War/ Conflict & Purpose/ Meaning

When there is a war there is plenty of work to do and plenty of purpose.

Opportunities abound to define oneself and be a good person. To be valiant, heroic and brave.

Industry and enterprise also have an injection of purpose - be it to develop weapons or medicines.

War is a great thing for humans because it gives us a direction and a purpose. Winning a war is a goal which is unquestionable and provides us with every inspiration for activity and meaning in our lives.

If we are British we can think of all the great achievements of great men during the Second World War from Montgomery to Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bombs. We can get very patriotic and inspired by such heroes. If we are not British we can think of our own home grown heroes.

But before we get too carried away there is an obvious problem. When two countries go to war against each other are not both nations equally motivated toward equally heroic deeds with the vision of victory equally in their sights?

Like two football teams. Both teams are equally striving for victory and both teams have the same opportunities for purpose, meaning and heroism.

Of course the symmetry breaks down eventually because there will be a winner and loser.

That break down of symmetry is critical to the subsequent understanding of the conflict. The moves of the winning team are understood in hindsight as being constructive of that winning, and the moves of the losing team likewise but opposite.

Of course this is a lie! because at the time neither team knew who was going to win and both were struggling into the void of history seeking that same goal, with the same ferver. The actions of the actors in a struggle are never done with the benefit of foresight, they must be understood in the right context as components of a future which is unknown to them.

I say all that because it undermines the complacent after-the-event view we have of events in conflicts - especially wars -, and it more realistically levels the playing field of the antagonists who are far more intimate and related than in the polarised after-the-event analysis where one is the winner and the other cast into the pit as the loser. They are actually quite equal during the event, before the decisive polarisation of the end of conflict.

During a conflict each team represents the obstacle for the other. And, as each team struggles to overwhelm the obstacle posed by its opponent it only increases the obstacle it poses to that opponent. Until some weakness is found both team simply creates meaning and purpose for the other.

Viewed in such a stripped down way however this reveals a certain vacuity to such purpose and meaning.

If my goal is to destroy or overwhelm you, and yours is vice versa and we find purpose and meaning in our lives through this goal aren't we really just creating goals from a mis-understanding?

You are a fearsome opponent, but if I try to see through you I find that the huge challenge you seem to present me is only there because you see me as an opponent. And, if I stand tall to challenge you then I seem like a fearsome opponent, and if you try to see through me you find that I am only such because I see you as such.

The meaning and purpose that seems to arise through conflict is actually only apparent and depends upon how we ourselves behave. An opponent is just like a mirror and the taller we stand the taller our opponent will seem to stand.

All conflicts are based on illusion then, and the try way to diffuse a conflict is actually to stand small in the face of opposition.

Interestingly almost every religious leader teaches exactly this. Jesus most famously stood very small in the face of an horrific opponent - his crucifixion.

If there is real meaning and purpose in life then it must extend beyond the apparent meaning and purpose that we find in having opponents - either in games or in wars. And by extension in winning and being the best in comparison with others.

And in business there is a good deal of competition. If there is real meaning in business that too much extend beyond the competative elements of the market. Afterall if we only define ourselves in terms of our successes over competitors how vapid is that! and what would we do when we are the best!

I feel this discussion turns down either of two paths now... either 1) toward the life which is self defined - i.e. where we live not in relation to others but in the meaning of things as they present themselves directly to us - we are not best in relation to others, but in relation to our own conscience and sense of perfection , or 2) toward the understanding of all goals and purpose as being illusory... to be continued