Is World Peace Possible?

[Wizard22]

Not as long as I'm Alive!

I exist to Disagree with Humanity's nonsense, lies, and illogic.

And to Disagree with somebody, to Doubt them, is to go to War with them.

[Nick_A]

Sy

Thanks for a good discussion. Often on the net they turn into the battle of ad homs

Universal respect for all humans is impossible without universal respect for all animals, so these are just ideals. There is no way that universal respect for humans is possible, let alone for poor old, reviled and downtrodden animals.

As you know I advocate the universal value of respect for life as a whole. By definition it includes animal life

Eating is natural It is part of a process which sustains our universe. It is easier to understand when we remember that each form of organic life emanates a specific vibration. These interacting vibrations in life and death sustain our universe. To respect life means to respect its purpose. We no longer do this. Look how we kill chickens and beef in these inhumane manners.

There is no reason to respect life as long as society as a whole believes the purpose of organic life is to serve Man. If Man were to ever realize that the purpose of man on earth Is to serve organic life by striving to retain the balance if vibrations which support universal purpose, then thing would be different. But it is impossible and too insulting to even consider

China is further along this path than the west, again, by weight of numbers. India, with its grand traditions, has tried to avoid such objectification, but it's increasingly been happening through weight of numbers. You can also tell when people are losing value when a nation is ostensibly enjoying strong economic growth while the average people's standard of living is reducing. When people are part of a multitude, they become "human resources" - "chess pieces", as used and abused by military commanders and monument builders throughout history.

Awe and wonder can come purely from nature, no gods needed. However, in lieu of healthy ecosystems, it's no surprise that people might seek such healthy feelings via imagination. Gods are, of course, a purely subjective phenomenon, a product of imagination that acts as a life hack for those in need of motivation, discipline and excitement. Life can be hard, so "Whatever gets you through the night is alright", as John Lennon sang.

China’s goal and all others at one time seeking world peace are impossible because Man is incapable of producing philosopher kings as leaders aware of Man’s obligation to universal purpose. So society gradually devolves into might makes right.

Is awe and wonder experienced wth contemplation of their conscious source a calling of our being or just escapism? Einstein wrote:

1. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
2. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflectio

n.

I understand the universe to be a living machine; the body of God, which serves universal purpose much like our body serves our mind

Ultimately, your dream of enlightened humanity behaving in an enlightened cooperative manner, not via control, but widespread wisdom, can only be an ideal. Imagine, for a moment, that it was achieved. That everyone was wise and decent and civilised and vegan. If that lasted more than a couple of years before cracks started to appear, I would be surprised. There will always be malcontents (who may or may not have good reasons) and hubris will always take down those with great power.

You can never have a fantastic society and hold it in place. It will inevitably change, and those accustomed to "the old ways" will tend to decry some changes, as we do.

Here I must thank Mr. Gurdjieff for making me aware of the law of the discontinuity of vibrations. It explains why mechanical life turns in circles in accordance with the law of octaves. The only freedom from mechanical reactions are evolving towards conscious actions for those experiencing the difference

[Sy Borg]

Universal respect for all humans is impossible without universal respect for all animals, so these are just ideals. There is no way that universal respect for humans is possible, let alone for poor old, reviled and downtrodden animals.

As you know I advocate the universal value of respect for life as a whole. By definition it includes animal life

Eating is natural It is part of a process which sustains our universe. It is easier to understand when we remember that each form of organic life emanates a specific vibration. These interacting vibrations in life and death sustain our universe. To respect life means to respect its purpose. We no longer do this. Look how we kill chickens and beef in these inhumane manners.

There is no reason to respect life as long as society as a whole believes the purpose of organic life is to serve Man. If Man were to ever realize that the purpose of man on earth Is to serve organic life by striving to retain the balance if vibrations which support universal purpose, then thing would be different. But it is impossible and too insulting to even consider

Yes, Shiva is as important to reality's structure as Vishnu or Brahma, so to speak. So we value life, but we still kill it because there's no choice. Our dominance means that we have "dominion" over other beings. Some interpret this as permission to objectify and others see it as a more custodial role. I always liked the indigenous idea of thanking dead animals for their unwilling sacrifice. Ironically, the invaders had a more barbaric approach, to simply kill without the slightest recognition that they caused and entire existence to wink out. It's ironic because the European invaders considered indigenous people to be barbaric.

Given how little people agree on "universal purpose", I'm not sure much practical can be done with such a concept.

