The fine line between war and peace
It is indeed a fine line between war and peace. If we study that line, can we figure out how to approach it without going over? Ensuring that we remain peaceful even when we are confronting those who are at war is an art form and requires training, awareness and experience. The trick to all of this is being able to confront violence, war, abuse and bullies without crossing the line. I call that art form the 'Pacem Arts'.
If we don't study the Martial Arts (Art of War) or the Pacem Arts (Art of Peace) then how will we ever know where the line is? If we don't know where the line is, how can we ensure we don't cross it? Would it be a surprise to find out that people cross back and forth over that line frequently without even realizing it?
Practicing Martial Arts 2005
My training in the Martial Arts has helped me figure out that line. Let's use an example from this art form to explore where that line is. Imagine two individuals, Joe and Bernie, standing face-to-face in a stand off. Joe decides to punch Bernie in the face and then he actually throws a punch. Joe's intent is to cause harm, which is a violent act and falls within the scope of war. Bernie now has a choice. He could allow the punch to land or he can defend himself. Bernie decides to lift his arm and block the punch. While this may look like violence, it is actually self-defense and NOT a violent act. Bernie's intent is not to cause harm to Joe, but rather prevent harm to his own face. If Joe gets hurt in the process, that is on Joe, not Bernie. Bernie has not crossed the line between peace and war.
However, what if Bernie, after having successfully blocked the attack, then decides to counter the attack with a punch of his own? His intent has now changed from self-defense to attack and at that moment he declared war on his opponent. He crossed the line. The martial artists out there may argue that the best self-defense is to put Joe to the ground and make sure he does not get back up. That ensures the fight is over and Bernie is not only protected but gives himself time to flee the attack. From a war stand point, they would be correct. I too was trained with that type of thinking within the Martial Arts. However, within the Pacem Arts, we must ensure that we don't cross that line and engage in war. The moment we change our intent from self-defense to attack, we cross that line and we abandon the Pacem Arts in favor of the Martial Arts. We got drawn into the war.
The state is at war and only participates in the Martial Arts. They are masters at the art form. Declaring war against the state is like your neighbour Harry who lives just down the street jumping into the ring with Mohammad Ali at his prime. Some could do it, but most cannot. The state is masters of war, so declaring war with them is not my idea of fun. Their courts are designed to resolve disputes between combatants. If we remain peaceful, they have no jurisdiction over us as they only have jurisdiction over members of the military. How can they tell? If you answer to their names and are in possession of their military documents (mark), then you are a member. If you swore fealty to a feudal master (king, queen, country, etc) then that also proves that you fall within their jurisdiction. If you are at war, then they will claim jurisdiction over that battle! That is why most people get into trouble when they work towards freedom!!!! This point cannot be stated clearly enough. So let me say that again:
Most people get into trouble with the state when they work towards freedom and peace because they don't know where the line is and they end up going to war despite the efforts for peace.
To help with this idea, let's run through some common scenarios and let's explore where the line is and what it looks like.
Scenario One
Bernie was unable or unwilling to block the punch and Joe ended up hitting him in the face. Bernie lost the physical fight, so he turns around and sues Joe for damages. They both go to court. Did Bernie remain peaceful?
Answer: No. By engaging the courts, Bernie called upon a stronger army to go to war against Joe. By suing Joe, Bernie attacked Joe and declared war. The court, seeing the declaration of war, stepped in to resolve the dispute between two combatants. If Bernie wanted to remain peaceful, his choice was to forgive Joe and train harder so that he can defend himself should the situation happen again.
Scenario Two
Bernie knows his stuff and he blocked the punch but ended up breaking Joe's arm in the process. Did Bernie remain peaceful?
Answer: Yes. Bernie's intent was not to harm but rather to deflect or defend against the attack. The fact that Joe's arm ended up broken is on Joe as his intent was to cause harm to Bernie and he failed in that attempt. Joe still being at war would most likely sue Bernie for damages, but if Bernie remains peaceful, the burden would rest on Joe to prove a 'guilty act' with a 'guilty mind'. He would fail in proving both as he was the one at war and expressing both himself.
