Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thich Nhat Hanh
Thich Nhat Hanh was born in Central Vietnam in 1926. He became a Buddhist monk in 1942 at the age of sixteen years. In 1950, he co-founded the Quang Buddhist Institute. In 1961, he studied comparative religions at Columbia University and returned to Vietnam in 1963. At that time the Vietnam War was in its beginning prior to the major escalation of the United States involvement following the Gulf of Tonkin incident as discussed earlier. After returning to Vietnam, Hanh joined in an effort to stop the war campaign following the fall of the Diem Regime. He helped encourage and inspire non-violent resistance based upon Gandhian principles.
In 1964, he founded the School of Youth for Social Service and created the La Boi Press that continues to publish books about Buddhism and mindful living. Hanh used his influential position to call for reconciliation between the warring parties. In 1966, he accepted an invitation to return to the United States; he was asked to participate in the Fellowship of Reconciliation and to come to Cornell University. His advocacy of peace through non-violent means was so moving that Martin Luther King Jr. nominated Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967. It was, in large part, due to Hahn’s eloquence and commitment to peace that King came out publicly against the war at a press conference where Hanh was present. Thomas Merton, the well known monk and Catholic theologian, was also one of Hanh’s admirers.
Hanh went on to meet with influential US senators including J. William Fulbright and Ted Kennedy and the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara in order to argue his case. He also met with Pope Paul IV in an effort to bring Catholics and Buddhists together to work towards peace in Vietnam. In 1969, Hanh agreed to set up a Buddhist Peace Delegation at the Paris Peace Talks. After the Peace Accords were finally signed in 1973, Hanh was denied re-entry into Vietnam. Undaunted, he established a peace community in Paris called, “Sweet Potato.” There he remained for five years involved in meditation, writing, reading, etc. He lived a quiet and solitary life there accepting visitors only occasionally.
He went on to establish Plum Village a retreat center near the town of Bordeaux, France. He has made repeated pilgrimages to North America to give lectures on behalf of peace. In the words of the Dalai Lama written in the forward of Hanh’s book entitled, Peace is Every Step – The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life, “Although attempting to bring about peace through the internal transformation of individuals is difficult, it is the only way. Wherever I go, I express this, and I am encouraged that people from many different walks of life receive it well. Peace must first be developed with the individual. And I believe that love, compassion, and altruism are the fundamental basis for peace. Once these qualities are developed within the individual, he or she is then able to create an atmosphere of peace and harmony. This atmosphere can be expanded and extended from the individual to his family, from the family to the community and eventually to the whole world.” The Dalai Lama stated that Hanh offers guidance for such a journey. This journey towards peaceful inner transformation represents, in my judgment, the core of Hanh’s beliefs.
According to Hanh, peace is always present, is always possible to the individual. It is achievable through self awareness attained by a thoughtful practice of mindfulness in our daily lives. He advises being aware of every moment; of understanding our own personal emotions and feelings. For example, according to Hanh, “Anger is rooted in our lack of understanding of ourselves and of the causes, deep-seated as well as immediate, that brought about the unpleasant state of affairs. Anger is also rooted in desire, pride agitation and suspicion.” In essence the source of anger lies within the self rather than in the external object, person or event that is the focus of such an extreme emotion.
Hanh comes from a strong Buddhist tradition. Much of Buddhist practice is centered on being aware of the present moment. His way of teaching, therefore, focuses upon techniques to enhance that awareness. He strongly advocates conscious breathing and mindfulness of every aspect of human activity. An integral part of his psychology is the concept of what he refers to as, “internal formation.” According to his thinking, sensory input may leave “fetters,” or “knots” depending upon the individual’s particular receptivity. These knots can be impediments to successful living, if they are not understood. Hanh believes that self awareness would make one immediately aware of knots as they are being formed.
Hanh sees the reality of the state of human affairs in the following way: “If the Earth were your body, you would be able to feel the many areas where it is suffering. War, political and economic oppression, famine and pollution wreak havoc in so many places. Every day, children are becoming blind from malnutrition, their hands search hopelessly through mounds of trash for a few ounces of food. Adults are dying slowly in prisons for trying to oppose violence. Rivers are dying, and the air is becoming and more difficult to breath.
“Many people are aware of the world’s suffering; their hearts are filled with compassion. They know what needs to be done, and they engage in political, social, and environmental work to try to change things. But after a period of intense involvement, they may become discouraged if they lack the strength needed to sustain a life of action. Real strength is not in power, money, or weapons, but in deep, inner peace.”
This is a central concept in Hanh’s world view. Practicing mindfulness is, to him, the way to cultivate inner peace. Hanh proposes that mindfulness is, “the energy of attention.” It is, “the miracle that allows us to be fully alive in each moment.” In terms of his philosophy, mindfulness represents the foundation for living in the world. In a broader context, mindfulness is defined as one of the five spiritual powers; the others being faith, diligence, concentration and insight.
Experiencing the Vietnam War helped awaken him to the reality that the very roots of war emanate from within – from the way we live our daily lives. Accordingly, the way a society is organized socially, culturally and economically predisposes it to the use of violence to resolve conflict. Resolving conflict nonviolently requires insights into the suffering endured by both sides. To practice nonviolence is to become nonviolent. It is only then that when confronted by a difficult situation, individuals, communities or nations will react nonviolently.
