It is often said that if the end justifies the means, those "means" are pretty much irrelevant. But if the following sentence is true, then the separation of the two makes the point pretty much moot.
"As the means cannot be separated from the desired ends, nonviolence cannot be separated from peace, for it is the value system and dynamic that makes peace possible." (From an article, "If We Listen Well," by By Edward Guinan.)
And what is peace if not an absence of its opposite? I cannot help but think of what James Hillman writes about peace in his book,
A Terrible Love of War.
"I will not march for peace, nor will I pray for it, because it falsifies all it touches. It is a cover-up, a curse. Peace is simply a bad word…. The dictionary’s definition, an exemplary of denial, fails the word, peace. Written by scholars in tranquility, the definition fixates and perpetuates the denial. If peace is merely an absence of, a freedom from, it is both an emptiness and a
repression. A psychologist must ask how is the emptiness filled, since nature abhors a vacuum; and how does the repressed return, since it must?"
Do we really want peace at any cost, as long as it's peace?
.jpg)
2 comments:
Nice Blog! Keep it!
Well, there was a period called Pax Romana that was simply a period when Rome was pretty much in charge of what was then considered "the world." It wasn't peace. It was occupation and enslavement.
I think the absence of war will have to be something that becomes deeply ingrained in our psyche before we're actually able to pull it off. Until then we have to put up with a world where there are industries and lifestyles totally dedicated to war. Peace is frightening. It's unknown territory.
Of course, I kind of look forward to the day where we can all see the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the side of the road holding up a sign that says, "Will outline battle strategy for food." :D
Post a Comment