What Is Peace? | INFJ Forum

What Is Peace?

Asa

Resident palindrome
Staff member
Administrator
Aug 21, 2015
9,415
88,930
2,590
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
What is "peace"? I do not mean peace in one's individual life, and how one achieves it, I mean the utopian concept of a people, a nation, living in peace.


I'm going to throw some ideas together here, nothing structured. (I have no time for that.)

–– Agricultural societies have more wars and conflicts than hunter-gather societies. (It seems obvious to me that this is about territory and resources, but there may be more to it.)

–– The Age of Reason (and beyond) saw more war casualties than previous societies, showing that reason does not end violence. The more access to intellectual ideas we have, the more deadly our weapons become.

–– Societies with no primal ritual outlets tend to be more violent toward each other. Could this mean that the more peaceful our society gets, the more random violence (such as mass shootings, school shootings, etc) we will experience?
Could violent video games serve as ritual outlets, thus decreasing societal violence instead of inspiring it? I'll argue the same for some sports, metal/punk music, and horror movies and books.

–– War is a blood ceremony, bonding ceremony, a rite of passage, and a ceremony that teaches us we (the hypothetical army) are one, instead of individuals. In times of crisis and near-death, we often feel most alive, closest to God, or more in touch with the profound. How can we replace these important aspects of the human experience in modern society without killing each other?

–– Western societies living peacefully are a facade. The peace we experience in daily life comes at the sacrifice of others, such as sweatshop workers making our clothing and goods. Therefore, it is not peace.


–– Is peace possible?


Please don't fall back on tired, preformed political theory. If those worked, we would already have answers.
 
I think peace is probably inevitable, barring nuclear war or similar.

Technology, for all the bad it's capable of, makes it possible to achieve similar or greater results from less work, and to do things that were previously thought impossible. This will naturally ease the burden of sweatshop workers as it improves.

The only thing we have to worry about long-term is the possibility of someone unleashing a superweapon--perhaps, in the extreme end, it might be necessary to drop a few so that people rally against them.
 
Peace is understanding and accepting chaos into your heart.
Like many things, it's not a destination but a practice.
 
Peace is understanding and accepting chaos into your heart.
Like many things, it's not a destination but a practice.

This is so on-point, and so simply said, that there remained no reason for me to post, save to tell you this.

Superb,
Ian
 
–– Is peace possible?
Interesting question. I don't know, but some thoughts to share .....

In practice there will always be those who quite happily use violence to obtain what they want, and enough of them will succeed to encourage others with similar dispositions. When someone like this has charisma and political acumen as well, it becomes a contagion that spreads to many other people who wouldn't otherwise behave like that. If they have a shared set of deep grievances, that can lead to war. There is excitement in violence too - for those who are willing to risk their lives in the adventure and count their own lives as cheap, then the game and its potential rewards are worth far more than the mundanity and drabness of a peaceful mediocre life.

It's not just physical violence - bullies can use emotional and psychological violence too and so can competing large corporate organisations and states.

Maybe the way to peace is to make sure that everyone's needs can be met without violence, but this is far from being only material needs and must include psychological, spiritual and emotional ones as well. That is very far fetched as far as I can see. In any case, what if my needs, of logical necessity, involve denying you yours? Even so, maybe in the future we will be able to go a long way towards this possibility. There would have to be a very clear boundary,though, between what we really need and what we desire - personal as well as collective peace is fundamentally bound up with this dichotomy.

Maybe another way is to make it impossible to employ violence through imposed constraints. For example, the way surveillance and ai are progressing, we will probably be able eventually to monitor every human in real time and intervene robotically to stop them from initiating a path to violence even before they are aware they are doing it. This seems far more practical and likely than the utopian dream, but terrifies me more than a world without peace because it would dehumanise us. Mind you, this technology would also allow for a whole new dimension of international conflict through opposing national systems, so maybe it could only create a frozen peace in a global state. .
 
If we consider the internal subjective and the external subjective and the objective versions of each—the four quadrants, if you will...

The divided self, where the ego casts out those parts of the self such that they become othered—this internal subjective is mirrored and reflected among the other quadrants.

To see self as other is the same psychodynamic process that others human beings. And othering a human being, whether internally, or externally, is the first denial, the first judgment of less-than, the first disavowal, the first disrespect.

Externalized and projected shame is the first flagstone of the path to war.

That is why I liked @Wyote’s post so much. Just as Love is an action, and not a feeling or state, so too is Peace a process.

Equanimity of the Self reflects to the other quadrants, where it plays out as actions born of choices toward acceptance and integration.

The personal is the political, so cruelty inside means cruelty outside. Same resonance, same energy flow.

In this way, nurture, socialization, and culture mean everything.

Cheers,
Ian
 
the four quadrants, if you will...

146f460a141a6dc0f4432ccbe874683a.jpg
 
I feel like it's two things. Either it's a single, fleeting moment in an individual's life or the aftermath of anything catastrophic. In both cases, it's a form of surrender.
 
Last edited:
Peace is understanding and accepting chaos into your heart.
Like many things, it's not a destination but a practice.

