A friend most recently blogged regarding the term and her take on the notion and it’s ideals and notional surrounds. I have considered commenting, yet have stayed my hand. I have written three, four, maybe five responses then deleted them. I think I have read her well, and I think I have some small understanding of her notions, but my comments seem to drift and I seem to be unable to say precisely succinctly briefly that which I think, and stay on track within the topic as she has set it. She started it. ---> Cruel Virgin
Peace, as with many words, more terms, have haunted me for many years. I remember, even as a child, letting specific words surround me, swallow me, infuse my thoughts, and guide me to meaning. It was not the “big words” such as tenacious, collaborative, or mitochondrial. Those words are like nails, you learn them, then drive them into specific places in the sentence like a nail holding a picture to a wall. Neither did the neat words as whit, specious, or phalanx, which though they catch my fancy, enthrall me, dance with me, and whisper their secrets. I still enjoy those other aspects of language, yet they are mundane. It was terms like peace, happiness, love, and joy which called me to enjoin their mockery of human understanding. Age has not changed this fascination.
This construct of letters, vowels and consonants, can quite easily be understood. A dictionary will provide some basic understanding. Churches and gatherings, holidays, and celebrations, people, and even animals seem to be able to add distinct designs to the word. Yet, as it seems with her, I think the finer and major points are misunderstood. People do not understand peace. As well, I may be far off and I certainly am biased. I thought to try to encapsulate my thoughts and express my understanding in any case.
Peace is not an idea, an emotion, or a simple state. It is a state of nature, a nature that cannot be known for more than moments and probably not fully then. It is an unchanging state which does exist somehow, somewhere, or we would not even have a term to describe it. It is a surety of nature, self, and all which allows the fullness of existence in truth, love, and knowledge. It cannot be known for many reasons, here, now. We age, we die, those around us fail, cheat, and die, and the world itself changes. We cannot be sure of the rest of today and tomorrow is only a strong suspicion based on the number of yesterdays, until we reach a point where the number of yesterdays only adds to our uncertainty. As we cannot know infinity, in a personal singular human manner, we cannot know peace.
I also see that war often yields a peace which diplomacy never may. Mitigation yields, gives a voice to those who all know do not deserve to be heard, and abides this evil so that it might have this good. War does not compromise with what the victors see as evil. It does not give and take. It commands and then makes that command real. And, though there may be lies in various aspect of war as we know it, the function of war is the truth. One way or another, war will separate those who will know peace, from those who only think they want it but will not pay the price and those who do not want peace.
Still, when people wish me peace, I accept it. The more sincere the person, the better I know the well-wisher, how well the person understands that which they offer, and the reason for the wish all sum to the strength or weakness of the gift. As well, I do not doubt those who wish for peace, or even those who work for it. I am sure they have their purposes, and their walk is their own. I just, for myself, do not believe peace can ever be found here and to lose one’s self in such a pursuit is to turn from the real peace that exists. I will not worry about peace here, I know where it is and I know I will find it. I know too, I do not deserve it. More than that, I really cannot say.
This is interesting to me on several levels. I've never come across that blogger before, and I found her site intriguing and beautiful, but also sad.
ReplyDeleteFirst, somehow I'm surprised to see you reading the blog of someone who probably holds views very different than yours. Not sure why it surprises me - thinking back, it shouldn't. I find that many people are entirely intolerant of opposing views. But I haven't seen evidence that you yourself are in that group.
You told me once in a comment, some time back - I'll paraphrase from my faulty memory here, okay? - that you probably wouldn't like me if you met me, but that was okay with you. That was perfectly fine with me too, and your honesty and openness were comforting to me.
Second, at this stage of my life, I feel profound peace often. This is an incredible blessing, one I never ever fail to appreciate and value.
I feel sorry that this woman - and you - seem to think this is not possible here on earth. I truly think it is possible, and that certainly it's a quest that should never be given up. The belief system I've developed encompasses that: the search for peace is, and should be, part of what drives us and simultaneously makes us human. It should no more be shriven than one should cut off one's feet.
