Practice of Peace in Sweden--A reflection on the Issue
Anu Parmar
anuparmar at scastrategies.com
Sun Dec 5 15:40:21 PST 2004
Therese wrote
"I want to ask you, Paul, to share with us how you think we might
> encourage evolution into different states of being but I venture to
> guess that I already know at least part of your answer. Open space."
" Hold fast to visions of peace. What else can we do?"
More than envisioning peace, WE CAN:
- START the change within OURSELVES first. Every thought of conflict we
have within ourselves, our families, our neighbours, our work and everything
else in the concentric circles of life - we disrupt and unsettle the
peaceful state of our environment. We ARE 'them', the 'society'. With 6
billion of us walking around disrupting the peace in our own little worlds,
is it really any wonder when it all froths into the big nuclear mushrooms
hanging over our heads. And then we all look up at the horror, point our
fingers to him, her, it and them and say you did it. We are 'they'.
- FACILITATE the emergence of peace first within ourselves - that is the
toughest to do - but that is the only way we ourselves emerge into a
different 'state of being'. What I mean by this is; truly living an 'open
space' life (far beyond just our jobs of OS Facilitators). For me 'Open
Space' living is allowing ourselves the space in which we experiences all -
good, bad and ugly - digest what we need, gently put aside what we don't
(without judgements, biases, bitterness, superiority or inferiority
complexes, prejudices et al). Resisting the temptations to 'help' the poor
souls who don't get it. this kind of help assumes a position of us being
the enlightened and them being the ignorant. All we should do is 'share'
our joy of times when we were able to overcome the 'battle in ourselves
between Mine and Thine'. The more we practice the 'all oneness' and resist
the 'myness and yourness' - the better we will get at it - individually and
bit by bit collectively.
The wise old Chief said to his grandson ' there are two
immortal wolves in our hearts always ferociously fighting each other.
One wolf is called "I like to" and the other is called "I
should". Grandson says "Grandfather, which one wins?.
The wise old Chief answers "The one we feed the most, wins."
- LIVE IT. Imagine if each of us, in our own circles, deeply and truly
became champions of peace? What a world that would be. A true story: A
friend of mine's daughter just started university in London. One evening
she received an email from the Uni's Student group announcing their annual
fundraising event traditionally a 'cream pie-throwing' party. Apparently
thousands come out and it is the big thing on campus. When she read it, she
instinctively responded (without much debate or analysis) that she would
love to attend except for the fact with half the world dying of hunger,
throwing food at each other for fun seemed inhumane. She thought nothing
further of this until she received a reply from the Student body thanking
her for her insight (they'd never thought about this before), party will
still go on but effective immediately the cream pies will be replaced with
shaving creams and stringers etc.. All it took was one person's conscience
and ACTION to change thousands of minds. No debates, forums, academic
dialogues - just simply doing it.
Paul writes: "Which leads me to the despairing question: Is peace even
possible?? Are
> > we wasting our time talking about it or even trying to practice it?
I believe peace is possible only to the extent we feed which one of the
wolves in our hearts (see above story) - when we feed the "I like to"
(subjective RIGHTS) then peace will be fragile and will be shattered. When
we feed the "I should" (objective selfless DUTY) then we begin to restore
peace again. Peace is not a destination, an Eden where once you reach
there - that's it, all's well. Peace is like the climate - monsoon rains,
desert heat, polar colds, warm summers, thunders, tornadoes, gentle
breezes - ever changing in intensity, expanse, strength depending on the
movements of the earth and its environment. Peace depends on movements of
our thoughts and actions - individually then collectively - which wolf we
feed the most.
Every time an issue of conflict came up I would like to ask the parties,
each in turn, two questions:
Regarding "........(what ever the issue is)......"
(1) what would you 'like' to do? (subjective approach)
(2) what do you think you 'should' do? (objective approach)
As they hear their own answers to these questions, I'm sure the
rights/wrongs, do's/don'ts and much more will reveal surface.
In the words of Henry David Thoreau "simplify, simplify,simplify."
Perhaps, asking simple, real simple questions would help to untangle the
complex webs that we weave.
I'm sure if we were to ask all the people at war for generations, all over
the world, exactly what are you fighting for, I bet you 95% of the people
don't even know WHY anymore. They're just doing it because that's what they
have been doing for ever, since the time of their father, grandfather and
great grand pa!
.....rather long piece on peace...got me going!
Anu Parmar
SCA Strategies Inc
anuparmar at scastrategies.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Therese Fitzpatrick" <therese.fitzpatrick at gmail.com>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 3:51 PM
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Practice of Peace in Sweden--A reflection on the Issue
> You write, Paul, that "peace will emerge when we emerge in to a
> different state of being".
>
> Yes.
