In a world where the average human is either plagued by being within a world of constant violence and war or is constantly being bombarded with the imminence of being forcibly dragged into such a state, I think it is time we discuss why all this fighting is entirely pointless.
I have a feeling that I am not alone in this realization. Most of the humans I have had the opportunity to speak with see that conflict rarely produces any positive outcome, and even if there is some positive outcome to be noted, the greater result is negative. So why then do we seem to live in a society that craves war, fighting, and conflict? For you warmongers and proponents of violent resistance, the following discussion is going to appear to be insulting, but it is not meant to be. In fact, I am grateful to your mindset, because it was essential to our early evolution, but now I’d like to reason that it might be time for a change. Through a tracing of logical conclusions, perhaps you will be able to see and understand the need for a new kind of evolution. Of course, when feeling battered, you will want to point out the holes and real-world cases where my logic would fail. Feel free to leave these observations and complications as comments below, and I would be happy to engage in civilized logical debate with you.
Now, back to the question, why does our society seem to crave war, fighting, and conflict? The answer is quite simple, the need to protect and uplift oneself through violence is an early evolutionary trait of the human psyche. It comes down to the reasoning of “fight or flight” present in every species that my mind can currently think of. This will lead some to think that violence is legitimized, but read that again, it is an early form of evolutionary thought. It is derived from a simple way of thinking that predisposes one to the belief that the life currently being lived is the beginning and ending of all existence. Further and higher thought begins to reject this possibility.
The world and universe exists on a timescale that makes the mortal human existence nearly insignificant. To think that existence can therefore be measured through the frail reality of a mortal life is a faulty conclusion and is based in faulty anthropocentric thought. Higher thought begins to recognize greater patterns: “my lifespan is insignificant compared to the span of human existence; human existence is insignificant compared to the existence of mammalian creatures; the mammalian existence is insignificant in comparison to the existence of reptilian creatures; on and on goes life until the existence of organic life pales in consideration to the existence of the physical universe.” This line of higher thought continues, eventually leading to the assertion that consciousness is beyond physical and exists in a place “out of time.” Life is simply an embodiment of consciousness in a physical and time structured existence. Death can only be the release of consciousness from these bounds. Therefore, death is not an issue to be concerned about.
As one can see, higher thought brings one to realize that there is no need to emphasize the prolonging of the physical existence. If there is no reason to prolong the physical existence, there is never a need to fight or kill in order to prolong this existence. Those unevolved thoughts that say there is a need to kill come from the acceptance of the idea that physical existence is the be all and end all of one’s universe. (It is strange that those who put the highest value on their own life are those quickest to discard other lives.) Remove that obstacle of thought, and there is no longer any way to legitimize violence as a form of protection.
Religion in its higher form is an effort to teach people this principle of the futility of preservation of the physical self, so that peace may be realized. Unfortunately, there is a lower form of religion that introduces an argument of higher thought to legitimize violence to a more conscious being. You see, this lower form of religion brings in the idea that there is only a single truth, and that this truth must be defended even unto death, or through murder and violence. This form of violence sees that the length of a human life is rather insignificant, but that ideas can long outlive a single mortal life. If someone feels as if the truth he/she holds is universal and immutable, then that truth must outlive the individual so all others can have access to it, even if it means enforcing it through violence and murder.
This strategy for creating violence is used with political and financial ideologies as well. We see this with the immense number of “holy wars” the U.S. has been involved in since the end of World War II—wars to end any government that did not fit the “ideal democracy” that the U.S. created (which is faulty in even calling the U.S. a democracy since we live in a republic, not a democracy). This desire to instill ideology will probably be what leads to World War III unless the current world leaders can learn to evolve their own intellectual understandings. For the higher truth--the one that can realize peace and live kindly with a whole world of different organisms--will not and cannot fight. This is a direct interference with the higher philosophy. For this reason, the evolution of man moves very slowly, for those who are evolved will speak, but they will not fight, leading to their own deaths and the progression of a lower mindset.
Many may stand up and say, “Well, if you reach such a level of intellectual evolution, shouldn’t it be your duty to fight to live and spread that evolution?” No, because evolution must happen naturally, and to commit the act against which one is preaching is to be a hypocrite and to have one’s entire message fold in upon itself. This is a truth that has led me to craft an aphorism: “There is truth worth dying for, but never truth worth killing for.”
