Vulcans versus Romulans - Jedi or Sith?

So this was a fun exercise but let's take it a bit deeper now. The original intent of this post was to sort of see where people fell on the concept of tight control of emotion versus the embracing and reveling in emotion.

So from this question a second evolves - Should we as a species be striving for conformity and unilateral acceptance of opinion that may well facilitate global peace and harmony - or should we be striving to remain independent and diverse in our opinions which in turn may give rise to conflict and suffering?

As examples I cite the trials of the American Indians. Defeated in a continental war and then forced to give up all cultural heritage, language and tradition in efforts to assimilate them into Colonial conformity. It worked. They no longer have the ability to resist anything imposed by the USA but at the cost of their way of life and identity.

If we are to impose world peace is this the inevitable fate of all cultures or should we instead be striving for our species to embrace it's natural instinctual tendencies as a warrior species and exemplify our differences just as much as our similarities? What this will bring is conflict, of course, but it will also strengthen us as a species as we begin this journey from our homeworld in search of new life that may well want to conquer us.

What are your thoughts?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Should we as a species be striving for conformity and unilateral acceptance of opinion that may well facilitate global peace and harmony - or should we be striving to remain independent and diverse in our opinions which in turn may give rise to conflict and suffering?
[...]
If we are to impose world peace is this the inevitable fate of all cultures or should we instead be striving for our species to embrace it's natural instinctual tendencies as a warrior species and exemplify our differences just as much as our similarities? What this will bring is conflict, of course, but it will also strengthen us as a species as we begin this journey from our homeworld in search of new life that may well want to conquer us.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for the interesting questions Kyrin!
My personal answer is that I don't see the species as needing to make a choice between peace and diversity. I think there needs to be a vision on what we, as humans, share and agree on. The best I know is the Convention on Human Rights; but it's not perfect. A shared vision tends to help sort out the seemingly HUGE complexity of the issues and emotions that we individual human beings bring to conflict situations and often points to a way that people can live together, in my experience. In my view, it's no less a human, natural urge to exemplify our differences as it is to do the same for our similarities; but it all depends on who you see as "clan" and as "outsider". A big part of Jediism, for me, is how many "insiders" there are (EVERYONE in my opinion); and how very much diversity there is in that; and the fact it mostly works, when we don't; get in the way of it. Jediism to me remains dynamic and trans-formative; in spite of (or I would say "because of") it's diversity and peace.

I didn't remove your example out of disrespect it was just I had nothing to say to it directly; but perhaps now I do. That process of accepting a shared vision? That's hard; a lot of messy emotions come out there. And then stopping that vision from being distorted or used to legitimise; or to support a one-sided view? Super hard. I don't have answers for the hard... But I think it's worth the hard. Constant vigilance, to protect the vision, and a determination that violent (or worse, armed) conflict is not the solution to our incompatibilities - that's the way, to begin this journey from our homeworld, in my opinion.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: So this was a fun exercise but let's take it a bit deeper now. The original intent of this post was to sort of see where people fell on the concept of tight control of emotion versus the embracing and reveling in emotion.

So from this question a second evolves - Should we as a species be striving for conformity and unilateral acceptance of opinion that may well facilitate global peace and harmony - or should we be striving to remain independent and diverse in our opinions which in turn may give rise to conflict and suffering?

As examples I cite the trials of the American Indians. Defeated in a continental war and then forced to give up all cultural heritage, language and tradition in efforts to assimilate them into Colonial conformity. It worked. They no longer have the ability to resist anything imposed by the USA but at the cost of their way of life and identity.

If we are to impose world peace is this the inevitable fate of all cultures or should we instead be striving for our species to embrace it's natural instinctual tendencies as a warrior species and exemplify our differences just as much as our similarities? What this will bring is conflict, of course, but it will also strengthen us as a species as we begin this journey from our homeworld in search of new life that may well want to conquer us.



What are your thoughts?

Peace and conflict are part of life. We can strive for peace but will never stamp out conflict. We have no influence/control of "we as a species" we can only strive as an individual.