Scenario Three
Joe ends up punching Bernie, so Bernie calls the police and Joe is charged with assault. Bernie does not want Joe charged but finds himself powerless to alter the outcome. Did Bernie cross the line?
Answer: Yes. By calling the police, he is calling upon a stronger army to fight the war on his behalf. The police take his testimony and use it for grounds on whether they will lay charges or not. The police lay the charge, not Bernie. He is merely a witness who can testify to the actions of Joe. The feudal lord is the one that lays the charge, not Bernie who experienced the actual assault.
Scenario Four
Bernie has experienced war in the past and has learned much in the process. He knows Joe and recognizes that he is quick to violence. So Bernie decides to break off the relationship and stays away from Joe. Bernie sets the boundary that Joe is no longer welcome in his life. They don't see each other despite Joe's efforts to lash out and make Bernie pay for rejecting Joe. Bernie builds physical, emotional, mental and spiritual barriers to prevent Joe from reaching him to engage in violence. Did Bernie cross the line?
Answer: No. The establishment of boundaries, no matter their form, is used in self defense and is not a declaration of war. War combatants like Joe, will usually get very angry and engage in violence to try and tear down the defenses of people like Bernie. Joe's anger, frustration and aggression is a result of his own intent and is not a reflection on Bernie at all, even though Joe will try to make it appear that Bernie is being the aggressor.
Scenario Five
Joe ends up punching Bernie and Bernie decides to stand as a witness to Joe's actions. Bernie makes public what has happened which ends up tarnishing Joe's reputation and relationships with people in his community. Did Bernie cross the line?
Answer: Depends! Bernie is being a witness to Joe's behaviour. However, Bernie must be very careful that he is not being a false witness. This is where most people get into trouble. Bernie can only share what he has witnessed himself. He can testify to the fact that Joe punched him in the face or to the specific words that were shared during the encounter. However, if Bernie starts to talk about other things that Joe has done, which Bernie has not actually witnessed, then Bernie has crossed the line. If Bernie allows his emotions to take over and he uses the power of witness as a way to attack Joe and his character, then Bernie has indeed crossed the line and declared war against Joe.
Scenario Six
Despite all of Bernie's efforts, Joe continues to attack him. Bernie calls upon his tribe to stand between Bernie and Joe. The tribe members intervene by standing shoulder to shoulder, acting like a shield to prevent Joe from getting to Bernie. Joe is intimidated by the show of support and interprets it as a show of force. Joe feels intimidated and perhaps even scared. Joe decides to back down and leave Bernie alone. Did Bernie or the tribe members cross the line?
Answer: NO! Bernie or the tribe members are NOT responsible for how Joe feels or how he interprets their actions. I've seen many examples of this in the news and I've even done it myself when I stood between an abusive husband and his family. Confronting violence is not a violent act, but rather an act of courage, compassion, love and peace. This is the whole point with peace keeping and requires the participation of all the tribe members as there is safety and security in numbers. The problem is that most people see peace keeping in the scope of the state, which uses the army. To be clear, the police are a para-military occupational force and incapable of peaceful actions. The army engaging in peace keeping is a function of war, not peace. Tribes engaging in peace keeping is a function of peace!
Click here for more information on how to join The Virtue Circle
Click here to join us on Discord.
For a moment I was going to say that putting the opponent down to flee is the right thing to do. In the one I practice, it is the main goal rather than beating the person to the ground. That being said we are also taught to avoid this violence in all forms. The history to the arts that we practice come from monks and thus I keep that in mind strongly not to abuse what I have learned and focus on self control as well.
I know if I were to be engaged in fight let's say. I try to walk away, tell the person to back off, that I am not interested, can be resolved by speaking etc and it does not work. I will block myself if a punch were to come flying my way. Will I hit back? No. But if it keeps on happening, to avoid more hits, I would restrain the person in a manner where that person will fold to the ground without punches or kicks. A lock of the wrist lets say. If that person tries to fight back, he may suffer from a broken wrist. Once down I would tell that person very firmly to leave me alone.
Most of the times that can be avoided but what happens if the person persists and you have no one to support you? That is worst case scenario.
