Pacifism.

Pacifism is an indirect, unrealized attempt to resist the violent logic of the domain of the animal-world by, rather than resisting this logic with force and therefore acquiescing to the predominance of this very domain itself, instead replacing this logic with something higher, more derivative of it, more conditional, refined; a negation of the natural world and its logic of unconscious will to power.

These attempts have not failed. They are not meant to succeed, if by succeed we mean to finally do away with the animal-world in which most of humanity still dwells. Rather pacifism's success lies in paying tribute to this idea of rational-conscious transcendence, of keeping it open and alive until enough humans finally understand and give birth to a new historical momentum, a "tide of reason" that will finally sweep away the old world forever.


Knowingly or not, every pacifist is a martyr for the future.

Capable wrote:

Pacifism is an indirect, unrealized attempt to resist the violent logic of the domain of the animal-world by, rather than resisting this logic with force and therefore acquiescing to the predominance of this very domain itself, instead replacing this logic with something higher, more derivative of it, more conditional, refined; a negation of the natural world and its logic of unconscious will to power.

These attempts have not failed. They are not meant to succeed, if by succeed we mean to finally do away with the animal-world in which most of humanity still dwells.
Knowingly or not, every pacifist is a martyr for the future.

I don't know if I would so much say that pacifism is an "unrealized" attempt... When one becomes a pacifist by reason of refusing to fight for the above reasons, his attempt to be such has not only been realized, but it can and does create a rippling effect which influences future thought and action. For that, it has become realized.

I remember reading how Muhammad Ali refused to be drafted into a war which he did believe in because of his conscious and beliefs. He said:

I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong... No Viet Cong ever called me nigger" – one of the more telling remarks of the era.

He was arrested, and found to be guilty and he was also stripped of his boxing title and he couldn't fight for four years. Of course, there are many others who have paid more dearly for their pacifism...including with their lives. In hindsight, insofar as Muhammad Ali's action, this might not seem so bad but he wouldn't have known the repercussions to him in the beginning. But in so doing, he did create a rippling effect because of his pacifism and standing his ground. He inspired Martin Luther King to speak out against the Vietnam War himself for the first time and Ali's words also inspired and were a motivator for the antiwar protests/upheavals of the 1960s and for the racial riots, which did help to bring on much needed reform.

Quote :

Rather pacifism's success lies in paying tribute to this idea of rational-conscious transcendence, of keeping it open and alive until enough humans finally understand and give birth to a new historical momentum, a "tide of reason" that will finally sweep away the old world forever.

I may be misunderstanding you here but that makes it seem more like simply an ideal than something to be sought and fought for. I'm not so sure nevertheless that that time will ever come to be.


I was watching tv the other night and on the news they showed a clip of two men trying to get into a taxi. Well, this was so utterly ridiculous - they were struggling and pulling and fighting with each other to keep the other one out of the taxi so they could get in it. I wanted to laugh about it but I felt so disgusted to see that. These were supposed to be human beings - and grown men too. They were not children on a playground. I supposed that they thought they were two alpha males in a hurry (like two lions fighting over a prize) but in my book the real alpha - the 'ascended' one at least, would have let the other take the taxi and found another. I really found it quite embarrasing to see what heh, this is what we human beings act like. But of course, we do. I mean, that's nothing...look what we've done in the world...man's inhumanity to man.

So I do doubt very much if there will ever come a time when we will not want to fight with one another - wherein "the old world will be swept away forever". I wonder really, what that would even be like and for how long we could be content with it lol - when we are not even capable of fighting within ourselves and ascending to a "tide of reason" which is as low as offering the coveted taxi to another, no matter how late we may become...and taking another.

Thank you.

Capable wrote:

Pacifism is an indirect, unrealized attempt to resist the violent logic of the domain of the animal-world by, rather than resisting this logic with force and therefore acquiescing to the predominance of this very domain itself, instead replacing this logic with something higher, more derivative of it, more conditional, refined; a negation of the natural world and its logic of unconscious will to power.

These attempts have not failed. They are not meant to succeed, if by succeed we mean to finally do away with the animal-world in which most of humanity still dwells. Rather pacifism's success lies in paying tribute to this idea of rational-conscious transcendence, of keeping it open and alive until enough humans finally understand and give birth to a new historical momentum, a "tide of reason" that will finally sweep away the old world forever.