China is further along this path than the west, again, by weight of numbers. India, with its grand traditions, has tried to avoid such objectification, but it's increasingly been happening through weight of numbers. You can also tell when people are losing value when a nation is ostensibly enjoying strong economic growth while the average people's standard of living is reducing. When people are part of a multitude, they become "human resources" - "chess pieces", as used and abused by military commanders and monument builders throughout history.

Awe and wonder can come purely from nature, no gods needed. However, in lieu of healthy ecosystems, it's no surprise that people might seek such healthy feelings via imagination. Gods are, of course, a purely subjective phenomenon, a product of imagination that acts as a life hack for those in need of motivation, discipline and excitement. Life can be hard, so "Whatever gets you through the night is alright", as John Lennon sang.

China’s goal and all others at one time seeking world peace are impossible because Man is incapable of producing philosopher kings as leaders aware of Man’s obligation to universal purpose. So society gradually devolves into might makes right.

Is awe and wonder experienced wth contemplation of their conscious source a calling of our being or just escapism? Einstein wrote:

1. Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
2. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection

.

I understand the universe to be a living machine; the body of God, which serves universal purpose much like our body serves our mind

I'd say Xi sees himself as a kind of philosopher king, hence China's pupils being taught "Xi Jinping thought", which of course is just self-serving CCP propaganda presented as 'truth". Where's Marcus Aurelius when you need him? Alas, Machiavelli has been much more influential.

As far as I can tell, contemplation is an aspect of awe and wonder. This morning I was admiring the daytime moon (which was beautiful and clear in a blue sky, its details clearer than usual). It had me thinking about the nature of solid matter. It's extraordinary to think that the Earth clings so tightly to itself that it bends the space around it to such an extent that it holds in orbit a 3,475 kilometre diameter object that's 384,400 kilometres away, with a mass of 73,476,730,900,000,000,000 tonnes. That is NUTS! Then consider the Sun, that is so dominantly present in reality that it nucleates atoms and bends space so much that comets an entire light-year away from it are held in its thrall.

The real adventure in this part of the Milky Way is that of the Sun and the Earth, and we humans are a part of their extraordinary journeys. What may we denizens of the biosphere become in time?

God's original dominion comprised of the Middle East, Northern Africa, Europe, the Subcontinent and the black dome that held a tiny geocentric Sun and the stars. God's realm has seemingly expanded with Hubble's discoveries. Really, the idea of a universal intelligence, besides being purely speculative, strikes me as wildly remote. Individuals are too small to matter to the Earth, let alone the universe. In fact, most of us don't even matter to our local communities, let alone an intelligent universal entity. People pitching to the universe's CEO is akin to a part time contract factory worker at Amazon requesting an audience with Jeff Bezos.

Really, the Sun and the Earth are also too vast to care about us. I think indigenous tribes had the right idea, revering the land, which owned them rather than the other way around. Alas, their neighbours also revered the land and at some point their hunting grounds would intersect with those of others, and the rest is history ...

Maybe the Sentinelese - being so isolated - enjoy more peace? It seems that their peace is so treasured that they stick a spear into anyone who dares come near, a hostility that no doubt saved them from imported deadly bacterial diseases. If they live in peace, it seems like a pretty gnarly kind of peace.

Ultimately, your dream of enlightened humanity behaving in an enlightened cooperative manner, not via control, but widespread wisdom, can only be an ideal. Imagine, for a moment, that it was achieved. That everyone was wise and decent and civilised and vegan. If that lasted more than a couple of years before cracks started to appear, I would be surprised. There will always be malcontents (who may or may not have good reasons) and hubris will always take down those with great power.

You can never have a fantastic society and hold it in place. It will inevitably change, and those accustomed to "the old ways" will tend to decry some changes, as we do.

Here I must thank Mr. Gurdjieff for making me aware of the law of the discontinuity of vibrations. It explains why mechanical life turns in circles in accordance with the law of octaves. The only freedom from mechanical reactions are evolving towards conscious actions for those experiencing the difference

Then again, Mystical George did not believe that the multitudes could achieve what he thought of as awakeness. Rather, he believed that one could most efficiently awaken by working intensively in small groups, lead by someone who knew his methods (like Ouspensky). He didn't seem to imagine universal awareness in the future, just pockets of people who had done The Work.