The way I see things; take your heart and look at it, like if you were holding it. It is healthy, bright in colour and beats rhythmically and beautifully. If you were to harm someone that heart turns a dark colour. Inch by inch it will turn by every hit, every emotional pain you cause.
The more you do, the harder it gets to heal from the darkness. The more you let yourself be the more your heart turns to black tar.
But if you do the opposite, the more your heart glows and the more love spreads and the stronger it becomes to then be able to spread upon the others.
I love your posts like this. Absolutely awesome!
Beautifully stated. I too was taught self defense. Rule number one: don't get into trouble. If the people you hang around with get into trouble, find new friends. Rule number two: run. Only as a last resort are we to use the training we received. I agree with you. If he keeps coming, my self-defense tactics would change to the point where they guy could easily end up with a broken wrist or arm. But I would have to evaluate each step to ensure I don't cross the line. To be blunt, if it is my time to die, it is my time to die. I refuse to defend myself with deadly force if deadly force is being used on me. If they guy has a gun, I have strategies, but I will not shoot they guy in self defense. I am ready to die. I live life in order to have a good death. In the end, I am a spiritual being, not a meat suit. So I cannot die. But I can be separated from my vessel. I would rather be separated from my vessel than to separate another spiritual being from their vessel. I love your response. Well written. <3
Thank you ^_^
Never will killing be a solution to anything. Never will it be right. I agree with you.
Your post and the comments within your post brings great insight and gets people thinking and on the right path too I hope. Posts like this are much needed.
You have given excellent examples of where that line is. But everyday life proves to be more difficult for people with no training. There are times when that line is blurred. I am sure that there are times when that line several times in both directions.
I see this on a daily basis and when you add corruption and weapons to the mix it becomes an intolerable situation. We have managed to stay clear or back away from the line, but it has been difficult.
You are very correct in that without the training, the line is very blurry. That is part of our purpose here, is to get the training so that we know where the line is. Lots of people train in the Martial Arts, but few train in the Pacem Arts. We need both in order to see both sides of that line. Well stated my friend.
Succinctly put.i just use the phrase 'War is peace' to make sense of it all
War is peace- that means to fight and engage in war in order to have peace rather than bringing on the peace first without having to fight. War is far from peace. Only peace can bring peace.
Mankind has been engaged in 'war in order to have peace' for thousands of years. That model does not work. I agree with you. Only peace can bring peace!!!
thank you. By stating 'War is peace' does that not confuse the issue? It seems to me that is exactly the double speak that Orwell wrote about in his novel '1984'. I'm not sure how that helps you 'make sense of it all'.
Indeed. For me, this does not really help me make any more sense of it all!
I appreciate the time you've taken to pull these scenarios together, and I think it's those that have provided clarity.
I hope you are having a wonderful summer @wwf :)
Hello @abh12345. It has been a while. Glad to hear from you. We are having a wonderful summer. The garden is growing like crazy and we have been blessed with rain, wind, lots of sun and night time too. I'm glad that the scenarios helped. It took a while to figure out how to show the line, but I'm glad that people saw clarity.
@foxyspirit @abh12345 @wwf Looks like my philosophy is in the minority. I guess I'll take the L on this one.
I don't (and will never mean a literal war), I just mean that Peace is a struggle that has to be preserved best as we can (war). Maybe it only makes sense inside my head...
I see. It could be as simple as definition of words too. I see war as armed conflict, battle, violence, combat. In your context, considering it is within, I'm not sure we could agree that my definition of war would fit. You may have a different definition. Or perhaps a different word would better describe what you are working to express.
Nah I think it's just because of the common meaning behind war is peace is not what your meaning is. So it puts everything off.
When typing in a response it is hard to see and understand the expression and meaning as we cannot 'see' you. Choice of words are key :)
This has me in a bit of a quagmire. Won't defending myself by attacking be the best option? Then again, violence only begets more violence. You're right it can be a bit confusing, especially for those without firm convictions of peaceful processes
Defense and attack are all components of the Martial Arts (The art of war). We often hear the best defense is a good offense That is a Martial Art strategy. The Pacem Arts have a very different strategy. You are absolutely right; violence begets violence. Time to end the cycle of violence.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.