Third: Part of that means emotional health and succor. It looks to me like this blogger suffers from clinical depression. If so, it's incumbent on her - as it is on myself - to seek treatment for it. That modern approach that combines medications and talk therapy, especially cognitive behavior modification, has been successful with an astounding percentage of patients.
Last, but not least - It looks like you've decided NOT to give up blogging. I am very glad to see that. You interest me, and others too. You may have gathered, by now, that I have strong feelings about the voices of bloggers: I do NOT like to see those voices stilled. Whether or not I agree with their positions, etc., is of no concern to me. I want them to be heard.
So I'm glad I can still hear you.
Oh, yes, do not be surprised. Though I do have limits, some people are allowed a bit more, others have no real limits. My Mum, for example. As I told you, I don't have to like, always, to share or enjoy. And, because I do not like does not mean I cannot love. I will freely admit, logic only plays a part in that as must be obvious.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't worry about liking though. Some people have a natural grace and a worthiness that make such niceties obsolete. There are other planes of connection that are more important.
I am unsure about this peace you know. I do not begrudge you and will gladly accept this at face value. But I cannot share it, not yet. I cannot say about her, but I have tried everything to "fix" my situation to absolutely no avail. At this point, it is just the way it is. Therapy, drugs save for medically necessary, hoodoo, and any notion of change have been released into the winds of a future hope, no, more a future trust. As well, and in part, I speak of world peace being undeliverable. I think, for me, without that possibility I cannot be at peace. For me, that means another potential walk on the darker side.
As for giving up blogging... I embarrass myself, often, blogging. I say too much, go too far, misspeak or mischaracterize my thoughts so that I am unhappy about the notion presented. Not that I am displeased about upsetting apple carts, it is more that I tilt the thing the wrong way. As well, I say things that might be a bit too personal. I have only removed one post, and have had others remove a few comments. Good or bad, I pretty much just do it. I should be writing for some time, now that I've crossed some threshold.
I am not sure what intrigues you. Though if it brings thought, a little light, or a bit of knowledge, I am pleased. If it is simply interesting, that will suffice. Be well.
Oh, something else. As I see it, Cruel Virgin is not all that different from me. She is female, has traveled that road, and has derived herself from that set of realities. Political differences, in the end, are smoke. It isn't about differing thoughts or opinions, it is intent which will allow someone in or keep them out. That has very little to do with me, or them, personally, in some way.
ReplyDeleteThe blogosphere has been called the world's biggest group therapy session. I think that's true. I also think it's a very effective therapy session. As I told my dad last month - it works.
ReplyDeleteIt does me good, and it looks like it helps you too. That is something, isn't it?
We all go out on a limb here. We all go too far sometimes, or can't find the right words or syntax to express our ideas as we wish. You're doing fine. And yes, you do make me think. I like that.
If you don't mind me asking? - What is it that's gone wrong with your health?
That's part of what interests me, of course; my own need for blogging includes lots of health stuff, both the physical and the emotional sides.
But of course, mostly I'm asking just because I'm being nosy. If you'd rather not answer, that's perfectly acceptable. Always.
And you're right on the money with this: *Political differences, in the end, are smoke.* I think if more people were willing to accept that fact, the world would see a far greater hope for world peace.
I think it was accepting that I won't see that universal peace that allowed me to truly feel it in my own, infinitesimally small grain of life. To see reality clearly - and then to change what I can, accept what I can't, but know the difference - there's a great deal of peace in that.
We are humans, and we war. While I think it's sometimes a necessary evil, I certainly think that's almost never the case. I do not believe peace is more likely to be achieved through war than by other means; in face, I think the opposite is true.
The realities of war were not well considered before we went into Iraq. I knew that at the time, and my small blogging circle shouted me down if I tried to say anything like that. I remembered, very clearly, the fury and hatred between opposing sides during Vietnam. I remembered the futility of trying to carry on a true discourse about it, too.
