Friends of CwG Discussion Board

I am just curious because people have all sorts of ways to count how many wars there are, and I find it very interesting that we can’t even agree on what a war is. lol

Some people count a war when there is at least 1000 deaths a year, others count a war even if there hasn’t been a conflict for years but has never been officially declared over, I always say you can make numbers do whatever you want to do to fit your worldview anyway. As I said, it doesn’t really matter to me, we are sure good at having them; I think we have about 41 wars today and most have been around forever and a way of life for people within those conflict.



I agree with this, except that’s what I was trying to say, you can give yourself the luxury to believe yourself patient and loving because the conditions are right for you to do this. You and I could have just as easily been born in one of those countries disconnected and fighting ancient wars. In different conditions your fear is still there and your reaction would be different; the way I see it, it is not possible that this is so for others and not for you me and everybody, separating and pretending isn‘t going to help anything; so I am interested in our consciousness whether in good times or bad, it doesn‘t matter.

And this is where the ‘do to’ comes in, I don’t mean I am a victim, I don’t have to buy into it. I am borrowing Mark’s meaning on the difference between ‘do to’ and ‘do for’ because it gives me the opportunity to say what I wanted so say, but no need to get stuck on those words and I don‘t care what you call it. To me it is like this, people ‘do to’ when they are stuck in their own worldview and have an agenda, people ‘do for’ when they are freely giving. This ’do to’ is the reason we have all this righteousness running around and legislating morality and so on. It makes people feel good, but in reality they are just enslaving themselves and it will never be enough and it will never satisfy this feeling. The feeling people seek is a feeling that comes from serving, and of course serving self is the only way to truly serve another imo. So to me I don’t call what you said selfish, in fact it is the best you can do for everyone. I mean compromising who you are serves no one. And nothing wrong with giving people the opportunity to freely give, to serve does wonders for people imo. But how loving is it to give people the opportunity to do to me… naaa… not if I can help it.

This is why when activists come around I run the other way, when government wants to protect me I run the other way, don’t get me started on unions and all these people that have made whole societies of dependants, which it is one of the major reasons the progress in countries all over the world is so slow; ya know what I mean? I don’t want to give people the opportunity to do to me because it is not good for them and it is not good for me or anyone.

Having said that, I think I understand what you are saying, and you make a great point on the feeling of helplessness that people find themselves in sometimes. This is where I say the opportunity to serve or freely give does wonders.

It is odd Drew that when I read your response I see evidence of what I was saying about the difference. Within the expression of your own thoughts, there is complexity. Also see in your words something that enriches the thinking. Regarding what you called finitely complex, the experience has lead me to believe there is no limit to the complexity, while there does appear plenty of evidence of limitations to it's awareness. The incredible richness is intriguing while to others the richness goes unnoticed or perhaps even worse, is denied. It is almost as if you fear complexity within the statement that you chosen not to see it so. If it is complex it "simply" is complex.

I am glad you see fear in me Drew. Here on this world, it is what is. Strange that you say you are not attempting to change the world, all the while I see you attempting to change the world within its relationship to fear. Who has not heard the quote "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Within the context of this quote one may interpret that fear paralyzes the fearful into inaction. It was spoken within context of recovery from the great depression, and in relationship to a spiraling down slide of movement in the economic machinery that drives a capitalized system of exchange. I rather think it was a fearful statement in and of itself, as it was in response and reaction to the fear of further economic collapse. It is a "perfect" statement for a leader to say from a position of having, to those who have lost it. If that ain't an example of the richness that intrigues.

I believe fear has it's place and purpose, and deserves respect for what it is. I do not believe it is something to be denied or ignored in the face of mindless perseverance toward some goal. Fear, as an emotional response is not so simple to be categorized into one lump sum and then rejected. You don't appear to be advocating working "with it" but rather seem to be struggling against it even to the point of condemning it. You give the impression of some devaluation; that fear is a "bad" thing, that it is the cause of "bad" results, while I see it as something that has value, as it is.

We are capable of seeing the world differently, that too has richness and complexity and there is nothing bad about it, save perhaps to consciously and willfully reject it. To advocate the choice to see it as simple, appears as if it runs counter to the courage it takes to dig deeper.

