Death.
Peace is often built upon the death of others, before the compromise to live is made.
Love is absence of Hatred, Envy and Greed; all of which bring about Death.
Liberty is doing what one wills, so long as it harms no other; such as Death.
Freedom is what one has, when they fear no Death; and yet Death is what is often required to attain it. For we are not truly free, until we are free of life itself, since life itself often requires much of us against our own wills to sustain life itself.
So what then is our will? Do we even have one? Or are we like leaves floating in a river of time, going from the point we fell in said river, to the point where we sink within it?
The truth then is that there is no love; at least not as we think of it. The idea of love takes many forms, because it is not a single tangible idea. The Greek word Eros is what comes to mind to some when thinking of this subject, but anything from the Greeks in regards to their philosophies involving ‘the gods’ can get a bit … chaotic. Fitting really, since one of their mythos claims that we are the children of Eros and Chaos. But putting that aside, another word more common today comes to mind.
Discrimination.
In our modern or post modern or post post modern times, depending on where you want to put society on the timescale; discrimination is seen as a negative aspect only. But there is duality in all things in life, even when we want to try to fight that truth. For every darkness of humanity, there is a light able to outshine it.
If what we know of today is ‘negative discrimination’, then what most call ‘love’ is actually just ‘positive discrimination’. A positive discrimination we consider desireable because it benefits ourselves, and often only ourselves. It could still be considered negative by those who do not benefit from this form of discrimination.
For if you do not ‘love’ all, then you love only yourself. You may fool yourself into thinking you love ‘another’ at least, but really you just are self serving towards your own desires. Which brings us back to Eros. To desire. To love.
Thusly, we cannot have peace so long as we are selfish. Selfishness begets hatred due to the lack of our desires being fulfilled, our hedonism being unsatisfied. It is only through the Death of others who would deny us our selfish and hedonistic ways partial to ourselves that we attain peace of any form; even if not true peace. But then, there is another form of death that can be attained that leads to that true peace.
Death of the Id and the SuperEgo. Not the Egos, but the Id and SuperEgos as well. By removing these two aspects of humanity to allow for the Ego to manifest among those who are controlled by the other two too fiercely, can true peace be attained. But don’t go running looking for the first ayuhuasca trip you can find. That is not just a death of the ego, but a false one at that. Furthermore, it doesn’t remove the Id or SuperEgo, or at least weaken them enough for the Ego to reassert control over our psyche. For reason and logic to reign supreme over the instinctive impusles of the Id and the holier than thou false moralizing of the SuperEgo.
Here is the truth of peace. Peace is the absence of not war, but the absence of selfishness. War can be selfless, in the right contexts. When we go to war for others without any benefit to ourselves, we are doing it in the truest form of selflessness; which itself is hard to define properly without being tainted by its own antithesis.
How so?
I am often hated for this example, but it’s quite apt; so it’s quite apt that it is such a hated example. It’s too true.
If a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades; is he selfless?
The answer lays within the desire that soldier feels and the benefit they gain from doing so. Ultimatley, while it is quite honorable of them to put themselves in harms way for the benefit of another; they still benefit from knowing their friends and comrades live to see another day or at least another hour.
So when a culture goes to war with another to right a wrong, to see justice dealt; is it selfless in doing so?
That depends on the circumstances, and the benefits gained; or sought.
That therein lays the difference I think. It’s one thing to attain good reward for ones action if they did not seek the reward but received it anyways. It’s another to seek that reward or at least lack of negative consequence by acting in a certain way. The first can still be called selfless to some extent since there was no premeditation to seek that reward or lack of negative consequence. It was merely done because it was the right thing to do. The second cannot really be seen as selfless, though there may be some exception to the rule. Such exception are things like seeing ahead of time that certain actions need to be taken to avoid some worse consequence that in hindsight will be seen as one of those moments where people often go and say “I wish I knew ahead of time to do this instead.” not for their own good, but for the good of others.
For some though, this may seem too utilitarian. The ‘greater good’ as it were, can lead to very wrong decisions made by that ‘greater’ supposed good. And the irony to it all, is that these kinds of wrongs are often comitted in the name of things like ‘love’.
This brings us back to Death. It is often a feature of the ‘greater good’ trope of humanity. For the many to live, it is often that one or some few must die. Ironic because it is those people who are so good themselves to allow such a fate to fall upon them that should be the ones to live instead; and the fools who allowed such a reality to become fate for those few good people should be the ones to die instead.