Having recognized what was happening, and knowing that in a few years everything must collapse and Bush be discredited by those same people who hero-worshipped him in 2001 - 2003, I decided to shut my mouth and wait.
It was not a painless thing to do. I despise war. I despise violence of all kinds. I knew that priceless innocents were dying, and a country and its history being destroyed. I knew that in this country, where almost none of us never actually see war or its realities, people decided war was a good idea without truly thinking of the real consequences.
Now I hear some saying, *Did you know that more civilians are dying than combatants? A lot of little babies and things? I didn't think of that, back then.*
Those statements are not conducive to inner peace. When I hear them, I feel rage instead.
To state that one is a *good Christian,* and spend a lot of time living in that life; to hate abortion because it kills the unborn - but then, never consider all the babies killed as collateral damage in war - this looks like a very selfish form of self-deception to me. Hypocritical. In the extreme.
The only cure for that kind of willful ignorance is getting slapped in the face with the truth. Sometimes it seems that every generation has to re-learn these lessons. I hope this lesson here sticks for a while. We have bankrupted our country over it, and corrupted our stated moral position. The price paid for that lesson is high indeed.
No, I don't always feel peace. To feel it ever seems extraordinary to me. I treasure it. And since you'd been reading and thinking about it, and its rarity and near-impossibility, I wanted to let you know that it can be found after all.
It's just that it may not be the way you think it should be.
I could debate you, easily, regarding the collateral damage and the evils of peace at any cost. I can agree that not every aspect of the war was planned perfectly down to the last iota, but then turn around and add that no war can be. But before I go too far, let me ask you this...
ReplyDeleteA 6'2" 220 pound man breaks your front door in, comes in and... You finish the story for me. You see, there are some things that do not lie within your field of endeavor, your understand, or your abilities. Now compound that personal inability to a national interest and then pause, a moment, to ponder.
Now, this does not mean you should not have an opinion, it means it should be considered with that in mind. It does not mean you need to be quiet, but it does mean respect is due those who do and plan our mutual defense.
As for rage about the death of the itty bitty little babies, you tread on thin ice here. When Pelosi said something about something, she came damn close to just outright calling our troops baby killers. I hope that is not what you are saying? And, as for rage, where was your rage if not for the 3000, the thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands and risked millions under Sadam? And, we declared war on Germany because Japan attacked us, were you also against that? (I am not being smart, honestly, just asking)
No, I won't tell you to be quiet. I won't tell you to go away. I will discuss this with you. But I do have some rules.
One reason I stopped trying to talk about the war, back in 2002-2003, was because of that problem I just now called, *true discourse.* Of course, the real problem was the lack of true discourse.
ReplyDeleteYou see, what kept happening was this: I would ask a question, or raise a point, questioning this war in a specific or general way - it didn't matter which - and instead of the dispassionate and intelligent response I'm accustomed to, I'd get bombarded with a bunch of pejorative assumptions about my character, intelligence, education, and/or beliefs - assumptions that were entirely baseless. Instead of debating facts and opinions, I'd get blasted with name-calling, insults, sarcasm, and that age-old tactic called Shouting the Other Guy Down. As if, you see, these methods of *winning an argument* proved them *right.*
That's bullshit. Pure, absolute, childish, ignorant bullshit. I refuse to waste one second of my precious time engaging in such a ridiculous enterprise.
Why in the world would anyone derive an association with Pelosi, or cries of *baby-killer soldiers,* or some idiotic stance on *self-defense being bad,* from what I'd just said? Do you really think I'd ever belong to some cookie-cutter stereotype Verbal Spouting/Anti-Thought group? Doom! Honestly! I thought better of you than that. Surely you look for some factual basis, somewhere, before you decide you know something unstated about the other person's positions?
That's why I don't go there any more. It's not just that it's mildly irritating to be talked down to like that, nearly always by people decidedly inferior to me intellectually. The real problem is, it bores me to tears. I don't like to be bored; so you see, I don't get involved in things that bore me. Oddly enough - I'm never bored! That's one reason I'm a happy and cheerful person. Funny how that works, huh?