"The person feeling like he needs to commit suicide sees other alternatives, but rejects them as "too hard". It is so much easier just to end the pain quickly and not have to feel any more."

Yet you state, what appears to me, to be a similar choice; in the will to see it as simple. What? is the complexity "too hard" for you; as based on this experience it can be a real head-banging, that often appears a very hard thing to do. Yet, what is, is and I keep on keeping on, in the being it. Sure I have fear, I'd feel rather foolish to deny it. So obvious... what's up with its denial?

war (wôr)
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

2.
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.


Tonia here is a Wiki link to the history of wars by numbers. It's Wiki of course, so it may not be the absolute source for this stuff, but it gives a good impression:

Number of Wars Historically

Thanks Dee, even if it is not an official site the info helps. That's about as many wars as I thought, and if you click on 'ongoing wars' at the bottom, which it's what I was talking about; today, there are even less wars than I thought, and that's including what they call conflicts intead of wars because there are less than 1000 deaths a year.

Ongoing wars

The statistics are definately interesting.

Glad I could be of help

Perhaps I'm always a day late and a dollar short. I don't make it around these parts like before. It's probable how people can see that brotherhood or sisterhood are merely illusions crafting by a mind that wishes for something else other than what is here now. People may also see that ideas of complete unity are merely tools of escapism. I have to admit that a lot of religion is crafted around the idea of escapism, "The world might suck here, so at least heaven is perfect."

It's easy to look at progress linearly, but there are areas in which we've progressed a great deal. There are also areas where we've regressed. Technology saves lives yet pulls us away from honest heartfelt communication with one another. We turned our own gifts of healing into a commodity that only a few can afford. We are the richest nation in the world, and more luxuries are available to us than any other nation. Yet, we are still puppets to a select few. We have organizations to give to humanitarian needs, but we also have many wars and instances of genocide. We have natural ways of fueling our economy, but we still depend on fossil fuels that create environmental disasters similar to the one in the gulf.

I don't believe that a leader in a western nation will go and purposely kill off millions of people in one race in similar fashion to Hitler. I see that we have more "checks and balances" among the world's nations, but we do still commit genocides and declare wars against certain peoples of the earth. George Carlin once stated that one of our greatest objectives was to kill brown people. If you look at our involvement in the Middle East, I don't think he's too far off. Yet, we also pledged so much to Haiti after their earthquake, and I actually know people locally who traveled there to offer aid.

It's still obvious that we live in some level of denial, and we are still a walking manifestation of living in a relative plane of existence. We are still yin and yang, but often we would sooner deny the parts of ourselves that are the darkness. Many in spiritual circles will quickly acknowledge our own inner Mother Teresa never admit that we have an inner Hitler as well. Many of those in spiritual circles claim to know the way and claim to be enlightened yet refuse to admit that to the sense of ignorance and frailty that we all experience.

I agree that that we are progressing, but we are still taking baby steps. I am not sure if those baby steps are good enough if we realistically look at the condition of our world and the capabilities so many nations hold of destroying all life on this planet. I wonder if we are going to accelerate in our progress like some spiritualists say, or if the fact that we return to divine spirit after our human experience is any consolation for collectively destroying a world.

Drew, You made the following comment earlier:

"The individual is the individual and will see the world in the way he/she has taught themselves or been taught to."

I guess it is the "...or been taught 'to'" part, if you'd care to elaborate further on that thought.

Tonia,

So first, the war thing. I got the statistics from The same place Dee is talking about, but I counted all the wars that were not on going, but were happening between 1900 - 1920 and 1990 - 2010. Yes there are still ongoing conflicts, conflicts that have lasted a while. I was just looking at the statistics between years. Some wars end and others begin.



Ongoing conflicts in 1910: 5

Ongoing Conflicts in 1960: 9

Ongoing conflicts in 1970: 24

Ongoing conflicts in 2010: 41 (as you stated)

My point, and I think that the statistics back me up on this, is that there is still more conflict in the world today. Even if the UN or US military has scared some countries into complacency, it is still fear that keeps them at bay and the peace will eventually crumble, because it's FEAR. Progression, IMO, comes from love, not fear.