Knowingly or not, every pacifist is a martyr for the future.

In this scenario, a pacifist essentially fights for something - he resists, exerts his power. But if a world of peace comes to be, then what does the pacifist resist? How does he exercise his power?

My concern here is that self-valuing is always sustained by an openness to expansion, and when all entities are open to expansion and jumping at opportunities to expand, to increase the domain of self-valuing, then there is always going to be a question of 'territory and resource', physically or otherwise.

How can I envision a world that is not will to power? Or how can I envision a will to power that is peaceful in its exercise?

I just posted the following on ILP, here. I am interested in devising ways of sublimating conflict rather than eliminating conflict altogether. I don't believe the latter can be done, or that it should be done - I enjoy conflict and its resolution, which I see as a form of truth. A refined form of conflict is competition. The conflict (of interest) is contained by principles of produced/exhibited value, not by the destruction of another.

Quote :

The logic of value ontology implies, explains the necessity of will to power. It only contains the logic of altruism in the sense that causing an environment that is active, happy, productive and fertile is of benefit to oneself. But no matter how happy others are, a subject still has to pursue its own interests in this environment, and this will in turn cause friction, given the different natures with which humans are born (I don't believe in pure nurture, I am certain that one is born with a certain constitution that is different from almost everyone on the planet).

There is never an absence of conflict, as long as humans aren't born exactly in such ways that they completely make up for each others lacks and desires. There is only the possibility to refine the conflict, to make it more meaningful and fertile.

Ideally, value ontology facilitates a world wherein different types of people can easier recognize those from whom they can benefit, and those whom they will benefit.

At one level or another, the physical realm will always be a great feast of conflict. Winning in a conflict is a fundamental natural good. But ideally, conflicts are transparent, where neither of the competing parties is dependent on getting others to fight for a cause that is not of benefit to them. A great deal of human society relies on mobilizing people to fight for values alien to their being. Obviously, gaining insight in the fundamental importance that self-value (subjectivity, perspective) has to value, will prevent getting drawn into movements and conflicts from which one has nothing to gain.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Capable wrote:

Pacifism is an indirect, unrealized attempt to resist the violent logic of the domain of the animal-world by, rather than resisting this logic with force and therefore acquiescing to the predominance of this very domain itself, instead replacing this logic with something higher, more derivative of it, more conditional, refined; a negation of the natural world and its logic of unconscious will to power.

These attempts have not failed. They are not meant to succeed, if by succeed we mean to finally do away with the animal-world in which most of humanity still dwells. Rather pacifism's success lies in paying tribute to this idea of rational-conscious transcendence, of keeping it open and alive until enough humans finally understand and give birth to a new historical momentum, a "tide of reason" that will finally sweep away the old world forever.


Knowingly or not, every pacifist is a martyr for the future.

In this scenario, a pacifist essentially fights for something - he resists, exerts his power. But if a world of peace comes to be, then what does the pacifist resist? How does he exercise his power?

.

That raised a question in my mind. Is pacifism, in actuality, about "fighting" for something? I mean, is that the mindset of the pacifist? Or is it more about "refraining" from the fight...standing one's own ground and refusing the fight in order to bring something to fruition. Yes, he does resist most certainly but the power which he exerts is that of a knowing and of a non-action, one which might just take more inner strength than that which fighting takes. It is not fighting for a cause...it is exercising the freedom to remain still but certanly not passive for that cause.

Quote :

My concern here is that self-valuing is always sustained by an openness to expansion, and when all entities are open to expansion and jumping at opportunities to expand, to increase the domain of self-valuing, then there is always going to be a question of 'territory and resource', physically or otherwise

If what you mean here by self-valuing is the urge to want to grow, to become more...I agree with you. BUT at the same time, I'm not so sure that any kind of self-valuing would not take into consideration the needs and values of the other person. I may be totally misunderstanding you here. If there is a question of territory, well, I'm not really so sure what you mean by that. By territory, do you mean one's own space that one would not want to have be violated? lol

I may be wrong but what I intuit you are saying here is what is typical of this world. It comes down to territory and resource. If we don't fight, we lose what we have. The pacifist refuses to fight because he perhaps intuits the value of what others are fighting for as non-important. there are more lasting ways of attaining value and bringing about change than fighting for something which we feel belongs to us. But I may be misunderstanding you.