Thich Nhat Hanh has become a very influential voice in regards to peace. He is not an activist, per se, but functions more like a wise and compassionate mentor, helping individuals understand their own internal motivations and providing them with the tools to achieve greater self awareness. Hanh is convinced that this awareness, once achieved, will necessarily lead to peace from within and ultimately a more peaceful world. He has made significant contributions to human affairs especially in regard to forging a better and more peaceful world.
In 1964, he founded the School of Youth for Social Service and created the La Boi Press that continues to publish books about Buddhism and mindful living. Hanh used his influential position to call for reconciliation between the warring parties. In 1966, he accepted an invitation to return to the United States; he was asked to participate in the Fellowship of Reconciliation and to come to Cornell University. His advocacy of peace through non-violent means was so moving that Martin Luther King Jr. nominated Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967. It was, in large part, due to Hahn’s eloquence and commitment to peace that King came out publicly against the war at a press conference where Hanh was present. Thomas Merton, the well known monk and Catholic theologian, was also one of Hanh’s admirers.
Hanh went on to meet with influential US senators including J. William Fulbright and Ted Kennedy and the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara in order to argue his case. He also met with Pope Paul IV in an effort to bring Catholics and Buddhists together to work towards peace in Vietnam. In 1969, Hanh agreed to set up a Buddhist Peace Delegation at the Paris Peace Talks. After the Peace Accords were finally signed in 1973, Hanh was denied re-entry into Vietnam. Undaunted, he established a peace community in Paris called, “Sweet Potato.” There he remained for five years involved in meditation, writing, reading, etc. He lived a quiet and solitary life there accepting visitors only occasionally.
He went on to establish Plum Village a retreat center near the town of Bordeaux, France. He has made repeated pilgrimages to North America to give lectures on behalf of peace. In the words of the Dalai Lama written in the forward of Hanh’s book entitled, Peace is Every Step – The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life, “Although attempting to bring about peace through the internal transformation of individuals is difficult, it is the only way. Wherever I go, I express this, and I am encouraged that people from many different walks of life receive it well. Peace must first be developed with the individual. And I believe that love, compassion, and altruism are the fundamental basis for peace. Once these qualities are developed within the individual, he or she is then able to create an atmosphere of peace and harmony. This atmosphere can be expanded and extended from the individual to his family, from the family to the community and eventually to the whole world.” The Dalai Lama stated that Hanh offers guidance for such a journey. This journey towards peaceful inner transformation represents, in my judgment, the core of Hanh’s beliefs.
According to Hanh, peace is always present, is always possible to the individual. It is achievable through self awareness attained by a thoughtful practice of mindfulness in our daily lives. He advises being aware of every moment; of understanding our own personal emotions and feelings. For example, according to Hanh, “Anger is rooted in our lack of understanding of ourselves and of the causes, deep-seated as well as immediate, that brought about the unpleasant state of affairs. Anger is also rooted in desire, pride agitation and suspicion.” In essence the source of anger lies within the self rather than in the external object, person or event that is the focus of such an extreme emotion.
Hanh comes from a strong Buddhist tradition. Much of Buddhist practice is centered on being aware of the present moment. His way of teaching, therefore, focuses upon techniques to enhance that awareness. He strongly advocates conscious breathing and mindfulness of every aspect of human activity. An integral part of his psychology is the concept of what he refers to as, “internal formation.” According to his thinking, sensory input may leave “fetters,” or “knots” depending upon the individual’s particular receptivity. These knots can be impediments to successful living, if they are not understood. Hanh believes that self awareness would make one immediately aware of knots as they are being formed.
Hanh sees the reality of the state of human affairs in the following way: “If the Earth were your body, you would be able to feel the many areas where it is suffering. War, political and economic oppression, famine and pollution wreak havoc in so many places. Every day, children are becoming blind from malnutrition, their hands search hopelessly through mounds of trash for a few ounces of food. Adults are dying slowly in prisons for trying to oppose violence. Rivers are dying, and the air is becoming and more difficult to breath.
“Many people are aware of the world’s suffering; their hearts are filled with compassion. They know what needs to be done, and they engage in political, social, and environmental work to try to change things. But after a period of intense involvement, they may become discouraged if they lack the strength needed to sustain a life of action. Real strength is not in power, money, or weapons, but in deep, inner peace.”
This is a central concept in Hanh’s world view. Practicing mindfulness is, to him, the way to cultivate inner peace. Hanh proposes that mindfulness is, “the energy of attention.” It is, “the miracle that allows us to be fully alive in each moment.” In terms of his philosophy, mindfulness represents the foundation for living in the world. In a broader context, mindfulness is defined as one of the five spiritual powers; the others being faith, diligence, concentration and insight.
Experiencing the Vietnam War helped awaken him to the reality that the very roots of war emanate from within – from the way we live our daily lives. Accordingly, the way a society is organized socially, culturally and economically predisposes it to the use of violence to resolve conflict. Resolving conflict nonviolently requires insights into the suffering endured by both sides. To practice nonviolence is to become nonviolent. It is only then that when confronted by a difficult situation, individuals, communities or nations will react nonviolently.