Nice point!! You are right. We have it easy in comparison to other countries/families around the world. With the luxury to pontificate and research ourselves without having to deal with the fear of not being able to survive. I understand that all the world could not identify with this way of thinking and yet many great minds and understandings have come from extraordinary people, under just those conditions. And, as you state, someone from Ethiopia would not have a clue what I am talking about. Nor would it be important to him. He is just worried about how that heck he is going to get around the greed of others to feed his family. And also, can I hold this view if I am placed in such a state? I believe I can, but that just might be my ego talking. I am hoping I never have to put it to the test, but that is just my fear talking. So....I think I can....I think I can.... and I will see should the need ever arise.



I agree whole heartedly withe your assessment here, but for 2 minor points. The reason I am so fussy on the words "do to", "do for" and "do with" is that though I understand your interpretation of what they mean to you, others may see them differently.

"Do for" has a ring of sacrificial expectation around it and can be interpreted as "well I did that why aren't you doing this?" or perhaps an excuse to interfere with someones dynamic (or "do to").

"Do to" as I have described before is a victim way of thinking about the world and people use this to abdicate responsibility for there lives and blame the rest of the world for their inability to accept life as it is.

"Do with", however has a ring of cooperation and sharing, rather than sacrifice and cruelty.

Selflessness, IMO, is not possible unless one is dead. One must have a self in order to be able to give.

OK, I hope I have illustrated that I use the words I do and am so picky with them, because the majority of the world still views it through a shroud of fear and that those words, when viewed that way, more accurately describe what we are trying to say.

And I do understand your last statement here about giving people the opportunity to "do me", yet that means that you are placing an expectation of "being done" by people and limiting your experience of them. Is that loving? I understand that we don't have the tools as yet to be able to be open without our various fears being nudged, yet wouldn't being open and loving all the time be something to aspire to? Just ask the question..."What would love dictate I do here?". I have acted from that space many times and I have sometimes had to deal with the feared outcome, but most of the time, I have been pleasantly surprised.

It is one thing to be able to be aware of the world and the traps and pitfalls, it is another to be afraid of them. Awareness allows recognition and choice, and fear breeds judgment and reaction.

Thanks Tonia!

Drew

Mark,

Whew! A lot to answer here. Let me get to the meat of it, though.

Being a complex thinker myself, yes, sometimes the concepts that I am trying to explain need to be explained in a complex way to allow others to identify or understand where I am coming from. The concepts themselves are very simple, yet because of our ability to create and imagine complexities, sometimes they must be explained as complex.

I also was trying to point out that sometimes the brain makes things complex to avoid feeling "bad" or having to face what one really feels or accept what really is. I say this from my experience of myself, here. I interpret some of that in your writing, but I may be incorrect in my assessment.



I think you are "right" and "wrong" here. I agree that fear has it's place and purpose, and if I have come across as "Anti-fear" it is not intended to be wholly so. I think you are right, that I see fear as a "bad" thing in the context that I am talking about it, yet I don't feel that fear is a bad thing. When I am talking about fear in my statements here I use the definition of CWG book one:



Now, this is not to say that fear is to be feared and of course it can be used as a tool for awareness. When I categorize fear in regards to progress, however, I see it as a detriment to real progress in our human behavior. If you want to discuss more intricacies of fear, why not start a new thread and we can discuss our views further? If you want, I will do it, for to talk about it more here will detract from the thread a bit and I would like to investigate it further. Let me know.



I don't think that I am denying fear, though it may seem that way. The world can be as complex or as simple as you wish to view it. I could say that our conversation boiled down to me saying "It seems to me that your complexity of your analyzations could be hiding your true feelings/thoughts and preventing you from seeing a wider picture." and you could be saying "No, they are not, it is the way I view life and it works for me.". Instead, however, we do our best to communicate our thoughts in a way that the other might understand. This involves complex justifications and long winded explanations, yet all we are doing is explaining things to ourselves, really.

I am not saying that you are "wrong" or "right", nor am I saying fear is either. Fear is fear, if the world wishes to allow the fear to continue driving the car, then I Don't see a way to prevent the car from crashing into stuff.

