and hopefully killing a gazelle; and, if I am a gazelle, I can be at peace grazing in the field and hopefully evading a lion. When I am at peace, the world is at peace.

This reminds me of the parable told by Socrates in which some forms of pleasure are likened to a water bladder with a hole in it. Happiness (a reasonable measure of peace in my book) equates to a full bag of water, but one must continualy work at replacing the pouring water. Hunger might be a fitting example. As I recall this was to later be a reason for it not being called pleasure, or at least, a weaker form of it...I'll have to reread that. However, I can fully appreciate the peace that comes from stalking/focusing intently upon a target.

IMHO, just because peace doesn't work with everyone all the time, doesn't mean it doesn't work with most of the people most of the time, making it actually more practical than violence.

When you resort to violence, regardless of your rationale, you are no longer the hero of the story. Period.

People of means solve problems with leadership and communication, not force.

Benjamin Edelen wrote: People of means solve problems with leadership and communication, not force.

If you substitute the definition of 'means' from wikipedia into your sentence, it then reads,

"People with something of instrumental value in order to achieve an end solve problems with leadership and communication, not force."

The same could be said for, " people with something of instrumental value in order to achieve and end solve problems with violence.

What do you mean by " of means"?

David

Benjamin Edelen wrote: When you resort to violence, regardless of your rationale, you are no longer the hero of the story. Period.

My view is less cut and dry. My wife and I just returned from a "Bringing Baby Home" class where we're learning about how to care for our baby and she asked me just a few minutes ago what I would do if we were attacked. I would resort to violence to stop violence against her or my baby...and by violence I mean if I had to (the beauty of the hypothetical) I would be willing maim someone who was attempting to harm my pregnant wife...and it would be frighteningly easy. I would have no remorse for my actions unless I went beyond the necessity of protecting my family.
...This from a guy who feels guilty whenever he kills a mosquito, let alone hurts someone.
Take care.

Benjamin Edelen wrote: When you resort to violence, regardless of your rationale, you are no longer the hero of the story. Period. People of means solve problems with leadership and communication, not force.

Since we just had a special day reserved for remembering all those who died for us, I guess those 3400 + Congressional Medal of Honor winners weren't heroes at all.

http://www.history.army.mil/moh.html

One entry. I'm sure PFC Valdez could have opened communications with the Germans and negotiated a safe retreat without violence.

*VALDEZ, JOSE F. Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Company B, 7th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Rosenkrantz, France, 25 January 1945. Entered service at: Pleasant Grove, Utah. Birth: Governador, N. Mex. G. O. No.: 16, 8 February 1946. Citation: He was on outpost duty with 5 others when the enemy counterattacked with overwhelming strength. From his position near some woods 500 yards beyond the American lines he observed a hostile tank about 75 yards away, and raked it with automatic rifle fire until it withdrew. Soon afterward he saw 3 Germans stealthily approaching through the woods. Scorning cover as the enemy soldiers opened up with heavy automatic weapons fire from a range of 30 yards, he engaged in a fire fight with the attackers until he had killed all 3. The enemy quickly launched an attack with 2 full companies of infantrymen, blasting the patrol with murderous concentrations of automatic and rifle fire and beginning an encircling movement which forced the patrol leader to order a withdrawal. Despite the terrible odds, Pfc. Valdez immediately volunteered to cover the maneuver, and as the patrol 1 by 1 plunged through a hail of bullets toward the American lines, he fired burst after burst into the swarming enemy. Three of his companions were wounded in their dash for safety and he was struck by a bullet that entered his stomach and, passing through his body, emerged from his back. Overcoming agonizing pain, he regained control of himself and resumed his firing position, delivering a protective screen of bullets until all others of the patrol were safe. By field telephone he called for artillery and mortar fire on the Germans and corrected the range until he had shells falling within 50 yards of his position. For 15 minutes he refused to be dislodged by more than 200 of the enemy; then, seeing that the barrage had broken the counter attack, he dragged himself back to his own lines. He died later as a result of his wounds. Through his valiant, intrepid stand and at the cost of his own life, Pfc. Valdez made it possible for his comrades to escape, and was directly responsible for repulsing an attack by vastly superior enemy forces.

Even more to the point, I guess all those women who fight back against being raped aren't heroes at all, either, "regardless of your rationale". I'm sure that those women could have talked their way out of that bad situation.

Or all the times that a man or a woman has saved family or friends from bear/wolf/mountain lion attacks by using violence.

There has been and always will be "bad situations". War, rape, civil unrest, psychotic maniacs, etc, etc, etc. And yes, I'm sure that some of the time, communication will be a better option. But, also, some of the time, violence will be the only option.

I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make, but your post came across as being too all inclusive.

Mark I see your point, but I still disagree. Valdez is a hero, but not for his application of violence. Saving your buddies makes you a hero, killing lots of the bad guys does not. Surviving a rape makes you a hero, physically harming your attacker does not. Violence undoes what you have accomplished in the world.

Benjamin Edelen wrote: Mark I see your point, but I still disagree. Valdez is a hero, but not for his application of violence. Saving your buddies makes you a hero, killing lots of the bad guys does not. Surviving a rape makes you a hero, physically harming your attacker does not. Violence undoes what you have accomplished in the world.

No problem with our disagreements here. You have your beliefs/opinions and I have mine. Seems fair enough.