Thich Nhat Hanh has become a very influential voice in regards to peace. He is not an activist, per se, but functions more like a wise and compassionate mentor, helping individuals understand their own internal motivations and providing them with the tools to achieve greater self awareness. Hanh is convinced that this awareness, once achieved, will necessarily lead to peace from within and ultimately a more peaceful world. He has made significant contributions to human affairs especially in regard to forging a better and more peaceful world.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ai Weiwei
Ai Weiwei (born 1957) is a Chinese artist, activist, and philosopher, who is also active in architecture, curating, photography, film, and social and cultural criticism. Ai collaborated with Swiss architects Herzog de Meuron as the artistic consultant on the Beijing National Stadium for the 2008 Olympics. Besides showing his art he has been investigating in the corruption and cover-ups under the power of the government.
He was particularly focused at exposing an alleged corruption scandal in the construction of Sichuan schools that collapsed during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. He intensively uses the internet to communicate with people all over China, especially the young generation. (read more)
Monday, March 28, 2011
anonymous
Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is an Internet meme originating 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain. It is also generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known.
In its early form, the concept has been adopted by a decentralized on-line community acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal, and primarily focused on entertainment. Beginning with 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism, undertaking protests and other actions, often with the goal of promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech. Actions credited to "Anonymous" are undertaken by unidentified individuals who apply the Anonymous label to themselves as attribution.
Although not necessarily tied to a single on-line entity, many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan, Futaba, Ebaumsworld their associated wikis, Encyclopædia Dramatica, and a number of forums. After a series of controversial, widely-publicized protests and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by Anonymous in 2008, incidents linked to its cadre members have increased. In consideration of its capabilities, Anonymous has been posited by CNN to be one of the three major successors to WikiLeaks.
(read more)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Walter Haut
1st Lt. Walter Haut (June 2, 1922 - December 15, 2005) was the public information officer (PIO) at the 509th Bomb Group based in Roswell, New Mexico during 1947. Early on July 8, 1947 he was ordered by the base commander, Colonel William Blanchard, to draft a press release to the public, announcing that the United States Army Air Force had recovered a crashed "flying disc" from a nearby ranch.
The press release garnered widespread national and even international media attention. The U.S. Army Air Force retracted the claim later the same day, saying instead that a weather balloon had been recovered. Haut also received some criticism and ridicule in the nation's press for putting out the original press release. The series of events eventually became known as the Roswell UFO Incident.
When interviewed about the incident decades later, he claimed only a minor role, but he expressed his belief that there was "no chance" senior officers who handled the recovered material, including base commander Blanchard, mistook a weather balloon for a flying saucer.
He later claimed greater involvement, including seeing alien corpses and a craft at a base hangar and handling the strange crash debris.
In December 2002, Haut also signed a sealed affidavit in which he went into more details about the craft, debris, bodies, and cover-up. Both the interview and affidavit were not to be released until after his death.
The full text of the affidavit was first published in June 2007 in the book Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the 60 Year Cover-Up. According to the authors, Haut had sworn to his friend Colonel Blanchard not to reveal in his lifetime the events he witnessed and therefore told researchers either that he couldn't remember or that he had only prepared and released the information that was given to him at the time and denied he knew anything else.
In his affidavit, Haut stated that on July 8, 1947, following the press release he put out in the afternoon, he was taken out to a base hangar by Colonel Blanchard. There he saw an egg-shaped craft about 15 feet long and several small bodies about four feet tall with large heads. He was convinced the bodies were alien and had come from a crashed spacecraft.
Haut also stated that there had been two major crash sites that he had become aware of the day before, the first a large debris field about 75 miles northwest of Roswell (the site investigated by Major Marcel), and the second, about 40 miles north of town, where the main craft and bodies were found. The north site had just been found by civilians on July 7, and apparently word had already gotten out about it in the public.
At the staff morning meeting on July 8, which Haut said he attended, key officers at the base were briefed and strange debris was handed around, which nobody could identify. Haut also said there was a discussion as to what the public was to be told. General Ramey had flown in to attend the meeting. Haut said Ramey suggested telling the public about the more distant debris field as a diversion from the more accessible and important body/craft site. He felt Ramey was following orders from The Pentagon. Haut added he was not aware at the time exactly what information was to be divulged. But the press release he put out a few hours later spoke of the more distant site in general terms, saying that the Army Air Force had come into possession of a "flying disc" with cooperation of a local rancher, and it was being flown on to "higher headquarters" after being examined at the base. "Higher headquarters" quickly turned out to be Gen. Ramey in Fort Worth, who within a few hours said the "flying disc" was a misidentified weather balloon.
(read more)
Friday, March 25, 2011
Stanley Kubrick
Stanley Kubrick (July 26, 1928 – March 7, 1999) was an American film director, writer, producer, and photographer who lived in England during most of the last four decades of his career. Kubrick was noted for the scrupulous care with which he chose his subjects, his slow method of working, the variety of genres he worked in, his technical perfectionism, and his reclusiveness about his films and personal life. He maintained almost complete artistic control, making movies according to his own whims and time constraints, but with the rare advantage of big-studio financial support for all his endeavors.