It is often the decisions of the many, that lead to the demise of the few; and we call this moral.
Or at least, the rest of you do. I don’t.
An actual moral society, that lives in tandem with the reasonability of liberty and freedom for all; allows all to make their own choices and suffer those consequences justly. Not consequences dealt by the hand of others; but the natural consequences that befall that person because of their own choices.
Many of you call it Karma when society mets out this form of ‘justice’, but that’s where you are wrong yet again. Karma is not dished out by you or I. Not directly at least. Karma is the natural consequences of cause and effect aside from human involvement.
Call it luck if that makes it easier for you to understand, because it’s much closer to that falsehood than anything people today try to confuse it with instead, like justice.
Peace, does not come, when people are hyperfocused on metting out justice in their own ideals; which is a feature of the superego. The overmoralizing agent of our psyche.
Peace only comes when people are let to live and let live by the cause and effect of their own actions and consequences. When they learn to leave others to their own devices, so long as they are not harming others directly; or foolishly indirectly. And even then, the latter must be carefully discerned and dealt with in a manner that is fitting to the situation.
For instance, let’s say I start a farm upstream of a river. That river is delivering fresh water to my home, the crops and the livestock. I do my best to ensure that river stays unfouled by the pollution that is potential via my farm being where it is. One could say I have attempted to avoid directly harming anyone downstream of that river.
But then one day the river floods and I was not wise enough to bank up the sides of that river to avoid potential contamination of the water via the livestock’s excrement.
Would it be fair to punish me for having been so foolish? Or would it be fairer to just enforce that I fix that problem for in the future; perhaps with some help to ensure that it is done swiftly to avoid further contamination due to a secondary flooding?
The answer is the second solution. But society often resorts to the first, foolishly.
It is foolish of society to do such thing, because not only does it beget hatred for those who unfairly punish; but it also creates a precedence for the same result to be bestowed upon others who also make this mistake possibly foolishly.
Instead of running society via the inanity of punishing mistakes; we ought to be enforcing better solutions instead. The best laws we create in society often reflect this. But they are only effective when upheld by everyone against anyone. Anything otherwise just saps away at the foundation of those laws, and society goes full circle back into the false justice of punishing those who are merely mistaken in their ways.
THIS IS IMPORTANT. Because it is the basis for all justification against those who would do wrong upon others in seemingly justified values.
“You did X, and did not receive Y; therefore I will perform Z upon you to make sure X is not commited again by you.”
This becomes a circular thought pattern where now that the precedence is set that its now okay to met out that justice against person A, now when person B makes a similar mistake even if less heinous, Z is now delivered upon them instead of Y; a common feature of mob justice.
An oxymoron that term. Mob justice. There is no justice in mobs. Just hatred.
True justice is void of all forms of love or hatred. True justice is like peace. Peace is like true justice, or Karma; it is cause and effect only.
This is why a society that revolves around Liberty and Freedom is so important. The moment you center society around things like authority, ‘the greater good’, and ‘love’; you create an imbalance in society that cannot be maintained for long.
Authority breeds corruption, “the greater good” is just sacrifice of the few, and ‘love’ is just selfishness in discriminatory form.
If you really were a person of higher morals, you would treat everyone the same. Indifferent, yet accepting of all. Tolerant of any, but discerning of the wicked.
You do not hate others for being less than, you pity them for not being better than they are. Take pride in being that better person if you really are; but do not hold it above others just because they cannot be that better person themselves. Uplift them instead by showing them how it is better through actions, not words.
It is only in a society of properly free and libertus individuals that we can acheive such things. Peace is only attained when all are left to do as they will, without harming others. Love is only true, when selflessness reigns supreme.
Societies of authority cannot attain this.
So long as we live in societies that demand we bow to the authority of another, we are not free, we do not live a life of liberty, and we will not know peace.
That is because those who wish to impose their faux authority further upon the rest of us via the bestowed authority unto others will not cease. They will not cease, because they think they love; when really they just hate. They hate that which does not bow to their biddings. They tolerate only those who bow to them; no one else.
They want a society of peace and love, or so they claim; but their actions speak louder than their words.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go back to my actions; for I have spoken enough words for now. I have some garden planters to build so I can sustain my own well being without imposing upon others to do things for me.
P.S.
I know I said some things in the last post about having a certain post coming about stuff like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That post is in limbo, because so are our Rights and Freedoms.
In the meantime, I wish you the best.