You imply here that I think fear is "bad" and that there are no "good" results from it. I can truly say that that is not what I believe. BUT, I can say that I do believe that allowing fear to control our actions is more destructive than it is helpful to our progress as enlightened beings. Not that we have to be enlightened, but the object of this missive is whether we feel the world has progressed, which I can say that I do not.



OK to make this simple. Adult = less impressionable; able to think things through and come to better concussions, child = more impressionable; less able to do what adults can. As children, we are "taught to", as adults we "learn from".

Nice points Mark.

Thanks!

Drew

Thanks for the reply.

You're welcome.

I don’t know if I am misinterpreting or you are, I didn’t bother to count precisely but the ballpark numbers is like this…

Wars from 2003 on is about 41…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... %93current

Wars from 1990-2002 is about 62...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... %80%932002

Wars from 1945-1989 stopped counting after 100 wars…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... %80%931989

And it gets worse and worse as you go back.

On going wars today is 26...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_on ... _conflicts




I don’t see that at all, and I don’t think the data backs you up at all. Isn’t that amazing? I don’t know… weird…

You are not a progressive are you? I run from progressives too… lol. Seriously, you and I are obviously in different worldviews and I don’t know how much of our worldviews is based on what is actually there, so I am not trying to change your worldview just trying to decipher mine, and it is so weird… Not at all what I expected. As I decipher I am finding out that there are a lot of broken links giving us a misguided view of what is actually there, and there are those that don’t want you to make the connections and think for yourself, and progressives like terrorists are patient and morph thru the decades breaking the links, and allowing the brainwashing to occur; btw ‘progressive’ seems to be the label of the day but they have been named many things over the decades. As I make those connections I realize the deep worldviews people are on, and it gives me a much better understanding of how they came to be. This is not new and people believe themselves to have just and honorable intentions, even terrorists, but it leads to tyranny and oppression instead, even progressives. And even in usa, equal rights is being trampled on, what is there today is selective rights not equal rights. It has all happened before and if we don’t trace to our past and learn from our mistakes we keep making the same mistakes over and over with different players. And yes love is what works, love causes everyone’s true colors to show, and I don‘t have to buy into that which doesn‘t work. And I think that for the first time in this generation, more and more people are seeing the true colors that have been working in the background. And as scary as this government is to me; thank you government, I don‘t think so many people, including myself, could have snapped out of decades of brainwashing without you. Perfect how that works.

Ok, Tonia, this is just something that popped up. Nowadays you don't need more wars to have more widespread effects. The more advanced the technology we have to destroy ourselves, the more severe the effects of fewer wars can be. Like having 100 wars going on at a time when people just had rifles would be less severe than 10 wars with atomic weapons....and both would be less severe than one war using biological and/or nuclear weopons. So, when people were chopping each other up with axes and shooting eachother with arrows, they at least didn't have the capacity to destroy the world at the push of a button.

I agree with that, and like I said, to me the number of wars doesn’t mean anything. Thing is, we have had that technology for decades, and instead of creating more wars it has slowed down wars. Not only that, the deaths in old wars were much higher than today‘s wars even with the technology, I guess the responsibility does something to people, even the reasons we fight wars is changed. The results are crazy if you ask me, like I hear statistics show that the states that have the right to arm themselves have actually less crime than those that don’t have that right… crazy… I would have never guessed that. To me even one unnecessary death is one too many, so I am not basing our progress on this at all. Just want to look at what is actually there though.

"I was having a discussion today about WW2 and Hitler and all that, and my friend asked me if I thought we had progressed as a people."

Progress in relation to what?

"We, as "normal" people, are generally caring individuals, until someone gets in the way of something that we want. Think of all the times you cursed the guy ahead of you in traffic for going too slow. Too slow for what? For you to get to the grocery store on time? For you to get to your beer? Or even to get to work on time? That person in front of you has now become, not a human, but an obstruction. And it is this kind of mentality that permeates our lives."

In the specific case of traffic and going too slow, and the question of too slow for what? Perhaps it is too slow compared to the speed limit, too slow in relation to how fast the car is designed to safely travel and in relation to the speed the road was designed to be traveled at, too slow in relation to the social agreement (laws) of a shared resource. Too slow for the person to be aware of what consideration of travel means. Too slow because they are shaving or drying their hair while driving. Too slow because they are distracted by a phone call, too slow because they are doing something that has taken their attention from driving. Too slow because they are having car trouble yet haven't moved into the agreed upon lane for traveling slow. Too slow because there are other drivers traveling faster and the sign on the side of the road states "slower traffic keep right".