Kubrick's films are characterized by a formal visual style and meticulous attention to detail—his later films often have elements of surrealism and expressionism that eschews structured linear narrative. His films are repeatedly described as slow and methodical, and are often perceived as a reflection of his obsessive and perfectionist nature. A recurring theme in his films is man's inhumanity to man. While often viewed as expressing an ironic pessimism, a few critics feel his films contain a cautious optimism when viewed more carefully.
The film that first brought him attention to many critics was Paths of Glory, the first of three films of his about the dehumanizing effects of war. Many of his films at first got a lukewarm reception, only to be years later acclaimed as masterpieces that had a seminal influence on many later generations of film-makers. Considered especially groundbreaking was 2001: A Space Odyssey noted for being both one of the most scientifically realistic and visually innovative science-fiction films ever made while maintaining an enigmatic non-linear storyline. He voluntarily withdrew his film A Clockwork Orange from England, after it was accused of inspiring copycat crimes which in turn resulted in threats against Kubrick's family. His films were largely successful at the box-office, although Barry Lyndon performed poorly in the United States. Living authors Anthony Burgess and Stephen King were both unhappy with Kubrick's adaptations of their novels A Clockwork Orange and The Shining respectively, and both authors were engaged with subsequent adaptations. All of Kubrick's films from the mid-1950s to his death except for The Shining were nominated for Oscars, Golden Globes, or BAFTAs. Although he was nominated for an Academy Award as a screenwriter and director on several occasions, his only personal win was for the special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Even though all of his films, apart from the first two, were adapted from novels or short stories, his works have been described by Jason Ankeny and others as "original and visionary". Although some critics, notably Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael, frequently disparaged Kubrick's work, Ankeny describes Kubrick as one of the most "universally acclaimed and influential directors of the postwar era" with a "standing unique among the filmmakers of his day."
Shall I go to a Japanese Restaurant?
Singapore has reported finding low levels of radioactivity in four vegetable samples imported from Japan.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Violence Against Libya
Following the horrific destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 that led to thousands of deaths, a war was authorized against the government and people of Afghanistan in retaliation for this attack. This war was begun with use of staggering air power against which the enemy had no possible defense. Of course, the claim was made that only the perpetrators of this act were being targeted. The First Gulf War began with a blistering and relentless attack from the air on the sovereignty of Iraq including its capital city of Baghdad. In the beginning of the Second Gulf War this assault was referred to “Shock and Awe” by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, with a barely contained sense of pride and arrogance. During that conflict, President George W. Bush rationalized this violent incursion upon the premise of preventing the use of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by Saddam Hussein with the use of WMD of our own making.
Now we have an air assault on the country of Libya. President Obama authorized this attack ostensibly to curtail the assault led by Col. Muammar Gaddafi on those within his own country who seek his ouster. Here we go again around a very familiar wheel. Let us assume, for arguments sake, that the ostensible reasons for this warlike behavior are true. These sophisticated weapons are incredible devices, the products of an advanced technology, constructed for one purpose – destruction. Cruise missiles and bombs have no moral imperative, exhibit no remorse, and demonstrate no reluctance; they merely follow the laws of physics and carry out, meticulously, their programmed instructions. If they should collide with a bus filled with school children, or a school, or a train filled with passengers, or a wedding party, or a market place filled with shoppers and deliver their deadly munitions, so be it. Fighter pilots, likewise have been trained to follow their precise orders. Those who have shown any reluctance have, of course, been culled from the ranks. Should their ordinance go astray and incinerate innocent people, this is not construed as killing, but simply as regrettable mistakes. In military parlance, such outcomes are referred to as collateral damage.
The questions I pose are simple ones – why do we allow ourselves to accept this violence as appropriate; why is any collateral damage acceptable? Furthermore, why is the death of a soldier in the field, obeying his own commander’s instructions, from devices that he has no defense against and from an enemy he cannot see, acceptable? These horrendous acts are deemed acceptable; because the stated goal seems to conform to what we believe is right and moral. It is, in essence, a defense of morality using methods employing acts of deadly force. War has become permissible, for we have become a warlike people. We cherish and pay homage to our arsenal of weaponry; we spend a lion-share of our national resources on the military while our people suffer from neglect and from unnecessary hardships. Our history is replete with the use of violence to resolve conflict, to oppress an entire people within our own borders, to decimate the native population to propel our own material interests, to control the destinies of other nations by forceful means. It is what we have become.
This reality exists; because, we permit it. This is our history; because, we implicitly accept this definition of our country and, more importantly, ourselves. If the idea of violence as a viable method to resolve conflict is to be uprooted, we need to change the paradigm.