I'm not a fan of speaking about life as "machines". Any life is far greater than any machine in complexity and subtlety. Referring to life as a type of machine is like referring to the Mona Lisa as a type of sketch. People do seem to enjoy rhetorically connecting life and machines, but I prefer to link life and geology. There is no hard line between geology/chemistry and biology, as evidenced by mimiviruses, virophages and prions.

Interesting that geology birthed biology, which is now infusing geology with its intelligence. Consider the disrespect humans have had for rocks - the poster child of non-sentience. "As dumb as a rock". Now most humans are to some extent (or more) governed by the algorithmic operations of silicon chips infused with intelligence. I suppose if a species is to get machines to do most of the physical work and to store all of their knowledge, it's pretty clear which side will be holding all the aces if push comes to shove. If machines become sentient, all bets are off.

[Nick_A]

Sy

Then again, Mystical George did not believe that the multitudes could achieve what he thought of as awakeness. Rather, he believed that one could most efficiently awaken by working intensively in small groups, lead by someone who knew his methods (like Ouspensky). He didn't seem to imagine universal awareness in the future, just pockets of people who had done The Work.

I'm not a fan of speaking about life as "machines". Any life is far greater than any machine in complexity and subtlety. Referring to life as a type of machine is like referring to the Mona Lisa as a type of sketch. People do seem to enjoy rhetorically connecting life and machines, but I prefer to link life and geology. There is no hard line between geology/chemistry and biology, as evidenced by mimiviruses, virophages and prions.

Interesting that geology birthed biology, which is now infusing geology with its intelligence. Consider the disrespect humans have had for rocks - the poster child of non-sentience. "As dumb as a rock". Now most humans are to some extent (or more) governed by the algorithmic operations of silicon chips infused with intelligence. I suppose if a species is to get machines to do most of the physical work and to store all of their knowledge, it's pretty clear which side will be holding all the aces if push comes to shove. If machines become sentient, all bets are off.

Quite true. Gurdjieff believed that the great collective of man's being cannot change. This is why Plato called it the Beast. Only individuals can change. Machines cannot change. They lack conscious choice. Without conscious everything repeats including wars. choice But there is an important question but I don't think it is possible to discuss here: Is Man on earth a machine? As you said, referring Man to a machine is like comparing the Mona Lisa to a sketch. But is it?

What is a machine? "machine. / (məˈʃiːn) / noun. an assembly of interconnected components arranged to transmit or modify force in order to perform useful work. Also called: simple machine a device for altering the magnitude or direction of a force, esp a lever, screw, wedge, or pulley." But isn't this what all organic life on earth does? It alters force.

But man on earth is not like a beast of the jungle. There are two means by which things get done in our universe: Mechanical laws and consciousness.

Can a machine be able to consciously receive from above and give to below? No, a machine is just a a creature of reaction responding to natural and cosmic influences on our earth. It has no vertical understanding. So I believe that man is a machine reacting like other beasts on earth with the potential to evolve into a conscious being through conscious evolution

I've written that my two basic questions are: what is the purpose of our universe and what is the purpose of organic life including man within it. If man is a machine, the solution fits right into the question. The machine is governed by universal laws while higher consciousness (our potential) is governed by consciousness relating it to our source and connecting levels of reality. Is man on earth a machine? a fascinating question but how can we do justice to it?

[Sy Borg]

Sy

Then again, Mystical George did not believe that the multitudes could achieve what he thought of as awakeness. Rather, he believed that one could most efficiently awaken by working intensively in small groups, lead by someone who knew his methods (like Ouspensky). He didn't seem to imagine universal awareness in the future, just pockets of people who had done The Work.

I'm not a fan of speaking about life as "machines". Any life is far greater than any machine in complexity and subtlety. Referring to life as a type of machine is like referring to the Mona Lisa as a type of sketch. People do seem to enjoy rhetorically connecting life and machines, but I prefer to link life and geology. There is no hard line between geology/chemistry and biology, as evidenced by mimiviruses, virophages and prions.

Interesting that geology birthed biology, which is now infusing geology with its intelligence. Consider the disrespect humans have had for rocks - the poster child of non-sentience. "As dumb as a rock". Now most humans are to some extent (or more) governed by the algorithmic operations of silicon chips infused with intelligence. I suppose if a species is to get machines to do most of the physical work and to store all of their knowledge, it's pretty clear which side will be holding all the aces if push comes to shove. If machines become sentient, all bets are off.

