What do you think the role of individual transformation is in manifesting world peace?
Is peace consciousness of a critical mass of people the answer?
This is truly Deepak Chopra. Check it out:
I was absolutely overwhelmed by the response to my question.
Please see the blog entry for more of my thoughts:
- RollstuhlwolfLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Transformation, or simply “change” is impossible for mankind to avoid. There is an evolution in this world, not only on a genetic level or cultural level, but of what I refer to as the “psychobiotic self”. Psycho referring to the psychology and symbolism which man uses to better cope with the overwhelming reality of his immergence and place and position in this world, and how it relates to his body, or “biotic” self and it’s eventual demise.
Man is constructed of two things. The first, and most simple is that of his body. A body which changes both because of the very biology and animalistic, inherent, traits that are programmed within it’s genome; but also changes because of necessity to delay the death process (IE, surgery, medicine, treatments, anything that extends the biology of the organism and idea of “health”) This is to further establish the second element of his being, the symbolic representation of man. To most of mankind, the biology and illusion of health is only a tool to which the man can master and control so that he has an extended period to develop the symbolic self. The symbolic self whom we try to immortalize after our biological entity has turned to worm meat or crematorium ash.
People go about doing this in different ways, this psychobiotic evolution as I put it. But each does so in a very individual way, which may or may not transform the world around him in yet another symbolic representation. And “peace” as you put it, is just another symbol or term that we use to represent a far greater idea. One that mankind has yet to agree upon as a worthwhile cause, in relation to the evolution of their psychobiotic self.
“Peace”, is really just a collective delaying of the end of the psychobiotic self. It is a theoretical state, in which all individuals accept and agree not to interfere with the evolution of all other individual attempts at mastery of the body, and the symbolic self. It is a group agreement to “Not inflict my own attempts at mastering my body and expanding my symbolic self, if you in turn do not thwart any of my efforts to achieve some sense of symbolic immortality before this biotic self of mine is returned to the earth. I will not interfere with your evolution, if you will not interfere with mine.”
I use the term “evolution”, as a synonym for change or metamorphosis. Any alteration or progression OR deterioration of both the body, and the symbol which man creates for himself. This is inclusive of “faith”, or the belief that your symbolic self will somehow transcend this observation or perception of reality. It will change, or evolve individually through understanding of the world around you, which again is unavoidable. Again, because of the biotic self and the finite nature of biology and how long our animal forms inhabit this existence. Our subtle realization of death, as proven by the likes of Otto Rank, Ernest Becker, and Norman O Brown among others, motivates us in ways which many are not entirely observant of, yet are there even without us consciously or truthfully admitting to or acknowledging clearly.
So the question to me is not the role of individual transformation in manifesting world peace; but can mankind agree upon what the symbol of peace represents and if so, how might this further or progress all mankind’s evolution of the psychobiotic self.
Will agreeing not to interfere with the development of individual attempts at making sense of cultural or personal symbolism, help man evolve or only divert it to another path of symbolic and biological consciousness? In other words, if everyone agrees to help delay the demise of our physical self or biotic self, how will this in itself change how man interprets his own existence and leaves symbols of his immortality?
If we are to remove the constant threat of physical destruction, will we have greater or less understanding of the symbols and psychology behind why we were so animate about destroying others symbols and biological form in the first place?
I suppose first we have to recognize and relate to what our own symbolic self is trying to represent currently. Which is where conflict is often initiated, both individually and world wide on the cultural, artistic, and religious stage. For example, if one were to say that “Deepak Chopra symbolizes the marriage between financial success and theological success”, some would wonder why I say this. Some would agree with me immediately, based on their own symbolic understanding of things. When one sees a man confidently smiling, wearing a pink (which some equate to homosexuality, others to confidence… i.e. the confidence of wearing a traditionally feminine color despite cultural taboo or beliefs) Ralph Lauren Polo shirt, with a golf club over one shoulder; they might think to themselves “Here is a man who has succeeded. He has money, which is represented by the logo on his shirt, known to be expensive. He has confidence, as one can interpret from body posture. But also, he has mastered his physical self. He is playing golf, a game known to be difficult because of the concentration of both mental and physical abilities.” One might think, or perhaps only myself “Here is a man aware of his psychobiotic evolution, and who seems to be mastering both his symbolism and biotic or physical self”.
Others interpretations of that image or symbol may differ based on culture, religion, exposure to your readings. Some just see a man. Some may see your race. Some may assume things based on your wardrobe. The interpretation of your symbol, varies on each individual’s understanding of symbols and what context or placement they have been given during the evolution of that person’s psychobiotic self.