Now we have an air assault on the country of Libya. President Obama authorized this attack ostensibly to curtail the assault led by Col. Muammar Gaddafi on those within his own country who seek his ouster. Here we go again around a very familiar wheel. Let us assume, for arguments sake, that the ostensible reasons for this warlike behavior are true. These sophisticated weapons are incredible devices, the products of an advanced technology, constructed for one purpose – destruction. Cruise missiles and bombs have no moral imperative, exhibit no remorse, and demonstrate no reluctance; they merely follow the laws of physics and carry out, meticulously, their programmed instructions. If they should collide with a bus filled with school children, or a school, or a train filled with passengers, or a wedding party, or a market place filled with shoppers and deliver their deadly munitions, so be it. Fighter pilots, likewise have been trained to follow their precise orders. Those who have shown any reluctance have, of course, been culled from the ranks. Should their ordinance go astray and incinerate innocent people, this is not construed as killing, but simply as regrettable mistakes. In military parlance, such outcomes are referred to as collateral damage.
The questions I pose are simple ones – why do we allow ourselves to accept this violence as appropriate; why is any collateral damage acceptable? Furthermore, why is the death of a soldier in the field, obeying his own commander’s instructions, from devices that he has no defense against and from an enemy he cannot see, acceptable? These horrendous acts are deemed acceptable; because the stated goal seems to conform to what we believe is right and moral. It is, in essence, a defense of morality using methods employing acts of deadly force. War has become permissible, for we have become a warlike people. We cherish and pay homage to our arsenal of weaponry; we spend a lion-share of our national resources on the military while our people suffer from neglect and from unnecessary hardships. Our history is replete with the use of violence to resolve conflict, to oppress an entire people within our own borders, to decimate the native population to propel our own material interests, to control the destinies of other nations by forceful means. It is what we have become.
This reality exists; because, we permit it. This is our history; because, we implicitly accept this definition of our country and, more importantly, ourselves. If the idea of violence as a viable method to resolve conflict is to be uprooted, we need to change the paradigm.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Johan Galtung and the Study of Peace
Johan Galtung was born on October 24, 1930 in Oslo, Norway. He is a Norwegian mathematician and sociologist and a principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. He earned his degree in Mathematics at the University of Oslo in 1956, and a Master of Arts Degree in Sociology a year later at the same university. In addition, Galtung received the first of seven honorary doctorates in 1975.
Both of his parents are from Norway and his father and paternal grandfather were physicians. His mother’s maiden name was Helga Homboe. Galtung has been married twice, and has two children by his first wife Ingrid Eide, and two by his second wife Fumiko Nishimura.
Galtung lived through the German occupation of Norway during World War II as a young and impressionable boy. When he was only twelve years old, he was present when the Nazi’s arrested his father. His direct experience with the horrors associated with war, convinced him to devote his professional energies to the cause of peace. As a matter of fact, in 1951 he chose to do 18 months of social service instead of the mandatory military service. After twelve months of such service, he insisted that the remainder of his obligation be spent working directly for peace. He was sent to prison, and spent the remaining six months in confinement.
Upon receiving his Master of Arts degree, Galtung moved to Columbia University, in New York City, where he was an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology. Determined to work for peace, he returned to Oslo in 1959 where he founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Under his guidance as the Institute’s Director, it grew into an independent research institute and became eligible for government funding. In addition, the Journal of Peace Research was established as a result of his efforts.
Once the institute was well under way, he accepted a position as professor of peace and conflict research at the University of Oslo. He then served as the director general of the International University Centre in Dubrovnik, and also was the president of the World Future Studies Federation. He subsequently was invited to other universities located in such diverse places as Santiago, Chile, the United Nations University in Geneva, Columbia and Princeton universities in the United States and the University of Hawaii. In 1993, he co-founded "Transcend - A Peace, Development and Environment Network," an organization dedicated to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. This organization was created for the purpose of directly applying the principles he developed; some of which will be described below.
Galtung has persisted over the years in his pursuit of understanding the nature of human conflict and ways to peace. He learned to apply his academic knowledge in the fields of mathematics and sociology to this pursuit. He has become a renowned theoretician in regards to conflict resolution through peaceful means. He has attempted to deconstruct the origins of human conflict and conflict resolution in order to devise painstaking and orderly techniques to meet the challenges that methodologies focused on peace invariably face.
Galtung has applied logical analysis to formulate pathways to achieve peaceful non-violent solutions to conflict. He has developed a series of paradigms to describe the process. He compares the path to peace to the path taken in medicine to understand the disease process and regain health. He refers to this as a process involving three stages – diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. He likens disease to violence, and proposes that creating peace involves two possible approaches – reducing violence regarded as a cure and avoiding violence regarded as prevention. Within this model, violence can be regarded as:
• Direct Violence
• Structural Violence – indirect, emanating from social structures such racism or sexism
• Cultural Violence – represented by repression and exploitation.
The motivating force behind such violence is, of course, power. Power can take many forms – cultural, economic, military and political. Peace policies can, likewise, take different routes. These dimensions echo the kinds of power enumerated – political, military, economic and cultural. Galtung also makes distinctions between what he refers to as Negative Peace versus Positive Peace. For example, negative peace in the economic realm would involve self-reliance, the use of local resources, etc.; whereas, positive peace would involve sharing externalities, horizontal exchange and South-South cooperation. Positive peace would be more inclusive and extend beyond the borders of local communities or state and would be global in dimension.
