Active in me, peace?

In "peace is active," I see I have written about my own quest for peace within. What is the relationship in tension within me? How does the balance between violence and peace play out in that conflict? Am I taking an active position one way or the other? Am I blowing where the wind will take me? It appears that my understanding of justice is not much developed. I think of legal justice and I get an inkling of a higher form of justice, but I have no way of grasping it yet. I'm getting love and compassion and compassionate honesty as foundations to justice. But these are personal. Perhaps it starts personal and moves out from there. Just like all politics are local. When I think of a relationship in tension and at peace I think of a loving marriage. Each in the couple has desires, dreams, challenges and pain to live in, each must bring those to the marriage as fully as possible even though it be easier to let them be unknown. That can be done in love and honesty or in something else, fear and violence. Many times they come in both and that is where the balance of peace is evident, the active pursuit of love and compassion in the relationship. Could that be the definition of peace I seek? Clearly I must treat myself and my partner as equals while not expecting my partner to value my issue as I do, nor myself to value my partner's issue the same as my partner does. I can take this deeper and make it more personal by moving within, to the internal tension of daily life. Do I read or do the dishes? The value of each option can vary depending on the circumstances, such as reading for pleasure and a sink full of dishes or an article for business and a couple of glasses and plates that could go in the dishwasher. It is the way I treat my own identity, the needs of existence, growth, spirit, comfort, etc. All are equal within yet the actions involved in satisfying each can depend on my circumstances. The peaceful choice is the loving and compassionate choice. Here, I think, is where non-attachment comes in. And the discipline and freedom that are required to make such a choice. So is justice a word for loving compassion? As is peace? But in different contexts? Justice in the context of others in conflict and peace when it is me in the conflict? Perhaps that is why I said in "Peace is Active" that there can be no justice in peace since when one becomes aware of our interconnections then there is no "other" in conflict, all are always involved. Active loving compassion can only be peaceful, indeed, can be nothing else. Justice, in the veiw I am seeing, allows a separation that is illusion and can lead to only more illusion, the illusion of justice "being done." Only when there is no "other" and all "are" can there be peace.

Peace is active

Not for Cats
I've been thinking about peace lately. How illusory the meaning and even the expression of peace is. Peace can only exist within a relationship in tension, or conflict. The same as violence or war. So there is no peace without conflict. Not that peace exists either before or after conflict, but only during. So does this make peace active? A choice not of avoidance or denial but of assertive confrontation. Forcing all involved to be active within the conflict as equals. The circumstances of those involved may not be equal, nor the reasons for each being involved in the conflict be equal. Even the value to each will not be equal, yet all must get beyond the issue and treat with all in an equal manner. From there and only there can successful solutions to the conflict be reached. Fairness and justice cannot enter into the equation of peaceful resolution. They presume greater or lesser value for those in conflict. If the circumstances were fair and just there would not likely be conflict requiring peaceful action. The resolution cannot be expected to be fair or just as each often requires revenge or punishment to bring the issue to resolution making it not peace but violence. Here the results of devalueing the other show their meaning for peace, it becomes impossible for peace to be a true action if any one is devalued. Violence and war result, and when the action of violence is done, peace can still not be active until the value is equalized between those in conflict. Hence there is no peace after war without reconciliation and amnesty. There is also no peace if the actions of the conflict are not treated with the same concern regardless by whom they were done. Good intentions don't change the results of the actions, nor can they excuse or validate the actions themselves.

Welcome

Time to start blogging. The name comes from my trying to come up with a name for this blog while telling one of my cats to stay off the keyboard by saying it's "not for cats." I use that phrase to tell them to stay out of things that they don't belong in. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.