So we'll need to leave this issue alone, okay?
I'll make one request before I leave the topic for good: I wish to briefly reply to some of what you said. I think that's a fair request.
First, I have very strong feelings about our right to self-defense. One night in Shreveport, I came quite close to killing a man who entered my apartment late at night. In perfect accord with crime statistics, he was someone I knew, a neighbor. He was drunk and aggressive, and didn't stop advancing until he heard the click as I pulled back the hammer on my good old-fashioned cowboy six-gun.
When I'd simply pulled and aimed, for some reason he made the erroneous assumption I wouldn't actually use it. Perhaps he thought I was an ignorant person who didn't believe in self-defense? A near-fatal error on his part. Explaining - succinctly - how satisfied I'd be to shoot him dead slowed his advance, but didn't stop it; he kept walking toward me, saying I should be nice and friendly and neighborly to him. The click did the trick. Even so, human nature being what it is, he was still stupid enough to be calling me extraordinarily vile, profane names as he backed on out the door with my gun aimed rock-steady at his heart. At least by then, that would-be rapist had lost his erection. It would have been fun to shoot it off for him, but hey.
Second, I respect those who deserve it. People who elevate ideology over facts and knowledge and thorough planning are not deserving of my respect, especially because in real life, they're very poor planners and managers. To wage war, I firmly believe we need excellence in both. I cannot *respect the position* without respecting the person who holds that position.
Third, I've followed the entire Bush family, and Saddam, very closely since 1979. You know. Back when Reagan and Bush 1 loved Saddam and kissed his ass because Iraq is an ancient enemy of Iran. I despise murderous assholes, and I despise those who kiss their asses; therefore, I have thoroughly detested all of them ever since. I believe my factual grounds for doing so are very good indeed. I'll spare you the details. But believe me, they're there.
Whether or not others agree with those grounds, or with my final analyses, it's highly unwise to jump to the conclusion that I'm ignorant of the facts. As it happens, I'm far more informed of the facts surrounding these people than almost anyone I've ever talked to. In addition, my abilities in analyzing character - and in doing so, to make accurate predictions of what decisions and actions those people will take - is held in high regard by those who know me well.
As any true scientist knows, the way to prove the truth of a hypothesis is whether or not you can accurately predict the outcome of its test. I stand not on my ability to convince with words, but on my ability to accurately predict outcomes. Meaning - you see - that I was correct, in whatever analysis pertained to the aforementioned discussions. As developments proved, my *non-true discourse* detractors were wrong, and I was right. Every prediction I made at the beginning of the Bush 2 presidency, and at the beginning of the Iraq war, has come true; most can be verified with contemporaneous emails. The only exceptions are a few bits that haven't come to fruition yet; in other words, where the outcome is simply still unknown.
When I worked, I was paid very well indeed for my talents and abilities in analysis, decision-making, planning, and executing plans. Better yet, I was highly respected among my peers. They came to me for advice in a steady stream, and I gave it freely. My so-called superiors sometimes felt a bit dissed at being bypassed; but my production made their performance statistics glow in the dark, so they learned to accept it and come to me for advice too.
Some folks on the internet have developed some understanding of me. However, my real-life background is filled with things they can't possibly know, because I haven't told them. You, and other readers, would do well to tread very carefully on the turf of my being. Those who do not can end up looking extremely silly, if they ever do find out who they've just said something intellectually ridiculous to.
On that, perhaps we can agree to disagree on the subject of war. I will not revisit it again.
k,
ReplyDeleteOh, I understand. And, let me clarify a few things. First, this is a hot topic. Within my circle of friends and family, I have people on both sides. And, this debate can be heated. That given, I am human, mostly, and have been prone to CHARGE at red flags, real or imagined. As, dear lady, have you, in your ways. *I am not being "smart" here, just saying, if with a bit of a chuckle at the whole lot of us* As well, I do expect some room to lay out some ground rules here. That I may do so boorishly at times, yes, I can take that hit. Mostly because it is true, and can be no matter how fair I try to be, am at times, or want to be. I freely admit, I am not always interested in being fair. With you, yes, it is a goal. And, add that I will gladly allow anything you have to say, anti-war, against this, or for that regardless of any personal chafing. If what I read is just out, I simply will not reply.