If a world of peace comes to be, how does the pacifist exert his power? You seem to be making it all about exerting power and not about simply having something to stand for and to "bring about" about important change in the world. Just consider everything that there is to be done in this world? Starvation, disease, homelessness, ad continuum? Will these things end if the world is at peace? I doubt it very much but perhaps if the world IS at peace, there will be more people striving to bring these things to an end and less people focused on causing more of it. So for the pacifist, his vision and cause will not be about "exerting power" and "refraining from fighting" but it will be about causing more peace in the world through taking action to stamp out disease and hunger and homelessness and anything else out there in the world which needs to be acted upon.

Quote :

How can I envision a world that is not will to power? Or how can I envision a will to power that is peaceful in its exercise?

By beginning with yourself. Your own little world within.You first must see it, envision it, desire it and then work towards it.
For me, at least, anything that appears to be a "will to power" has no peacefulness within it - unless it's the will to exercise control and power over one's self. That is true "value" to me. And not a very simple thing to do. But that's just me.
Hitler and every despot exercised/exercises a will to power - does it lead to peacefulness? No, it only leads to chaos, destruction and degradation. That's your Will to power.

You're not actually wrong about anything in all that except you take my use of the word "fighting" too strictly, as pertaining only to the physical. I assume you are familiar with the notion of 'spiritual battle' - for example, the struggle of Gautama at the end of which he found detachment. That detachment still had to be enforced, day to day, by following the rules of engagement of life he offered - a strategy.
Perhaps the world "struggle" is more appropriate. In any case, exerting constant will power, maintaining consciousness of intent.

By territory I means simply ones world, inner and outer, the 'realms' in which one experiences oneself.
For example, to take a child to a dogmatic church would in most cases be robbing it of its territory. Organized religion is nothing if not a conquest of the souls of as many people as possible.

Incidentally this is what I like about Judaism - it doesn't enforce itself on others by any other way than the honest pursuit of worldly interest - it does not desire to claim as many peoples souls as possible - the contrary. It sets a certain task for a select group of people who are blessed and cursed to be born Jewish. It's the most 'pacifist' religion of the Abrahamic one in this sense.

Quote :

If a world of peace comes to be, how does the pacifist exert his power? You seem to be making it all about exerting power and not about simply having something to stand for and to "bring about" about important change in the world. Just consider everything that there is to be done in this world? Starvation, disease, homelessness, ad continuum? Will these things end if the world is at peace? I doubt it very much but perhaps if the world IS at peace, there will be more people striving to bring these things to an end and less people focused on causing more of it. So for the pacifist, his vision and cause will not be about "exerting power" and "refraining from fighting" but it will be about causing more peace in the world through taking action to stamp out disease and hunger and homelessness and anything else out there in the world which needs to be acted upon.

If there are less hungry people there will be less wars. But the object of "hunger" extends beyond food - hunger for power is present equally in the pacifist as in the war-monger - what is different is the morality, the values of these people. Power simply means not much else than capacity to experience oneself in terms emerging from ones inner structure ("soul").

Quote :

Quote :

How can I envision a world that is not will to power? Or how can I envision a will to power that is peaceful in its exercise?

By beginning with yourself. Your own little world within.You first must see it, envision it, desire it and then work towards it.
For me, at least, anything that appears to be a "will to power" has no peacefulness within it - unless it's the will to exercise control and power over one's self. That is true "value" to me. And not a very simple thing to do. But that's just me.
Hitler and every despot exercised/exercises a will to power - does it lead to peacefulness? No, it only leads to chaos, destruction and degradation. That's your Will to power.

It is painful to realize that you do not see how you are exercising your will to power here - this last paragraph is written with a blinded mind. If I would want to preach to you, to teach you about yourself, I wouldn't know where to start - but I am appreciative of the good questions you ask. Like all beings, I filter for what is of value to me - where I am a philosopher this value is wisdom - but unlike many philosophers I can bear much "humanity".