>
> Yes. I just wanted to spend a few moments dreaming of a different
> state of being.
>
> I want to ask you, Paul, to share with us how you think we might
> encourage evolution into different states of being but I venture to
> guess that I already know at least part of your answer. Open space.
>
> I am deeply overwhelmed by the 'state of being' that keeps perpetual
> war somewhere on our beautiful planet at all times. I think open
> space is a very real and practical response to the irrationality of
> war. More and more, I think open space is a radical invitation to
> trust. I think open space is a beacon to new ways of being that will
> gradually allow humanity to move beyond the need to codify human
> interactions, move beyond the need for laws and lawyers and move
> beyond struggle.
>
> It took thousands of years (at least) to get where we are today. Just
> as short term profits often inhibit long term gain in the business
> world, I believe people enter into wars because they hold truncated
> views of human evolution. I believe a reverence for life a thousand
> years from now has to inform our choices today. Literally, we must
> each of us live our lives with a steady flame of revence and
> sacredness. . . truly a diffrerent state of being. Open space is
> the best approach I have yet to come across to shift people, to
> encourage them to stretch into new ways of being.
>
> I don't suppose OS practitioners talk to clients about the inner work
> of open space but open space is really inner work. Humanity has
> fallen into a deep trap of materialism, believing the material world
> is more powerful than the nonmaterial world. We're going to get where
> we need to go. We will get to a place where there is no more war or,
> even, poverty. We'll get there step by step. Bird by bird. We can
> each of us hold our own inner flame steady as we wait for the rest to
> catch up.
>
> I have been thinking lately of a poem I memorized in high school. It
> is either by Alfred North Whitehead or Bertrand Russell. I was
> roaming through philosophy in my spare time when the assignment came
> up in English class to memorize a poem and I got a low grade because I
> chose such a short poem. Just as open space is deceptively simple,
> this poem is a deceptively small filter:
>
> "hold fast to dreams
> for when dreams die
> life is a broken-winged bird
> that will not fly"
>
> Hold fast to visions of peace. What else can we do?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:09:19 EST, everett813 at aol.com <everett813 at aol.com>
wrote:
> > Thomas: is anyone dealing with the question "If war and violence are so
> > horrible and are what we don't want, why are we not already peaceful?"
Who
> > wants violence? Who wants war? Why do we have war when few people want
it?
> >
> > Joelle and I have been noodling that question around for a while. We
think
> > it comes down to an inability to agree on whose 'story' is going to be
told
> > and lived and our inability to allow someone else to live their story
their
> > way and for them to allow us the same freedom. We seem to have to have
> > forced agreements, codified into laws, which further entangle us (great
> > article recently in NY Times about how laws are strangling education in
the
> > US) in disputes. Lawyers abound. Lawsuits follow.
> >
> > Ex: North Ireland. Whose story will be the dominant paradigm.
Protestant
> > or Catholic? To which country do those counties owe allegiance? Why is
> > that a question? What laws and rules will be put in place that reflect
the
> > different world views? What is the fighting about?
> >
> > Ex: Palestine. We could ask many questions of the same order. In
fact,
> > wherever there is conflict, we can ask the question: whose story is
> > striving to be told, agreed on, and lived? Who is resisting the story
and
> > why?
> >
> > The issue might become: what does it take for a group of human beings
to
> > allow and create enough space for freedom of choice (that doesn't
compromise
> > someone else's freedom of choice) in how they live their lives? What is
the
> > mental, emotional, spiritual construct necessary? Is it even possible?
> >
> > Ex: the dispute between religious fundamentalists and others on what
will
> > be taught about evolution in the United States. Is Darwin's theory a
> > fantasy or do we have scientific proof? (I think we do). What to do
then
> > about the slippery argument of "Intelligent design" and what will be
taught
> > in our schools?
> >
> > That brings me back to the issue of consciousness, (the role of the
ego,
> > shadow, etc.), the concepts of selfhood and a mass of other
considerations
> > which roil our human relationships.
> >
> > Which leads me to the despairing question: Is peace even possible??
Are
> > we wasting our time talking about it or even trying to practice it? If
so,
> > what should we be practicing instead? Maybe tolerance with majority
power,
> > the rule of law, legal structures, prisons for lawbreakers, etc., is the
> > best we can do in our current state of conscious evolution and we'd best
be
> > focusing on raising our own individual consciousness, tolerance level
and
> > inner beingness and forget about peace as a target. Peace will emerge
when
> > we emerge into a different state of being. Radical thought.
> >
> > These would be my reflections if I were there.
> >
> > Paul Everett * *
==========================================================
> > OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU ------------------------------ To
subscribe,
> > unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
> > oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about
> > OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
> To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
More information about the OSList
mailing list