Now with such a varying or “conflicting” interpretation of even one man, think how much larger and more widespread the interpretation of something as grand as “Peace” may be. Especially when you factor in the wide-spectrum understanding of symbolism that will differentiate from country to country, culture to culture, neighborhood to neighborhood, household to household, and person to person. With such a massive variation of understanding, and in many cases unwillingness to understand others, it will make it incredibly difficult to find a universal Symbol of any sort for individuals to agree upon.
Even my own interpretation of “Peace” may change, as I change throughout my own evolution. With constant change and metamorphosis and alteration of self , both symbolic and biological; to anchor oneself to any singular definition of things seems both alluring and impossible at the same time. Universal symbolism, cross cultural understanding, peace consciousness of a critical mass… these are overwhelming, and currently only hypothetical situations to which man is only touching upon in understanding. Both the ramifications of, and how they will directly change or evolve man himself in his individual evolution.
I believe, man must first deconstruct symbolism. We must be aware of what everything represents, before we can hope to ever gain any universal understanding of each other. Only if all symbols equal the same thing, can all of man truly see each other with some degree of truth and ultimate awakening or understanding of each other’s psychobiotic self. Then perhaps, with understanding of each other’s symbols, and the finite timeline we all have biologically to work on our own attempt at symbolizing something truthful and aware, we MIGHT be able to work on constructing a general definition of “Peace”.
And have reason both individually, and collectively, to maintain it for the sake of each other, and the greater definition of what that symbol of PEACE might represent.
- 1 decade ago
There is no such a thing called peace or war without "others" man. What makes us human lies historically and deeply in our social conditions. We should make peace with others first. If we want world peace, it's about the world; and our individual transformation in terms of moral, knowledge and understanding should be directed towards others. If everyone starts to think about others, everyone would be thought by someone else. We didn't bring these troubles with us, we'll not take any of it with us either when we die. All the troubles in the world are related with social knowledge, and all the great things as well. Politicians create war consciousness of a critical mass and people are generally happy with this. If we want everybody is thinking about peace, we need every body; at least we must aim this. Otherwise what is the percentage of "critical mass", and what is the stakes of "being an effective mass" anyway? If we give up concentrating on ourselves as isolated members of human society, we will not get anywhere different than our actual stand-point, neither as individuals nor as societies...
- 1 decade ago
I think the role of an individual transformation in manifesting world peace, is that everyone has to be happy with themselves before peace can ever be achieved. True world peace will never happen because everyone has their own ideas of what world peace is. Plus everyone has their own governments which believe different ways of controlling their countries and different views on what peace really is.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- who WAS #1?Lv 71 decade ago
If critical mass is ever achieved, that would be the answer.
Since that's unlikely, there is another answer. One's peace should not and can not depend on a peaceful environment. When one has individual peace, it does not matter what happens in the world.
What is the world? Do not each of us inhabit a slightly different reality? Is not that "reality" created by, or at least selected/manifested by focusing our attention on it, a-la quantum? "That which a man thinketh, so is he."
When a person lives in peace, even life and death do not matter so much as we think in our unpeaceful state.
When a person has inner peace, not only does the outer world reflect that to a large degree (reflecting the "reality" experienced) but also by then you will have realized that what the world is doesn't really matter, for it is only a temporary illusion.Source(s): www.fhu.com www.kabbalah.info/
- 1 decade ago
Everything is interconnected. Individual transformation therefore is always a factor in the state of the world. However, to what degree my individual partiality to world peace makes a difference in reality is a very hard thing to determine. I believe it greatly depends on my actions but also on circumstances outside my control.
I do believe that if there were enough many people partial to peace who would actively promote it, the world would be a better place. I guess that number must be pretty high, it's hard to tell an exact percentage. If reached, I imagine that the peace consciousness would become a "contagious" attitude and spread to everyone. Now that I said it, this scenario reminds me so much of John Lennon's "Imagine" ... that song is such a powerful incentive for peace, we should all recall it whenever we feel we're stepping away from it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I don't see how this answer is any better or worse than whats on here already, so here goes.
I do believe that inner transformation is important to begin manifesting world peace. I don't think inner transformation, one person changing their beliefs about themselves and the world, will lead to world peace. I have thought about this. My generation and the generation coming seem to be directionless. This lack of purpose is consuming our souls. We strive for money, for things. I look at the world, what was here before money and things and wonder how we could think that's the point to existence. We aren't happy. Its not just individual, its infecting societies unconciousness. The thread we all share. We have to change our ideals, our goals, our opinions, to affect a change in the world. It starts with one person maybe, but it can't be continued by one. I don't know the answer. I can only say what I think and hope others feel the same and have the courage to step forward with me. I feel that a transformation may be difficult, but anything worth having is never easy. I hope that I find the courage in myself to find my path, I hope I don't sound like a psycho.