According to this approach, in order to successfully develop paths to peace it is important to understand what sustains war and what prompts people to kill. It is evident from recent human history that the political system of a country does not prevent it from using violence towards other sovereignties. For example, democratic countries have not inhibited their governments from being involved in slavery, colonialism and other belligerent activities. According to Galtung, an answer might be to, “democratize the inter-state system.” This would also apply to the arena of human rights.
Galtung is convinced that many of the factors that uphold war encompass patriarchy – rule by the male gender. In his view, males have a propensity towards violence to a much greater degree than females. To counter this tendency is exceedingly difficult since it has strong cultural dimensions as well as biological factors. He suggests that, “The struggle against the tendency of states to seek recourse to military power goes by way of alternatives that are more compelling.”
As to the issue of why people kill, he maintains that culture is a potent legitimizer of violence, but also has the potential to support the concept of peace rather than war. Religions or ideologies can either be the purveyors of violence or peace. Galtung delineates what he refers to as, “hard and soft” aspects of ideologies. The hard variety would tend to be more abstract and aloof from human experience; it would tend to invoke the concept of a chosen people. According to Galtung, this idea is particularly dangerous and essentially inimical to peace. The softer variety is more cognizant of the plight of humanity and more closely connected to the tangible nature of human existence and, therefore, more empathic. The major religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – are not monolithic in this regard, but have mixtures of both. Galtung is strongly convinced that we are all carriers of peace strategies.
In his pursuit of the study of peace, Galtung has come up with two overlapping definitions of peace:
• Peace is the absence and/or reduction of violence of all kinds
• Peace is the by its nature nonviolent and the result of “creative conflict transformation.”
The first definition is oriented towards violence; whereas, the second is directed towards conflict. From this starting point, peace work is involved in reducing violence through peaceful means, and peace studies delineate the conditions required for peace work. In addition, these definitions relate to social conditions; the study of peace is, therefore, a social science. It is apparent that Galtung used his professional grounding in mathematics and sociology to construct his approach towards the study of peace.
According to his paradigm, the study of peace involves three tiers – Data, Theories, Values. Data is collected from what is known and what can be measured. It is this data that are used to formulate theory. Values determine what is desired and what is rejected. The inclusion of values sets peace studies apart from other social sciences, for peace always is the desired outcome.
In regards to the diagnosis, prognosis and therapy approach to wellness as described earlier, the goal of intervention is to achieve a range of possible outcomes that can be exemplified by the following:
• Best outcome – cured but also left with a health benefit and therefore can lead to a very favorable prognosis
• Second Best - symptom free but not necessarily protected from recurrence
• Third Best – chronic, long-lasting but acceptable illness
• Fourth Best – Unacceptable illness but alive.
There are obvious limitations in applying this approach to implementing peace, but according to Galtung it can be used as a reliable model in the study of peace in the following way:
• Diagnosis – refers to states of violence
• Prognosis – refers to the progression of violence through time i.e. increase, decrease or stays the same
• Therapy – equivalent to peace work.
Within this model, violence can be categorized in the following ways:
• Nature violence- originating in nature
• Direct violence – perpetrated by human beings either individually or within the broader context of society
• Structural violence – indirect violence built into social structures and essentially unintended
• Cultural violence – legitimizes structural violence
• Time violence – violence having negative impact of future generations.
In addition, therapy can take two distinct forms – violence reduction or negative peace and life enhancement or positive peace. Although this kind of study of peace may seem cumbersome and appear to be merely an academic exercise, it affords a reliable and predictable approach to the overall understanding of human conflict and its resolution through peaceful means.
Galtung used his approach to analyze the methodologies of Mahatma Gandhi who he described as, “the leading theoretician and practitioner of nonviolence. He also described him as a puritan in his approaches to conflict resolution. According to Gandhi, nonviolence is a struggle against both direct and structural violence and, by its nature, avoids such violence in the struggle itself. Gandhi relied on satyagraha – a term that can be defined as truth force – and, accordingly, there is no way to peace; rather, peace is the way.
Furthermore, Galtung determined that Gandhi’s process involves disintegration so that non-cooperation becomes essential; integration or all-inclusiveness so that there are no boundaries such as gender, race, class etc.; compromise for the purpose of affecting a remedy over a shorter period of time; transcendence so that what previously seemed incompatible becomes viewed as compatible. Gandhi was also an optimist who saw the potential of the ultimate integration of all of humankind into the fabric of peace.
In Galtung’s mind, the search for peace is a road to transcendence where the usual path of social disintegration – Conflict, Polarization and ultimately Violence and War – can be upended by preventive therapy. The goal would be to transform violent culture to peace culture and violent structure to peace structure. The peace narrative involves the transformation to peace through depolarization of attitudes, culture and ultimately behavior. Johan Galtung has taken a theoretical approach to achieving peace and social justice and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the roots of conflict and pathways to viable peace and social justice.
Both of his parents are from Norway and his father and paternal grandfather were physicians. His mother’s maiden name was Helga Homboe. Galtung has been married twice, and has two children by his first wife Ingrid Eide, and two by his second wife Fumiko Nishimura.
Galtung lived through the German occupation of Norway during World War II as a young and impressionable boy. When he was only twelve years old, he was present when the Nazi’s arrested his father. His direct experience with the horrors associated with war, convinced him to devote his professional energies to the cause of peace. As a matter of fact, in 1951 he chose to do 18 months of social service instead of the mandatory military service. After twelve months of such service, he insisted that the remainder of his obligation be spent working directly for peace. He was sent to prison, and spent the remaining six months in confinement.