That is as fair as I get. Now, down to business...
If you insist, then I will allow that implicating you in Pelosi's near baby killer term, and so many VN protesters words to that intent, was incorrect. I am a little sensitive, no doubt. I know many of the studies on collateral damage deaths have been so poorly done that they are meaningless, I also know that in a war with zealots, ones who will (have) happily strap a bomb to a baby if they think it will kill a politician, soldiers, or anyone, that civilian casualties might be a bit on the high side. And I know, that many "civilians", aren't. This leaves room for debate and discussion, and yet I would proclaim easily that the US is far more judicious than, say, even the French. And compared to our opponents in the field, we are down right easy.
Next, so the outcome of home intrusion is not in doubt, so long as you have the means. That is, actually, quite good. And, something you should admit, rare among the anti-crowd who generally believe the police, who they also do not believe in, should be left to investigate the crime rather than leaving significant means of self defense in the hands of those who need it. Be fair here, if you ask me to be fair. As well, if my read is correct, you seem to vote for people who would remove your means of personal self defense from you. I would be interested in having that explained. I do not allow contradictions to slide. Though I do understand weighting things, perhaps ending the war is more important than gun ownership.
As to Bush's, or anyone's, involvement with foul governments overseas... What, exactly, are the options? Three quarters of the governments, at least, on this planet need to be reduced to rubble and rebuilt, but the fact is, it cannot be done. Even if it could be done, most likely what would replace them would be worse. What is left is to work with those foul governments in which we share a common goal, or those which can be used to balance against another more powerful despot in their region. It seems like a giant game of multi-player chess, but the prize is life and stability, not a trophy. We do not have the power to pick who our associates inherently are, they exist, we deal with them, that is all. Not dealing with them is not an option in this time. We only have a slim choice between this despot and that dictator. It is not nice, but that isn't what life is about. Nor is shooting a man for being stupid, or criminal. Some, many, most perhaps, on the left do not think you should have that right, nor the means. And that, they extend to international spheres. It seems your bid for peace may be different, I am interested in hearing it.
For governments, it is about survival, economic, social, human survival. I know what I have done in the past to survive, governments must be so much more wicked. I think if you had killed that man, you might understand more surely. And, you would either have gone on to maintain your stance, perhaps adding a shotgun to the line-up, practicing even more, that or like many, backed away and just started accepting what comes your way.
That you have studied grants you license. But you are not alone in your studies. What I have found is that though there is great room for debate on any topic, what it almost always boils down to is where we came from, what we went through to get where we are, and even more significantly where we are headed. From that, our ethical choices, the level of those, our intellectual understand of events, our moral aptitude and the strength or weakness of that, and a few other things make any issue almost impossible for most to debate without great pains in obtaining mutual definitions and an understanding of each others limits. We two have already had some of that pain. Can you go on, or is this type of pain beyond you? Sometimes I can take it, sometimes no, it depends.
Do not think you are special in being picked on. *grins* My mother feels, I would guess, much as you do both in her notions and in discussing topics with me. As do most women and some men I know. Most will not discuss it, some do. None without being able to give and take until some reasonable mutual understanding is developed. Even then, mood can make the thing intolerable for moments, before we find the way again.
No, any time you wish to discuss things, feel free. I will... try my best to temper my flaws, really. And, I would like you to have access to an outlet. Beyond, I am curious about what you have to say. Now, understand this. As with the 2nd Amendment issues, dealing with despots 101, and a few other things, I will disagree when I see a place, more, what I see as a weakness in the thoughts, logic. Though, feel free to disagree at your leisure, so long as you back it with at least enough that I can get the gist of the doubt.
Th.. Th.. That's all folks! ;)
Good rant.
ReplyDelete