Quite true. Gurdjieff believed that the great collective of man's being cannot change. This is why Plato called it the Beast. Only individuals can change. Machines cannot change. They lack conscious choice. Without conscious everything repeats including wars. choice But there is an important question but I don't think it is possible to discuss here: Is Man on earth a machine? As you said, referring Man to a machine is like comparing the Mona Lisa to a sketch. But is it?

What is a machine? "machine. / (məˈʃiːn) / noun. an assembly of interconnected components arranged to transmit or modify force in order to perform useful work. Also called: simple machine a device for altering the magnitude or direction of a force, esp a lever, screw, wedge, or pulley." But isn't this what all organic life on earth does? It alters force.

But man on earth is not like a beast of the jungle. There are two means by which things get done in our universe: Mechanical laws and consciousness.

Can a machine be able to consciously receive from above and give to below? No, a machine is just a a creature of reaction responding to natural and cosmic influences on our earth. It has no vertical understanding. So I believe that man is a machine reacting like other beasts on earth with the potential to evolve into a conscious being through conscious evolution

I've written that my two basic questions are: what is the purpose of our universe and what is the purpose of organic life including man within it. If man is a machine, the solution fits right into the question. The machine is governed by universal laws while higher consciousness (our potential) is governed by consciousness relating it to our source and connecting levels of reality. Is man on earth a machine? a fascinating question but how can we do justice to it?

Thing is, life happened first, machines later. Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be referring to the Mona Lisa, not as a sketch, but as as digital art. It's inherently paradoxical. Whatever, the biggest problem with considering life to be a machine is the (no doubt unintended) implied dismissal of sentience, which is surely the every most important aspect of any intelligent life from rather than an irrelevant side note.

I think humans are very much still the same beasts of the savannah that they were (noting that humans did not progress in the jungle, it was too competitive), just very dominant. Even jellyfish can completely dominate an environment. However, I see humanity as a phase of an ageing biosphere that will see an increasing shift from consumption to proliferation, like a caterpillar becoming a moth.

I also disagree with Gurdjieff and Plato that broader humanity cannot change. For most means and purposes, yes, it seems that society-at-large is always the same. But that's just because change in very large entities - like entire populations - tends to happen at glacial speed. The Titanic could turn around, just not quickly enough to avoid the iceberg. It may seem that humanity en masse is standing still, but I've been learning a little about medieval times, not only in Europe but Asia; all societies at that time were brutal by today's standards. Humans have gentrified, and for the better IMO.

There's no reason why there might be a pre-determined purpose to existence at large. It would be nice to think that the universe is inevitably leading to something like de Chardin's Omega Point but it's impossible to know, as it is impossible to know if there is any purpose to life, the universe and everything, other than to simply be.

[Nick_A]

It seems to me that the living machine we call the interactions of organic life on earth is sentient by definition.

sen·​tient | \ ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt , ˈsen-tē-ənt \
Definition of sentient
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
sentient beings
2: AWARE
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Where a non living machine like a car is created by man to increase mobility, who or what creates living machines as creatures of reactions and for what purpose? It is a logical question.

The evolution of man is connected with the evolution of our earth. Time is relative. A day for the earth is many generations for man on earth

There's no reason why there might be a pre-determined purpose to existence at large. It would be nice to think that the universe is inevitably leading to something like de Chardin's Omega Point but it's impossible to know, as it is impossible to know if there is any purpose to life, the universe and everything, other than to simply be.

From the preface to Jacob Needleman's book "Lost Christianity"

...................What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose....................

This is why world peace is impossible. There is no understanding of the source of our existence or an understanding of what the being of man is and why it reacts with hypocrisy as it does. God is considered some being telling people what to do and man is a creature which the universe is here to serve. This is illogical yet much of the world is governed by these ideas.

Can humanity make conscious progress without a verifibiable appreciation for the purpose of our existence and assume it doesn't matter? I would say no. Without purpose, "might makes right"

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that the living machine we call the interactions of organic life on earth is sentient by definition.

sen·​tient | \ ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt , ˈsen-tē-ənt \
Definition of sentient
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
sentient beings
2: AWARE
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Where a non living machine like a car is created by man to increase mobility, who or what creates living machines as creatures of reactions and for what purpose? It is a logical question.

The evolution of man is connected with the evolution of our earth. Time is relative. A day for the earth is many generations for man on earth

There's no reason why there might be a pre-determined purpose to existence at large. It would be nice to think that the universe is inevitably leading to something like de Chardin's Omega Point but it's impossible to know, as it is impossible to know if there is any purpose to life, the universe and everything, other than to simply be.

From the preface to Jacob Needleman's book "Lost Christianity"

...................What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose....................

This is why world peace is impossible. There is no understanding of the source of our existence or an understanding of what the being of man is and why it reacts with hypocrisy as it does. God is considered some being telling people what to do and man is a creature which the universe is here to serve. This is illogical yet much of the world is governed by these ideas.

Can humanity make conscious progress without a verifibiable appreciation for the purpose of our existence and assume it doesn't matter? I would say no. Without purpose, "might makes right"

I am still not sold on the "living machine" analogy/claim. It's conflating two different things, seemingly to point out that life largely operates as apparently simple cause-and-effect, without apparent conscious volition.

I take the point but I think it renders our conceptions more shallow, by starting with biology (and usually intelligent biology) rather than with the geology and chemistry that became biology. I like the perspective of Michelle Thaller, where she intimated that we life forms are basically walking rocks. Yes, we are wet rocks that complexified, still with much seemingly automatic behaviour, as you say, but with some measure of control.

Re: the Needleman quote:

an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart

You will just end up with much complexity, as always happens when one is trying to work backwards from a pre-conceived view. The fact is that science is not al alternative to religion, and was never intended to be, only to question religious (and other) claims of fact. Yes, if you treat science as religion, you will eat stone and not bread.

How to replace the communion and succour of religion with a secular approach, that does not rely on superstition and unsubstantiated claims? That's precisely what philosophy was about before some modern scientists mistakenly assumed that philosophy was unscientific and effectively threw the baby out with the bathwater. So how does science tell us to deal with the most painful losses in life? Alter one's biochemistry with therapeutic drugs? CBT? To start, it all costs money - solution that feed the capitalist machine more than the heart.

Many theists believe that innocents go to heaven, problem solved. However, faith in the unproven, is committing philosophical suicide (Camus).

If you check out what was happening in the Middle Ages - not just in Europe, but all over the world - you will see that, while the same kind of inequality and squabbling is happening in societies, much has changed too. Humans of today are far less brutal than those ancient Christians, for whom torture, humiliation and painful executions were standard practice.

The main reason why peace is impossible is that there are eight billion humans, with each wanting an ever larger slice of an ever-diminishing resource pie. It's largely a matter of numbers. If there were 8,000,000,000 chimps in the world, rather than about 250,000, then there would be enormous fighting and mayhem, with numerous extinctions and imbalances.

People's mindsets are seemingly less important than the raw numbers. Imagine that a community in a post-apocalyptic world decides to live in peace based on their spiritual beliefs. Good for them! Alas, soon they would be wiped out by those more intent on survival.

As I said before, only transcending biology can bring the possibility of peace. As long as we must kill and compete to survive, peace is impossible.

[Tegularius]

That requires a species more amenable to compromise. Since this is barely in effect eventually something is guaranteed to blow. Climate change is likely to make compromise even more impossible hastening the process.

[Sy Borg]

That requires a species more amenable to compromise. Since this is barely in effect eventually something is guaranteed to blow. Climate change is likely to make compromise even more impossible hastening the process.

It's a shame that we are closer to chimps than bonobos. Chimps, like humans, are experts at lethal aggression. Bonobos are far more conciliatory animals. Apparently there's high levels of thyroid hormones in male bonobos that makes them more peaceful. Maybe if human males boost that thyroid hormone, humanity might become peaceful? ;)

[Tegularius]

That requires a species more amenable to compromise. Since this is barely in effect eventually something is guaranteed to blow. Climate change is likely to make compromise even more impossible hastening the process.

It's a shame that we are closer to chimps than bonobos. Chimps, like humans, are experts at lethal aggression. Bonobos are far more conciliatory animals. Apparently there's high levels of thyroid hormones in male bonobos that makes them more peaceful. Maybe if human males boost that thyroid hormone, humanity might become peaceful?

All that is true the difference is that people with their so-called higher reasoning power should be able to override the aggressiveness inherent in their nature for the sake of mutual benefit which chimps in their aggressiveness are much less likely to do.

[Sy Borg]

That requires a species more amenable to compromise. Since this is barely in effect eventually something is guaranteed to blow. Climate change is likely to make compromise even more impossible hastening the process.

It's a shame that we are closer to chimps than bonobos. Chimps, like humans, are experts at lethal aggression. Bonobos are far more conciliatory animals. Apparently there's high levels of thyroid hormones in male bonobos that makes them more peaceful. Maybe if human males boost that thyroid hormone, humanity might become peaceful?