Upon receiving his Master of Arts degree, Galtung moved to Columbia University, in New York City, where he was an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology. Determined to work for peace, he returned to Oslo in 1959 where he founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Under his guidance as the Institute’s Director, it grew into an independent research institute and became eligible for government funding. In addition, the Journal of Peace Research was established as a result of his efforts.
Once the institute was well under way, he accepted a position as professor of peace and conflict research at the University of Oslo. He then served as the director general of the International University Centre in Dubrovnik, and also was the president of the World Future Studies Federation. He subsequently was invited to other universities located in such diverse places as Santiago, Chile, the United Nations University in Geneva, Columbia and Princeton universities in the United States and the University of Hawaii. In 1993, he co-founded "Transcend - A Peace, Development and Environment Network," an organization dedicated to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. This organization was created for the purpose of directly applying the principles he developed; some of which will be described below.
Galtung has persisted over the years in his pursuit of understanding the nature of human conflict and ways to peace. He learned to apply his academic knowledge in the fields of mathematics and sociology to this pursuit. He has become a renowned theoretician in regards to conflict resolution through peaceful means. He has attempted to deconstruct the origins of human conflict and conflict resolution in order to devise painstaking and orderly techniques to meet the challenges that methodologies focused on peace invariably face.
Galtung has applied logical analysis to formulate pathways to achieve peaceful non-violent solutions to conflict. He has developed a series of paradigms to describe the process. He compares the path to peace to the path taken in medicine to understand the disease process and regain health. He refers to this as a process involving three stages – diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. He likens disease to violence, and proposes that creating peace involves two possible approaches – reducing violence regarded as a cure and avoiding violence regarded as prevention. Within this model, violence can be regarded as:
• Direct Violence
• Structural Violence – indirect, emanating from social structures such racism or sexism
• Cultural Violence – represented by repression and exploitation.
The motivating force behind such violence is, of course, power. Power can take many forms – cultural, economic, military and political. Peace policies can, likewise, take different routes. These dimensions echo the kinds of power enumerated – political, military, economic and cultural. Galtung also makes distinctions between what he refers to as Negative Peace versus Positive Peace. For example, negative peace in the economic realm would involve self-reliance, the use of local resources, etc.; whereas, positive peace would involve sharing externalities, horizontal exchange and South-South cooperation. Positive peace would be more inclusive and extend beyond the borders of local communities or state and would be global in dimension.
According to this approach, in order to successfully develop paths to peace it is important to understand what sustains war and what prompts people to kill. It is evident from recent human history that the political system of a country does not prevent it from using violence towards other sovereignties. For example, democratic countries have not inhibited their governments from being involved in slavery, colonialism and other belligerent activities. According to Galtung, an answer might be to, “democratize the inter-state system.” This would also apply to the arena of human rights.
Galtung is convinced that many of the factors that uphold war encompass patriarchy – rule by the male gender. In his view, males have a propensity towards violence to a much greater degree than females. To counter this tendency is exceedingly difficult since it has strong cultural dimensions as well as biological factors. He suggests that, “The struggle against the tendency of states to seek recourse to military power goes by way of alternatives that are more compelling.”
As to the issue of why people kill, he maintains that culture is a potent legitimizer of violence, but also has the potential to support the concept of peace rather than war. Religions or ideologies can either be the purveyors of violence or peace. Galtung delineates what he refers to as, “hard and soft” aspects of ideologies. The hard variety would tend to be more abstract and aloof from human experience; it would tend to invoke the concept of a chosen people. According to Galtung, this idea is particularly dangerous and essentially inimical to peace. The softer variety is more cognizant of the plight of humanity and more closely connected to the tangible nature of human existence and, therefore, more empathic. The major religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – are not monolithic in this regard, but have mixtures of both. Galtung is strongly convinced that we are all carriers of peace strategies.
In his pursuit of the study of peace, Galtung has come up with two overlapping definitions of peace:
• Peace is the absence and/or reduction of violence of all kinds
• Peace is the by its nature nonviolent and the result of “creative conflict transformation.”
The first definition is oriented towards violence; whereas, the second is directed towards conflict. From this starting point, peace work is involved in reducing violence through peaceful means, and peace studies delineate the conditions required for peace work. In addition, these definitions relate to social conditions; the study of peace is, therefore, a social science. It is apparent that Galtung used his professional grounding in mathematics and sociology to construct his approach towards the study of peace.
According to his paradigm, the study of peace involves three tiers – Data, Theories, Values. Data is collected from what is known and what can be measured. It is this data that are used to formulate theory. Values determine what is desired and what is rejected. The inclusion of values sets peace studies apart from other social sciences, for peace always is the desired outcome.
In regards to the diagnosis, prognosis and therapy approach to wellness as described earlier, the goal of intervention is to achieve a range of possible outcomes that can be exemplified by the following:
• Best outcome – cured but also left with a health benefit and therefore can lead to a very favorable prognosis
• Second Best - symptom free but not necessarily protected from recurrence
• Third Best – chronic, long-lasting but acceptable illness
• Fourth Best – Unacceptable illness but alive.