- 1 decade ago
IF GEORGE BUSH PRACTISED YOGA...
Mass transformation is impossible without individual transformation. And certainly, mass transformation is needed to bring about world peace.
Individual growth and spiritual awareness might have a role to play. But in order to decide if world peace is possible , you need to look at wars and why they happen.
current international politics is laughably ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why the whole world cannot be prosperous through trade and distribution. Africa doesn't need to starve, fundamental Islam does not need to inspire terrorism, and the US does not need to invade the middle east for oil.
Why the hell do we act like this?
human beings haven't really come that far since our tribal days. world leaders are no more sophisticated than school bullies. we get into groups and fight. that's what we've always done.
i've always wondered if war is a natural form of population control. if in a way, it's just as inevitable and natural as the food chain or natural disasters?
but just because war can be in our nature, doesn't mean we can't evolve beyond it. populations wouldn't need to be controlled if people use birth control and there was an average of 2 children per family- 2 parents, 2 children. no population increase, no population decrease.
if the whole human race took a step back we could actually work through our problems fairly simply. why should we have to have a lives ruled by arguments even sillier than those that dominate the playground?
individuals transforming themselves through conciousness expansion, spirituality, etc has its benefits and its dangers.
for example, there are strong religious roles in the current drama between the west and the middle east. this is preposterous, especially as islam, christianity and judaism are more or less the same religion.
individual transformation, on a large scale, is possibly the only thing that will ever bring about lasting world peace. but it would have to be accompanied by a fundamental shift in ideas, and the whole human race just taking a step back, and realising why we act the way we do.
in the end we'll have to realise that happiness just doesn't come through greed and wealth, and one day , once current dramas are over, we'll see george bush and osama bin laden meditating together on the the roof of the white house.
after meditation they'll share a pot of mint tea. and george will say to osama.
'hey binni, i guess we wanted the same thing all along. to just feel content inside , and have enough food for our children.'
'i suppose we do george. since i've re read the koran i've come to think it preaches peace more than anything. and i know allah wouldn't want me to cause you harm , just because you call him by a different name.'
'knew you'd see sense binni. could see you were a good guy all along. how's iraq and iran after the oil deal.'
'they're good george. it's brought new prosperity. the people in the middle east believe a good new time has begun.'
'praise allah, god always wins in the end.'
- 1 decade ago
individual transformation has nothing to do with world peace. World peace comes from everyone working together and helping each other in the world. That will never happen. There are too many factions of different religion and beliefs working against one another rather than in unison. Sure, the desired out come is euphoric peace however, as long as maniacle entities such as some in the middle east and eastern regions of the world and even some in the U.S. wish to hurt good ole mother america, there will be no peace. Peace is derived from factions knowing other factions will fight and die, not to be intimidated or ruled with an iron fist. I realize you are looking for answers from people who think of peace as smelling flowers in a field and drinking malts at the malt shop. The truth be known, peace is not war but war, makes peace.
- RebekahLv 41 decade ago
I believe that people need to transform their individual consciousness, but they also need to be aware of the consciousness of the people around them.
I feel that if we focuss only on our own individual awareness, we can never manifest world peace, because we are not in tune with others and we will only be manifesting a peace for ourselves.
When we are aware of our individual awareness AND we are aware of our connection with those around us, we will be able to build a consciousness that is inside each of us, yet transcends ourselves at the same time.
When people are able to do that, the force of peace will be stronger than the force of chaos that people are currently feeding.
Its not something that is easy or something that people can sit by and let others do for them. It will take time, and will not be a flick of the switch that will suddenly have everything suddenly one way. But since so many people are starting on this path, it will continue to build, as awareness spills over from one person to the next.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen. That's why it is called change.
- 1 decade ago
"What do you think the role of individual transformation is in manifesting world peace? Is peace consciousness of a critical mass of people the answer?"
Not really. No matter how peaceful their surroundings are, Kim Jong-Il (to pick an example) and other dictators will always viciously suppress dissent, with the support of those they give favors to and/or those that have been brainwashed by living under such suppressive states that limit information from the outside world.
Much suffering is caused by "peace activists" demanding that we accede to the demands of such dictators, rather than stand up to them. To extend the example, Kim would cheerfully stomp South Korea out of existence if he thought he could; he believes that he alone should rule Korea. Many "peace activists" claim that our standing up to Kim is the problem, though (and never mind the history).