All that is true the difference is that people with their so-called higher reasoning power should be able to override the aggressiveness inherent in their nature for the sake of mutual benefit which chimps in their aggressiveness are much less likely to do.

To be fair, I think we humans do that to some extent. Consider an auction. It is basically a battle for territory. Yet it's not uncommon to see competitors chatting in a friendly way before the auctioneer turns up. Chimps in the same situation would be engaged in lethal violence.

Another point: bonobos form matriarchal societies and have lower levels of sexual dimorphism than is the case with patriarchal chimps. Interestingly, as humans move to less patriarchy and less sexual dimorphism, there has been a furious fightback with the return of the "strongman" politician and anti-women policies.

There is a common claim that matriarchal societies with low sexual dimorphism are inherently weak and vulnerable. Yet, progressive Sweden has a much stronger military than deeply patriarchal African countries. The issue is more deeply about sexuality. Specifically, many women are turned on by big, strong men, and many men are turned on by weedy women hobbled by high heels and tight skirts. There can never be world peace when people are prepared to fight to the death for their orgasms

[Nick_A]

Simone Weil asks in the OP: "even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

A good question but who is willing to contemplate it? People are more willing to arguing how to make it better not realizing that these natural cycles repeat. Why.

Teg wrote that: All that is true the difference is that people with their so-called higher reasoning power should be able to override the aggressiveness inherent in their nature for the sake of mutual benefit which chimps in their aggressiveness are much less likely to do.

All our higher reasoning proves is that our species kills with same relish that it cures

People are different. Who respects and understand these differences? For example the being of some are centered around their intellect, some are centered around their emotions and others are only concerned with what to do. They live by the senses. Many even now believe everyone is the same Clearly people cannot understand each other

Jacob Needleman wrote:

...................What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose....................

It is obvious to me at least that we don’t understand our species. “Who am I?” is the obvious question going unanswered.

What is God? We don’t know but at least some can contemplate why we don’t know. Einstein explains:

The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, NY Times, November 9, 1930

What is a cosmic religious feeling? Threads I’ve read on this forum either attack or defend fear and morality as instigated by God. Yet does God have to be a personal God or can it be an ineffable source which calls us to serve the need of our universe and our own need to consciously return home?

Humanity may need a new understanding of God and Man which answers our basic questions in both mind and heart. It is denied so nothing changes. The natural cycles just repeat including the cycle of war and peace

[Sy Borg]

God can be an ineffable source for you and the placebo effect will make it happen.

Humanity can have any new understanding you like, but nothing stays the same. The moment you have a 100% pure perfect society (ugh!) it will immediately change and degrade. Again, no matter what you understand, you run into the same issue - you must kill to live. Thus there can be no true peace, ie. killing non-human organisms is necessary to live but it is in no way peaceful. As biological beings, peace is impossible.

[Good_Egg]

...killing non-human organisms is necessary to live but it is in no way peaceful. As biological beings, peace is impossible.

Meat-eating isn't the problem.

The invention of agriculture - the transition from a hunter society to a farmer society - was perhaps the first revolution in human affairs. People who raise chickens for meat in their back yard are not a threat to world peace. Whatever violence is involved in converting a living bird to fresh meat, it is balanced - made sustainable - by the activity of breeding the chickens in the first place. It stays in the back yard. It doesn't require hunting someone else's territory.

The problem is what happens when the human population of an agricultural society increases. When there's no role for the surplus young males, and the easy (?only?) way for the society to protect itself against their capacity for violence is to send them out to conquer the neighbours...

That's the root of the lack of world peace.

[Wizard22]

It is immediately, common sense, that all those demanding "World Peace" and "Equality", primarily want it for themselves first and foremost, and not on the behalf of others.

Peace...for me, but not for you.

All those who claim otherwise, tend to be vicious liars and grifters, the types who create "Non-profit organizations" and those that steal millions from Charity organizations. Ironically, this grift is Eternal, and ALWAYS overwhelmingly profitable. For example, how much of "Christianity" is a simple grift for Alms, by which Christianity and Christians do little or nothing ACTUAL or SIGNIFICANT for the poor??? How many drug-addicts do you know, saved directly by Christians? Me? I know of very, very few, if any. Quite simply, there is NO EVIDENCE, of "world peace" by their loudest Ardents.