I'm sure we could probably debate the point some, but I think I'll leave it that we disagree.

Benjamin Edelen wrote: Mark I see your point, but I still disagree. Valdez is a hero, but not for his application of violence. Saving your buddies makes you a hero, killing lots of the bad guys does not. Surviving a rape makes you a hero, physically harming your attacker does not. Violence undoes what you have accomplished in the world.

Just to see if I understand what you are saying.

A person survives a rape, but by doing so does in fact physically harm the attacker in the process. Does this not make them a hero anymore? Or are you saying that the process of surviving a rape makes them a hero, but the process of harming the person in itself does not. So the person is a hero because of the survival, but not because of the physical damage. Or are you saying that due to the physical damage the person is no longer a hero?

I think I was clear in that. lol.

If I define peace by what it is not, then peace is simply the absence of war. Sometimes we tie ethics into peace and war; peace is a good thing and war is a bad thing. Who is right and who is wrong is a point of view, not a point of fact. Whenever I read posts that begin with absolute conditions, I get nervous...

Practicality is a term used to describe a decision made by evaluating the opportunity cost of the consequences of the decision. Practical peace would then be a decision which weighs the consequences of creating a confrontation against the consequences of nonconfrontation.

I would argue that heros are people who act under circumstances in which others would be incapable of responding. Leaders are people who gather information before making a decision to ascertain the best possible decision before acting. Neither are committed to inaction and both are committed to making the most practical decision to act.

Whether an individual makes the right [or wrong] decision is an ethical debate, not a factual one. When we confuse an ethical statement like, "war is wrong...[in my religion],[in my belief],[in my opinion]," as a fact we lose objectivity needed to make difficult decisions.

Nice post Jon, I'm going to think about that some more...

Best,
Ron

Benjamin Edelen wrote: When you resort to violence, regardless of your rationale, you are no longer the hero of the story. Period.

Osu,
Agreed.
If you resort to violence, you are not longer the hero.
And none who have resorted to it would disagree. They wouldn't think of themselves as heros either.
The people they saved and protected might though, (but probably not).
Rei, Domo.

Lynn Seiser wrote: Osu, Agreed. If you resort to violence, you are not longer the hero. And none who have resorted to it would disagree. They wouldn't think of themselves as heros either. The people they saved and protected might though, (but probably not). Rei, Domo.

Maybe hero is a difficult term...
And I really don't want to come across as supporting violence (particularly when my purpose for this thread was discussing how peace is more practical in the long-term), but I would argue that a person forced to act with violence isn't necessarily un-heroic.

Lynn Seiser wrote: Osu, Agreed. If you resort to violence, you are not longer the hero. And none who have resorted to it would disagree. They wouldn't think of themselves as heros either. The people they saved and protected might though, (but probably not). Rei, Domo.

If you resort to violence, you are not longer the hero.

This is a perfect quote which combines a fact with an opinion (presented as a fact). In this syllogy the premise is that if one commits violent act, then they are not a hero. Without a clarification of "violence," or any of the plethora of exceptions that would arise from testing this syllogy, it is not even a statement to which one can respond.

1. At the risk of sounding corny, I appreciate those men and women everyday protect me, my family, and my country. I appreciate my fire fighters, police men, and paramedics who keep me safe. I call all of these people heros because they make difficult decisions everyday that I could not make. I am thankful the weight of those decisions rests upon their shoulders and not mine. I am glad there are people who can (and do) shoulder these burdens of which many of us are ignorant.
2. Hero is not a self-awarded title. I once heard a saying, "The gravity of difficult decisions should be enough to keep us grounded in reality." Heroes carry with them the burden of their decisions. Leaders carry with them the burden of their decisions. these people do not need from us some tag that says what they did is good or bad; they know.

"Hero" is a really tricky word, and know that while I write the following, I am still somewhat tricked by it.

A hero per se does not set out to be a hero. He/She behaves genuinely in the self-sacrificial cause of world peace, or in a microcosm of which the smaller deed perpetuates. As far as the Medal of Honor goes, there is a reason why the offspring of he/she who receives it have an automatic nomination (though not necessarily acceptance) to the United States military academies. It must not be because the child has the DNA to be a hero, but perhaps has the nurture to serve and lead. This goes for those with living parents as well as those legacies posthumously received.

Now, the military is certainly not the only place to find heroes. I like how Alan Jackson puts it in his 9/11 song: "...heroes who died just doin' what they do..." But even firemen and police officers do not complete a triangle of heroism along with the military. I consider any pro-social act by everyday people to be heroic to some degree, even something as simple as saying "Thank you" to the cashier and bag boy. I've been both, and I know its importance.

Drew

Jon Reading wrote: Whenever I read posts that begin with absolute conditions, I get nervous...

I agree and personally feel many of the problems in this world today are based around people with absolutes. One of the things that draw me to the ryu I am a member of is that is has a philosophy nearly identical to the "peace and harmony" aspects of aikido, but also clearly recognizes that "ideals don't always work in the real world and sometimes you just have to do what you have to do". The idea then shifts away from "one size much fit all" to "one size fits most, and then lets figure out how to best deal with the rest".

Rennis Buchner

What are some practical ways you've fostered peace, either in general or in specific situations?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbAPB...D-rhPwKhX7qEJ4

War is not who is right, but Peace is who is left

...or something like that... Maybe, I got it backwards? Anyhoo...