Is world peace possible?

Post Reply New Topic

I think it was 1962 after a then first bout during a day of "speaking-in-tongues" to the amusement of a group I was later told was a local would-be branch of The John Birch Society, I heard a joke similar to "a version from the 1940s in which a Jewish man finds he's saved Hitler from drowning", but repeated recently with presidents: http://www.historyextra.com/blog/saving-president

Instead of Hitler being asked not to tell anyone that he was saved from drowning, the Birchers wanted the same between Hitler's surviving victims and "their USA". Sometimes strange and improper wishes are granted in bizarre and distorted manners.

Their friendliness dissipated to disgust with me, after my first "speaking-in-tongues" was also praised during their presenting a limited edition (with the added words) of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", was shortly followed by another epileptic bout they found insulting.

Tadzio

I'm in the middle of "Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers" with B.F. Skinner and the notion of a "fact", but I believe the Grand Inquisitor and Ivan Karamazov seeded the deja vu clue with a Mephistophelean agent seemingly used too by Thomas Mann, Charles Lindbergh, Gunter Grass, Kurt Vonnegut, and others ("Slaughterhouse-Five" is the most popularly known now, followed by "The Tin Drum") about WWII, starvation, and your literate "dog" majoring in history.

The God of Randomness is still complaining about the joke at books-dot-google search of "Skinner particulars miracle dice", and since I know randomness is self-contradictory, I'm giving him more of infinite circles from Nietzsche than he can handle with Anubis, another divine dog also interested Mephistophelean history.

Tadzio

If someone spit in your face you would probably say it was raining out.

ruveyn

How were the Allies really any better though? Especially when you consider the Soviets had a Holocaust of their own exposed (the Gulags) later.

9/11 truth is the basis for our wars in the Middle East, if the majority of Americans believed in it, we would not even tolerate the wars going on. As of now, Americans don't like the wars generally, but still love the troops enough to support them to some extent.

I suppose if I were more of a philosopher and dove into it more I might see the relation between my dog, Balaam's mule, Wittgenstein's poker, and Anubis but I'm NOT so I guess I’ll never get it.
Big loss......

At least that would be a better conclusion than twisting your selective facts into a glob of baseless conclusions that your favorite sky is falling, while you're also disgruntled about your own conspiracy theory, of "the wind as inherently hostile", being contended as so much tepid air, since your spitting into the wind is repeatedly verified by yourself as hostile rain.

Tadzio

Well like most things in life... there are gradations of peace just as there are gradations of goodness or gradations of evil.

Since we're dealing with humans here, there will always be friction of some sort.

so the question should be: what level of peace are we willing to tolerate and what levels of non-peace are we unwilling to tolerate. Of course... in the final analysis these statements are meaningless since the track record of humanity has shown that they are the very best we can do: make statements. Intervention on behalf of the other is not normal. We fight injustice of the worse by making statements. We complain if one family gets killed even if its obvious that the process of fighting evil saved a good many more, and one can get away with such a crime by making moral comparisons of the moral killer and the immoral murderers they are up against.

Yes, making it through that "Politics, Philosophy, and Religion" filter is very rough with today's funding for education. Maybe it's like that Leonard Cohen song "The Future" again, in that "You don't know me from the wind, you never will, you never did," such as confuses some people about spitting into the wind, (that reminds me, sorry about pulling on Superman's cape).

Well, anyways, back to deja vu, near death experiences often unify otherwise apathy inducing trivia into a universal set of pivotal elements (maybe a sensation with a "true meaning", maybe not, sorta like Heroin by skeptics), with about a 1% God rate when limited to only the "God Helmet", and a much higher frequency with death.

Most all of mine are from temporal lobe epilepsy partial seizures (and a few near-death'ers), with the co-morbid AS, and the "coincidences" are frequent and sometimes spectacular (with social results from being held "kissed by the Gods" to "possessed by the Devil"). Coincidences are probably the rule, or I would have figured out how to win every lottery by now (maybe I haven't tried hard enough, but that may be moral "cheating", while with university exams, it's already a "measure").

Dr. Persinger and Shakitechnology google listings converges the most public info for "normals". It's been frequently hypothesized that everyone finally gets it at least once with the big loss.

Tadzio

I don't believe it's possible, there's always an excuse for conflict, whether it be world scale wars or squabbles between families.

I'll vote the bottum, but just for the "No, I don't think so" part.

Give it a few thousand more years when warrior religions have all but died and gone and the time when every country in every continent was culturally looking like nothern Europe does today - 500 hundred years ago, then yes, you could say that most ideologies had probably exhausted themselves by that time.

A mugging-rape-murder-assault free world? Probably will never happen but I could see a world where too technologically pampered to fight over much of anything. Will politics ever achieve that? No. It'll happen when and if there's nowhere else left to go.

the answer is YES, but it wont be what you think it will be. Controlled Chaos. taking human psychology, sociology, and human nature into account one could create an environment in which peace is not only possible and practical, but more importantly sustainable. I can envision a world in which conflict wont be eliminated but harnessed, put to work competing in developing new technology, both social and material. if war is necessary why not have it settled in one on one combat between our leaders themselves.

Governor Arnold was more than enough limited to the level of governor.

PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting. The Devil's Dictionary

Tadzio

If you want peace, prepare for war; but if you want war, then prepare for peace. "World peace" isn't going to happen. The best that can occur is a standoff between nations with rational leaders who respect that their potential opponents can destroy them if they act aggressively.

clearly not

That's exactly it!
Peace through strength is the ONLY way.
I've never seen an argument against that simple principle that has an ounce of merit.