Peace Of Mind Or Piece Of Mind?

Peace, a word which often has a universal understanding but the meaning has been varied even in the dictionary. Maybe because it’s understood that nothing can hold a universal meaning, as the object changes hands so does its individual description. The dictionary defines peace as “the normal, non-warring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world; a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations; public order and security; cessation of or freedom from any strife or dissension.”

Various individuals have various methods of trying to attain it, (trying isn’t the same as doing it now is it), of course these various methods are based on the individuals definition of peace so how can one justify themselves and their actions? Some say “the ends don’t justify the means” others say “the means don’t justify the ends”. Focusing more on discussions and contradictions rather than action, the first group of people sit in their houses posting statuses on social websites like “lets wear white and show our concern for peace”, others with a similar ideology go outside their house in groups with banners waving signs of peace and yelling out slogans eventually to be kicked away by the police for disturbing “public order”, one of the definitions of peace so technically going against the legal definition of peace and yet whining about attaining peace through non violent means. On the other hand those from the second group believe that such non violent means would take a long time to attain peace, rather it is required right here and now and the only way to do it is to show who is a greater bully. “A state of mutual harmony between people or groups” another definition of peace.

Some righteous soldiers believe that peace needs to be attained not by violence, the more impatient and aggressive soldiers believe violence is the only way to attain peace. By violence they believe that if they aggress to a certain extent, the dominion can be proven about superiority which would lead to submission, so it isn’t very complex and quite straight forward, more like a teacher bullying a kid and the kid eventually standing up to the teacher. On the other hand non violence leads to suffering on oneself with the hope that it may induce compassion into the hearts of the brutes but the question arises if there really was a degree of compassion within them would they be brutes in the first place? By inflicting suffering on oneself are we changing anything? The only difference being that earlier it was done by someone against our will and now we are willingly inflicting suffering, so maybe the goal of non violence is to rid the sadists from the pleasure of enjoying from inflicting pain and suffering.

Some words may sound beautiful, but what’s the point of beautiful words? Words just convey a message, a direction towards what is or what could be, but we direct our minds towards what could be rather than what is because we like to speculate, we like to imagine, we like to dream. Some may call this positive thinking, but is it really? Rather it wreaks of desperation, if we can’t see what is, rather let’s see what we can see, a desperate convenience. Because to think is too much work, to understand is too much work, to live is too much work. But survival yes, now that is important, if we don’t survive we can’t do anything but is survival restricted to mere continuance of one’s existence? Is that all life is about? To feed, shit and die? No it can’t be, but neither can we see anything further, so let us stop here and create a few beliefs which can be manipulated as such that they can become immortal. And hence we have peace, love, and many others. We just need to believe in some things, even if they are non-existent. Sort of like a cushion to place our heads on after it’s been punched by reality.

'Till next time!
;)