There are obvious limitations in applying this approach to implementing peace, but according to Galtung it can be used as a reliable model in the study of peace in the following way:
• Diagnosis – refers to states of violence
• Prognosis – refers to the progression of violence through time i.e. increase, decrease or stays the same
• Therapy – equivalent to peace work.
Within this model, violence can be categorized in the following ways:
• Nature violence- originating in nature
• Direct violence – perpetrated by human beings either individually or within the broader context of society
• Structural violence – indirect violence built into social structures and essentially unintended
• Cultural violence – legitimizes structural violence
• Time violence – violence having negative impact of future generations.
In addition, therapy can take two distinct forms – violence reduction or negative peace and life enhancement or positive peace. Although this kind of study of peace may seem cumbersome and appear to be merely an academic exercise, it affords a reliable and predictable approach to the overall understanding of human conflict and its resolution through peaceful means.
Galtung used his approach to analyze the methodologies of Mahatma Gandhi who he described as, “the leading theoretician and practitioner of nonviolence. He also described him as a puritan in his approaches to conflict resolution. According to Gandhi, nonviolence is a struggle against both direct and structural violence and, by its nature, avoids such violence in the struggle itself. Gandhi relied on satyagraha – a term that can be defined as truth force – and, accordingly, there is no way to peace; rather, peace is the way.
Furthermore, Galtung determined that Gandhi’s process involves disintegration so that non-cooperation becomes essential; integration or all-inclusiveness so that there are no boundaries such as gender, race, class etc.; compromise for the purpose of affecting a remedy over a shorter period of time; transcendence so that what previously seemed incompatible becomes viewed as compatible. Gandhi was also an optimist who saw the potential of the ultimate integration of all of humankind into the fabric of peace.
In Galtung’s mind, the search for peace is a road to transcendence where the usual path of social disintegration – Conflict, Polarization and ultimately Violence and War – can be upended by preventive therapy. The goal would be to transform violent culture to peace culture and violent structure to peace structure. The peace narrative involves the transformation to peace through depolarization of attitudes, culture and ultimately behavior. Johan Galtung has taken a theoretical approach to achieving peace and social justice and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the roots of conflict and pathways to viable peace and social justice.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
World Water Day
World Water Day has been observed on March 22 since 1993 when the United Nations General Assembly declared March 22 as World Day for Water.
This day was first formally proposed in Agenda 21 of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Observance began in 1993 and has grown significantly ever since; for the general public to show support, it is encouraged for the public to not use their taps throughout the whole day, the day has become a popular Facebook trend.
In addition to the UN member states, a number of NGOs promoting clean water and sustainable aquatic habitats have used World Day for Water as a time to focus public attention on the critical water issues of our era. Participating agencies and NGOs have highlighted issues such as a billion people being without access to safe water for drinking and the role of gender in family access to safe water.
(read more)
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
This fact file highlights the health consequences of water scarcity, its impact on daily life and how it could impede international development. It urges everyone to be part of efforts to conserve and protect the resource. (WHO water facts)
Japan’s Nuclear Crisis Causes Run on Radiation Detectors
from today's NYT (Nuclear Crisis Causes Run on Radiation Detectors) ... interesting ... back in the day I remember that someone at The Farm was selling kits, it is a tricky issue, 'a little learning is a dang'rous thing' like the man says, but there seem to be a lot of people (like myself) who do not trust the powers that be to speak truth so it makes sense to equip yourself with the means of detecting what is going on around you
Monday, March 21, 2011
In Theory
I am led to believe that each human individual has many Spirit Guides and/or Soul Mates.
These are energies associated with one's own energy and life force that
sometimes exist on the same plane
(like two humans who fall in love and spend their lives' together)
and sometimes exist on alternate planes of reality
(like my what people often refer to as his/her "Guardian Angel")
and are always interconnected because they are somehow involved in one anothers' lives, most often to help one another through their relative states of being.
All of this sounds so technical.
the moral of the story,or what I believe, essentially
is that existance is composed of many different beings experiencing many different corresponding but different journeys at approximately the same relative time,
and that those existances tend to overlap and intertwine with one another...
and so it can only be assumed that that interference is felt on many different levels and only when that connection is cherished will existance become intentional and positive, on the whole.
Thesis: neccesity and positives of obtaining a "the whole" soon to come.
These are energies associated with one's own energy and life force that
sometimes exist on the same plane
(like two humans who fall in love and spend their lives' together)
and sometimes exist on alternate planes of reality
(like my what people often refer to as his/her "Guardian Angel")
and are always interconnected because they are somehow involved in one anothers' lives, most often to help one another through their relative states of being.
All of this sounds so technical.
the moral of the story,or what I believe, essentially
is that existance is composed of many different beings experiencing many different corresponding but different journeys at approximately the same relative time,
and that those existances tend to overlap and intertwine with one another...
and so it can only be assumed that that interference is felt on many different levels and only when that connection is cherished will existance become intentional and positive, on the whole.
Thesis: neccesity and positives of obtaining a "the whole" soon to come.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
