Irene introduced us to the thought of Johan Galtung – the father of peace studies. Peace having positive and negative definitions. The positive definitions originate in Eastern Thought; the negative in Western Thought. In Eastern thought the equivalent word for peace frequently encompasses the concepts of harmony and well-being. (salam, shalom, shanti, irene). The Pax Romana, on the other hand, represented military security, law and order, but also, necessarily, domination. (The word pax being related to the English word ‘pact’.) Peace as the absence of war. So, peace as a ‘state of mind, and a state of affairs’ to quote I know not whom.
So we have a word in English, ‘peace’, that is applied in two domains: the political and the personal. Few doubt the desirability of ‘total peace’, both peaces together. I have questions about their relationship:
Can you have ‘political peace’ without ‘personal peace’?
Can you have ‘personal peace’ without ‘political peace’?
Does ‘political peace’ create ‘personal peace’?
Does ‘personal peace’ create ‘political peace’?
What is ‘personal peace’, anyway?
This relationship is much discussed. There are those who say to change man we must change his world: political peace will bring personal peace. And those who say that the lack of political peace reflects a lack of inner peace. Find that and both problems are solved and even if political peace isn't achieved, inner peace is the only tangible peace anyway.
Dog wants to go for a walk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment