Two races of people?

Human personality is not black and white. It's a continuous spectrum. On both ends you have the extremes. The very far left and very far right extremes could be seen as "races" in themselves, as they are so different from the norms and their dispositions generally lead to radically different lifestyles.

The conflict between the two isn't really the sort of conflict where the neutral would have to take sides. It's very subtle and manifests itself in the minds of people, not so much in the physical world. It's normal for people to want the world to perfectly suit them, and when others begin molding the world to what is completely opposite to their preference that's where discontent arises. It's an ideological battle to sway those resting on the middle of the spectrum, and neither side will always be able to. This leaves many who are closer to the center.

 

I didn't take it any other way I was just adding to the discussion.

 

I asked about traditional religion earlier - but it was more an observation that so many who profess to be pro-peace will advocate pro-war at the drop of a hat, at anything that falls outside their accepted norms of behavior. Many profess to love peace but advocate war. It is a strange dichotomy which confuses and saddens me. It is the concept that peace requires war, that love requires hate, that compassion requires judgment. It is an insanity that seems to prevail. Bad brings good, hate brings love, harm brings healing.

A word means what i want it to mean - nothing more, nothing less. I weep.

 

I don't think that it is necessary, I just said it seems that way but I've been wrong before.

I was thinking more of the Native Americans who for the most part lived with the land and did not do a lot to change it, as opposed to the "Europeans" who come to this country and have changed the land to fit themselves.

I don't believe I said they, the ??, have to adapt to any tendency, it's just that I don't see a lot that don't and they usually seem to forced to take one side or the other. Maybe you can give an example?

 

I guess one of the reasons I brought this up is, not so much to define the Human personality but to understand a little more about why people continue to "ruin" the Earth even after evidence that there may not be much more time left to do so.

 

Okay, Thanx.

 

If never really felt that one needs the opposite to have or enjoy what seems to be the other side of the coin. I don't really see why the world can not enjoy peace without having the occasional war or why someone can't love someone without hating someone else. But then many will disagree with me on it, I imagine.

 

Appearances are deceiving.

I observe that all, well may be not all but overwhelming majority, of people are operated like a mechanism , whose intentions and behavior are shaped by circusmtances as much as the thread of a river is shaped by the force of gravity and terrain it flows on.

Who knows what "warrior" type would be doing, had his limbs be chopped off before being thrown in a cage of lions or some minor genetic alteration in DNA make him physically and mentally inferior creature? Or some catastrofic social upheaval put him in a position of a lowly outcast at the mercy of more powerful and brutal ones in authority?

Who knows what many "peace seekers" would do, had they been given enough power to do as they pleased, with the practical knowledge that the only way to retain the power and all associated with it pleasures was to wage war?

I am not even talking about more clever peace seekers who consciously pretend to be meek and peaceful to gain practical advantage through manipulation of public opinion and feelings (take the case of Gandhi for instance) , or some stupid warmakers who lack means and resources to wage war (like zealots, rebels , terrorists etc.).

As noted above, I am convinced that great majority of human beings, their intentions and actions, are to a very high degree [if not totally] shaped by various circumstances, with too few ever gaining any sort of transcending enlightment and glimpse of broader picture.

I remember reading "The Good Earth" by Pearl buck, and it struck me how accurately a real human nature is portrayed by the author of that book[unlike by many others], how it shows the perception, intentions and actions of one individual change throughout ever shifting circumstances of his life.

Read it and you may find out that there is but one race of people and it's essence is Human Nature, with all it's vast, unpredictable and ever changing nuances and the debth of abyss hiding beneath shallow outer reflections.

 

I beg to differ; the bush administration knew there were no WMD in Iraq and yet chose to bomb the shit out of baghdad with a civilian death toll approaching 100,000 since 2002

Hotwater

 

I'm sorry in my opening OP I was not very clear about what the discussion was about, mainly because I was not all that sure myself. Whereas what you say bears on War against people, I'm kind of more wondering about those who War against the Earth itself, those who feel the Earth should be defeated and shaped to their will as opposed to those who have made peace with the Earth and who seem to want to live in harmony with it, changing it as little as possible.

 

Honestly, in the grand (and even not so grand) scheme of things, none of this really matters.

Native Americans, those who were here in the northern Americas before the Europeans discovered it, were prone also to violence and wars amongst themselves. They killed and tortured those who would not accept assimilation into the captors tribes. Granted they were a bit more respectful to the land and the lesser forms of life on it. But they too were war-like. However, making this statement does not include 100% of the Native American population in the three times.

Perhaps you can give me an example where someone not being FORCED to take a side does not HAVE TO ADAPT. Seems to me that being forced means having to adapt or be eliminated ... assimilate or eliminate ... that seems to be the mindset now when it comes to war(s).