This is about individual peace, which I agree has a lot to do with acceptance. What I want to talk about is societal peace and how studies show that the more sanitized societies become, leaving behind old rituals that provided outlets for primal needs (that are very much part of modern people but often denied), the more violent they become. For example, mass shootings could be a result of this.
 
This is about individual peace, which I agree has a lot to do with acceptance. What I want to talk about is societal peace and how studies show that the more sanitized societies become, leaving behind old rituals that provided outlets for primal needs (that are very much part of modern people but often denied), the more violent they become. For example, mass shootings could be a result of this.
This somehow reminds me of a "free" communities in Denmark and of how contrasted they are to what one could interpret to be social sanitization. It also reminds me of the contrasts of Japanese culture which is either pristine and strict or all out fun.

The moments of societal peace that I remember is when those contrasts seem respectful of each other, often brought by tragedy like the death of a unifying leader but it is always seemingly fleeting.
 
When the passions and appetites are at rest, there is peace.

Ultimately, the life of the saints in heaven is peace, but here we have varied needs which are difficult to balance.

A balanced life is one with work and rest, with study and play, with prayer and socialising, with enjoyment and stoicism, with feasting and fasting.
 
To me, peace is the result of configurations of states of affair that confluence with belief that influences consciousness. It is something that can only be worked towards, fought for, achieved through proper belief, practice, wisdom, humility, and is fully brought on by acceptance of what cannot be reasonably changed or controlled within one's lifetime. Peace isn't simply acceptance and it's not purely fighting, the right belief, or completely achieved through industry, hard work, planning, organizing, and mastery of other classical virtues. It's something that's brought about by the confluence of these things. Also, Inner and outer peace are not so clearly separate and delineated as some eastern schools of thought teach as human beings are not purely individualistic and spiritual/psychological entities, but also material, social, and relational beings and so true peace isn't simply a state of affairs or a state of consciousness, but the two coming into something of a harmony that allows us humans in our will to determine, create, compete, fight, and drive to relax and accept. Peace isn't far from wisdom and humility and can be achieved through a number of different ways, though it's not possible to have peace at least for very long if one denies the truth, what they value, and our basic human needs.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I may be the lone strange creature who is most at peace when striving, in conflict, and challenge rather than resting and harmony.

I don't think so. Most people are happiest/most content when in a type of flow state, which implies a certain level of hardship.
It's best to know yourself and know how to healthily push yourself. Not an easy thing to get right for mostly everyone.

Also, if you're always in a particular state of existing how can you recognize a different state :thonking:
 
In practice there will always be those who quite happily use violence to obtain what they want, and enough of them will succeed to encourage others with similar dispositions. When someone like this has charisma and political acumen as well, it becomes a contagion that spreads to many other people who wouldn't otherwise behave like that. If they have a shared set of deep grievances, that can lead to war. There is excitement in violence too - for those who are willing to risk their lives in the adventure and count their own lives as cheap, then the game and its potential rewards are worth far more than the mundanity and drabness of a peaceful mediocre life.

Well, I think also that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that peace also requires beliefs being in alignment with others and what appears to be happening in reality. More than violence, ideas, beliefs, and ideologies are also prime culprits in the promulgation of conflict between people that can lead to war. Humans being social animals actually have a greater inclination or propensity across history to practice violence on the behalf of their group or a set of ideas that they inherit from a group. As in our evolutionary history those who believed and thought like us came from the same tribe, so those who hold different ideas than we do can be easily turned into the other, infidel, or enemy, I mean look at contemporary politics in America and Britian for instance. Tribalism is more a reality to be an impediment to peace than individual violence. Given individual violence is more a social strategy that has certain emotions behind it and there are recognizable personality characteristics prominent in individuals who will practice it and is predictably limited to matters of achieving status, sexual hegemony, revenge, and settling conflict. As much as people like to point the finger at violence being the bad guy, Violence is actually pretty predictable under circumstances where it's more likely to be a social strategy that is more prominently employed, while the tyranny of groups and tribal disputes is more random and responsible for the most contemporary morally egregious displays of violence and brutality in human history than any lone recorded instance of individual violence. More people have been killed in world war I than in the entire history of mass shootings for instance.
 
Last edited:
Most people are happiest/most content when in a type of flow state, which implies a certain level of hardship.

Comfort zones are great for healing, but nothing ever grows there.

That certain level of hardship is where you are challenged, but not crushed, so you may adapt, grow, achieve competence, and maintain a homeostasis which leads to contentment.

Too little means no fulfillment, and going soft. Too much means being overwhelmed, and being blown away.

Not an easy task. It takes your whole life and each and every human who has ever lived died before attaining mastery in this regard.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Also, if you're always in a particular state of existing how can you recognize a different state :thonking:
Indeed.

I don't think so. Most people are happiest/most content when in a type of flow state, which implies a certain level of hardship.
It's best to know yourself and know how to healthily push yourself. Not an easy thing to get right for mostly everyone.

Make sense, though I find this to be contrasted with ideas like Nirvana and peace through passivity and purely the acceptance of things.
 
It takes your whole life and each and every human who has ever lived died before attaining mastery in this regard.

But we need peace right now or imma DIE