All of what has preceded is theoretical discussion, but now let us see how this philosophy could change things in the world we see today. First and foremost is the issue of terrorism. There are many (especially in the U.S.) that feel terrorism is something that must be met with violence. This is clearly a false conclusion, as can be seen by the growth of terrorist groups rather than the diminishing of them since the beginning of the “War on Terror” in 2001. This is because violence engenders violence. If a cause feels that it must be violent in order to get attention, it will be violent to get attention. If that violence is solely bemoaned and pitied and in all other ways ignored, then there is very little feeling of justice among the members of that group to continue with violence, for clearly the violence did not produce results. However, if a violent act is met with greater violence and militarism, then people outside of the cause will begin to pity and associate with the struggles of the cause, swelling the ranks of people supporting it.
We also face issues with gang and drug violence. The drug violence is caused by a government being unwilling to control and distribute certain substances based on perceived ideas of truth, and making laws that run in this same order. (Government can then exacerbate the problem by providing drug rings with the drugs for street markets, thereby increasing the size of the industry and violence associated with it as was the case with the CIA and cocaine in the 80’s.) When trapping any living thing and pushing it into a corner one can expect to receive violence in return, this is because of those basic “fight or flight” instincts. Take away the choice of flight and the only remaining choice is to fight. Many street drugs addle the brain and reduce it to basic instincts as well, so it would make sense to try and ban them, but if they are existent within a person’s system addiction kicks in, which pushes one to violent measures to obtain the drug. The answer becomes finding a way to provide and regulate it, take the customers from illegal street gangs that use violence to compete and put the source in hands that know how to operate in a more evolved manner.
Another issue within the violent gang lifestyle is that when subjected to violence an individual is likely to revert back to early evolutionary thinking. The way the world currently deals with these communities caught in a loop of violence is to send in armed cops that are themselves fallible and capable of returning to violence when met with violence. Give them armaments and send them into a violent situation and they are—more likely than not—just going to become part of the problem rather than a solution to it. Send in a bunch of friendly, unarmed people talking about peace and love and there may be some violent reaction, some people may die, but with an elevated form of consciousness life is already impermanent, but the change provoked by seeing violence met by nothing but peace and tears is transformative to most living creatures. The point being that violence cannot and will not diminish violence, and so a violent solution cannot even be placed on the table.
From the most macro to now the smallest microcosm, psychotic breaks in individuals (often induced by unmonitored and unregulated drug use) can lead to sudden bursts of violence. An event like this can lead people to react in anger, demanding the revoking of guns or the purchasing of more guns. Does this anger do anything aside from spread the psychosis of violence into a greater expanse of people? It makes sense to mourn and to wonder. In fact, if the wondering is followed by an investigation into the background of the individual to see what may have caused the psychotic break, then the wondering could lead to finding ways to prevent such psychotic breaks in the future. But for psychosis to be met with thoughts of anger and lashing out with violent words or acts at those who believe differently than the self will make it impossible for evolution or progression to be achieved.
We are at an age where, per capita, there is less violence than there has ever been, despite the pervasiveness of violent language between unevolved leaders. It was only a couple hundred years ago when most people had some experience in a gun or sword duel, now there exist those who may have never even been punched before. At this incredible juncture, are we going to support the growth of violence by supporting unevolved thinkers who currently have power and their desires to start war, or are we instead going to demand greater levels of peace than we are currently experiencing?
It is still a personal choice. There can only be information given from those that promote peace, there can be no militaristic, fascistic, or unkind way of promoting peace, only the proposal of the idea and the hope for its acceptance. You now should have all the tools necessary to realize that the promotion of war is to be unevolved in thought. The choice should be easy: evolution and peace, or devolution and violence.
P.S. There are many jumps in reasoning in this blog post, mainly because a few of the interim assumptions would take a book long discourse to prove in a conclusive manner. Also, I am going to start the troubling of my own proposition: one of the most difficult instances to choose peace and Love over violence would be the perpetration of violence against a person that you loved, especially when that person is still left alive to deal with the consequences wrought on the physical form. In these moments I think I would snap. It goes back to that creation and allowance of a culture of violence that would allow the act to happen in the first place.