But like I mentioned: Honestly, in the grand (and even not so grand) scheme of things, none of this really matters.

HTML:

 

Never said it did.

Never said they weren't but their violence was limited and not directed at the earth as I mentioned earlier, the Europeans were willing to do anything to win, even drive the Buffalo to the edge of extinction just to win, whereas for the Native Americans that would be something that they were incapable of even thinking of doing.

There are still those who think that atomic warfare is OK, under the right circumstances, even if the Earth is made "nearly" uninhabitable yet there are those who feel war itself is unthinkable let alone destroy the Earth to win one.

I asked you first.

Like I said; I never said it did.

 

There are much better examples than that, for your case. Darfur and Tibet come to mind (though I don't know nearly as much about Tibet as I should).

I don't think there is one simple answer that can truly win out, in this case. There are so many different ways of looking at it.

As far as Bush goes:
I don't truly see Bush as the warring ones - as I don't believe in this description. I think Bush is more like a scared and hurt child, lashing out at the ones he feels hurt him.
I don't know that the majority of the administration didn't believe the reports that there were WMDs, or thought they were possibly fabricated. I do think that they were absolutely careless about it and didn't properly investigate the matter.

Bush took more control than possibly needed with the Patriot Act. Bush took away many freedoms. But he never took complete control like Hitler.

He changed the Earth for more control and eliminated enemies and problems. But he kept certain levels of restraint.

 

It is my understanding that in opening OP you spoke about "two races of people" specified as PM and WM.

I shared my vision of how actions of people unfold, that it is always about one essence which is Human Nature , and it is applicable (in my opinion) to all Human actions, regardless of particulars.

 

Is it possible for WMs and PMs not to have some characteristics as the other?

I guess that some people are saying that everyone wants the same thing but they all want to arrive at it differently. That the only thing keeping us from peace isn't the lack of wars or peace-seeking, but the lack of uniformity.

Some are even suggesting that the only reason someone is a PM or WM is how they were brought up and the events that follow in a persons life, so someone can one day be a PM but certain circumstances arise and they take on WM stance when it seems more effective to their own survival. Although, I personally believe that people can remain consistent throughout their life and not be moved by the events that arise.

While uniformity is important, and that many are changed by situations in life, I would say that the persons intentions can make them either a WM or a PM. Eventually someone will fall within that category even if it doesn't necessarily work out in reality. I would say that someone going to war for the intent of peace can be classified as a PM. Maybe they don't see things as being 'forcibly changed' but as a way to hold of the TRUE war makers. Because more likely than not, those that go to war see themselves as peacemakers and not war makers. But my question to that is: Just because someone believes they are peacemakers, does it mean that they are?

It was also said that people are neutral, but I would suggest that those that fall into the 'neutral' category are the true peace makers. Although, many would see neutrality as a sign of apathy and would eventually be labeled as WMs. An example of this would be the treants in lord of the rings; they never went to war unless it concerned them. Perhaps they could have prevented the war that was coming if they weren't so neutral.

But I think that OPs overall terms for WM and PM describes the sides, if there are any, nicely. Peace makers, I may have to alter the OP definition a little here, are neutral and are flexible to anything that comes their way. They 'go with the flow' with any situation that may arise. If they are being conquered, instead of a struggle, they just allow it. If a complete annihilation is in order they may either be peaceful to the bitter end (like what happens to Tibetan Monks) , hoping to deter the actions of the warriors, or just be completely wiped out. I think the less we know about a civilization, personally, is a good sign that these people were peacemakers because PMs don't seem to be very haughty or desire attention.

While WMs would be those that are very assertive about their existence and wants everyone else to be. They believe that everything available is deserving of taking. WMs tend to have a cynical view of reality, so they would be the 'dog eat dog' type of person and see how there is no ultimate survival only temporary survival, so whoever gets the most in this lifetime, well, more power to them.

So while PMs are a neutral virus, neither being hurtful or really helpful, WMs are more of a leech that scabages out the, what they believe to be, limited resources (if it's limited then there is no sense in preserving).

 

Yes, as I mentioned, I was unsure how to phrase the OP properly and I've tried to refine it since then.

And I thank you for your vision and did not in any way mean to infer that it was wrong in any way. Perhaps you would be so good as to show to me a little bit about now your view applies to Human Nature's attitude toward the fate of the world.

 

A very interesting read, Thanx for the comments.

 

Thanks, I hope I added something to the thread. I don't want to be some sort of thread parrot, lol.

 

It’s been my experience that there are two types of people Good & Evil, and while each is capable of the other; neither is capable of hiding from themselves



Hotwater

 

Can you expand on that? Sounds interesting, especially the part about hiding from themselves. Would like to hear more about that if you are willing. No pressure of course.