WAR... what is it good for?

[bahman]

I don't understand the "attack/war mentality" -- I think it must be a primitive form of insanity or stupidity. I can appreciate "sparring" for the purpose of increasing awareness and agility, but attacks that are meant for the sole purpose of destroying another and everything associated with them seems like a form of blind fury, lacking broader awareness.

Does waging war truly RESOLVE anything? (I'm not talking about the profitability associated with it.)

Can being SMARTER be more effective than using brute force?

Why do so many men like war so much? Is it because they're not smart enough to figure out anything else? Do they instead measure their "intelligence" by the size of their weapons?

And while we're at it, why do so many men attack with their penis? How is it that they can rationalize doing such a thing? Doesn't it sound ridiculously stupid? I can't imagine ever attacking anyone with my boobs.

I look forward to all responses...

Perhaps We didn't develop/evolve enough. We are not teaching good things to our children. Geopolitics. Why we should have such a mentality? We are either misled by Satan or are very stupid.

How can we teach what we are incapable of? By our actions and collective values we teach that prestige and self importance are the primary driving motives for human actions once essential human needs are met. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. Why should anything change? Just fight for prestige and the rest will take care of itself.

We are capable of changing the situation if we admit our mistakes (fighting for prestige) and recognize that we are equal.

[Walker]

“BEFORE,” indicates functioning from preconceptions based on the known.

"Before" could indicate a lot of things. You appear to be placing certain definitions/limits on it, and assigning that to me. You clearly have no idea how I think.

I'm not interested in talking with you any more right now, Walker. I've cooperated with a bunch of your questions and comments, while you have repeatedly ignored my questions. Maybe when you answer those, I'll entertain more of yours.

Your questions were not ignored, and they were answered.

[Walker]

The root of war is conflict. The human condition by definition is conflict between our higher and lower natures. To live without conflict is to have transcended the human condition. We deny the quality of consciousness necessary to reconcile this essential conflict so it must continue regardless of the finest speeches. It is the way of the world.

A. The root of war is conflict. The human condition by definition is conflict between our higher and lower natures. To live without conflict is to have transcended the human condition.

B. We deny the quality of consciousness necessary to reconcile this essential conflict so it must continue regardless of the finest speeches. It is the way of the world.

B does not follow A.

Conflict resolution is not a matter of denial.

It's a matter of acceptance without the distortion of understanding that leads to denial.

[Nick_A]

The root of war is conflict. The human condition by definition is conflict between our higher and lower natures. To live without conflict is to have transcended the human condition. We deny the quality of consciousness necessary to reconcile this essential conflict so it must continue regardless of the finest speeches. It is the way of the world.

A. The root of war is conflict. The human condition by definition is conflict between our higher and lower natures. To live without conflict is to have transcended the human condition.

B. We deny the quality of consciousness necessary to reconcile this essential conflict so it must continue regardless of the finest speeches. It is the way of the world.

B does not follow A.

Conflict resolution is not a matter of denial.

It's a matter of acceptance without the distortion of understanding that leads to denial.

Only the losing side wants conflict resolution. If you are a rook up in a won position and your opponent offers a draw, would you take it in the spirit of conflict resolution?

Acceptance necessary to effect the world situation is only possible through the collective feeling higher values. This is only possible by improving the quality of human being in general. Of course it is possible but as we are it isn't wanted. Welcome to the fallen human condition.

[Walker]

The root of war is conflict. The human condition by definition is conflict between our higher and lower natures. To live without conflict is to have transcended the human condition. We deny the quality of consciousness necessary to reconcile this essential conflict so it must continue regardless of the finest speeches. It is the way of the world.

A. The root of war is conflict. The human condition by definition is conflict between our higher and lower natures. To live without conflict is to have transcended the human condition.

B. We deny the quality of consciousness necessary to reconcile this essential conflict so it must continue regardless of the finest speeches. It is the way of the world.

B does not follow A.

Conflict resolution is not a matter of denial.

It's a matter of acceptance without the distortion of understanding that leads to denial.

(1.) Only the losing side wants conflict resolution. If you are a rook up in a won position and your opponent offers a draw, would you take it in the spirit of conflict resolution?

(2.) Acceptance necessary to effect the world situation is only possible through the collective feeling higher values. This is only possible by improving the quality of human being in general. Of course it is possible but as we are it isn't wanted. Welcome to the fallen human condition.

1.

Lincoln famously extended his hand to the conquered. That's conflict resolution by the victor.
And look at what they did to him.

So does the U.S. extend a hand to the conquered after wars. Same thing, conflict resolution by the victor.
And look at how the U.S. is denigrated.

The U.S. is so known for helping the defeated that Peter Sellers made a movie about it. The Mouse That Roared. Humour can help to resolve conflict, as it can inflame conflict.

2.

That's true in the intellectual sense. Spontaneous, choiceless ahimsa and total acceptance of what is, within your own nature, represents more of the totality than intellect alone.

*

“So I must enquire into what it means to see totally. As long as I am looking at life from a particular point of view or from a particular experience I have cherished, or from some particular knowledge I have gathered, which is my background, which is the 'me', I cannot see totally. I have discovered intellectually, verbally, through analysis, the cause of my dependence, but whatever thought investigates must inevitably be fragmentary, so I can see the totality of something only when thought does not interfere.”
J. Krishnamurti
Freedom From the Known
- Chapter 7