Progress in relation to the instances of people driving distracted and without awareness of traffic flow around them or progress in relation to tolerance for their inattentive and/or inconsiderate behavior? How does one generalize progress? Road rage increasing; self absorbed inconsiderate driving on the rise; or progress for the other 80 percent of the drivers on the road who have shortened their commute to work, through the development of cars that travel safer at higher speeds and roads that are designed with improvements for safer travels at those speeds? Progress in relation to reduced distances of travel to work or progress in relation to fewer environmental or ecological impacts from building all those roads or powering it all on a limited resources?

"Anything that makes us angry so that we blame another person for the lack of our own comfort, or for the discomfort of having to do something ourselves. This also reduces another person to a tool for our own comfort, rather than the human being they are."

Blame is assessed when a social contract is broken. Responsible and accountable seems the sort of flip side to the blaming another for the lack of our comfort. Much of our economic system is based on this sort of assessment of blame. BP has accepted accountability for the death of eleven oil rig workers. They took short cuts and disregarded safety and have accepted accountability. Thousands have been "discomforted" as result of the accident. A person is fired when they don't show up for work, or show up for work in a condition which could affect the safety of others in the work place. Or is it the presence of anger, assess blame but don't get angry?

"I feel, as long as this kind of thinking continues on our "small scale" the big things will never get taken care of."

I think we have progressed intellectually, technologically, and to a much lesser degree, emotionally. Yet emotions are difficult to speak of in terms of being subject to a process of reasoning. It seems the attention you draw would be more aptly described as feelings and emotional reactions, and not a mode of thinking or reasoning taking place.

In some way I agree, but I would not call it a "kind of thinking" or a reasoning process. As long as these sorts of "feelings" continue... Acts of passion don't seem to fit well within the notion of premeditation or conscious thought. If I had to guess, I'd guess Hitler's world view was sponsored by a feeling, and thought did not take place beyond the rationalization of those feelings. Hate seems to begin as a feeling. Fear appears to begin as a feeling, even love begins as a feeling. The rationalization we have in regard to these feelings can progress them, but have I generalized the question to a matter of horse and cart?

First there is feeling. Any thought that takes place seems in response to the feelings. Feeling thirst, hunger, tired or out of breath, have lead to fear of these conditions as they are paramount to our notions of safety and survival. If I were inclined to reduction and what human isn't, within the grand scope of life emerging in the universe, at least from this perspective, we have progressed as a species in our capacity to feel and in our ability to reflect on those feelings. We have progressed to the point that we have thoughts of things having meaning. Since world war II is less then the span of one life time it gets difficult to think of much progress taking place when considering the Universe has been evolving for billions of years.

I'd say we are not likely to progress emotionally much further until we have taken it upon ourselves to insure that no one suffers thirst or hunger, has tired of this world or has no place to call home, as it is our feelings, not our intellectual capacity that seem to be driving the car. What feelings are we teaching our selves to have? Fear is just one of many feelings involved in driving the car, and there is a fair bit of intellect involved in keeping the car on the road as well.

The division of all human emotion into love or fear doesn't seem to account for the simple act of taking a drink of water when you are thirsty, or grabbing a handful of berries when hungry, or having a place to lay down when you are tired. But we come in to this world without these provisions. How does the notion of ownership factor into the fear/love paradigm? That appears a factor that seems to be driving the car right for the embankment. Ownership appears rather fear based. The rather childish notion of the idea that "its mine". Fear has a hand on the wheel, but I'd not say its doing the driving, its a feeling, perhaps one of many including the feeling of ownership coupled with the notion of property. Can anyone "own" the means of production, A King couldn't, a statesmen or merchant couldn't, and are these not individuals that can't either.

What feelings do we example? What feelings do we teach? It's going to take a few more centuries before we have sorted that out and you're wondering about progress made in the last few decades? Not much emotionally, in fact I'd say not much in thousands of years as we are still bickering over ideas of what's mine or collectively ours and the notions of ownership.

Me, myself and mine, included.