To what extent can we influence the outcome of war?

ANSWER by Mr P: "War is man’s misnomer for the battle he undertakes with himself. There are two fundamental approaches to conflict: to advance or to retreat – and to retreat is seen as a weakness. However, this is not so – not unless one has a battle with being able to ‘change one’s mind’.

*An advancement of any kind is a projection into the future; a desire to move towards something new – a new territory, a new disposition or a new energetic environment. All is energy, and yet the tangibility of new’ness draws one forward. The questionable reason for an advancement lies within the intention: “is it to defend, or is it to experience the new?”

When man - individually or as an ‘army’ - advances through defence, he will never ‘win the war’. The energetic calculation of +1 into the new is negated by the -1 of defence. Stalemate within ones ranks reached. And if the opponent has other reasons for advancement, namely a desire to create change and effect, then he will surely be the victor as +1 compounds the +1. It is a law of nature.

Now the heart rules the head amongst the finest of men, yet the head calculates his reasons through not the reason of action, but the conquest of soul. For to defend is pertained to saviour, again a misnomer for wisdom.

Defence is an energetic attack upon the other who has thwarted one’s freedom. It is solitary in that it can attract only those who fear to lose – and to fear to lose is to consider oneself right, not ‘open’, consolatory or amenable to resolution. In such an energy there can be no growth, no forward-movement.

The soul of man operates not through the wisdom of choice, but through the necessity for evolution. Believing one’s actions to be of the soul creates confusion as one’s reasons for killing conflict with one’s true belief in evolution; of the emergence of human kindness and compassion. This is how the soul operates.

When contemplating ‘war’ it is wise to consider not the wisdom of one’s thoughts, or the palpitations of the heart, but the choices which lead to beyond the conflict – to what is desired despite the menace of the killing of man. If one works to the destination of conflict, one will reside in the destination of conflict. If however, one sets sight upon the nirvana of inclusion, all manner of options unfold.

The question at the root, and heart, of all conflict – whether of an individual or a continent – is “why do I choose to limit myself in this way?” A question so rich in awareness possibility can only but offer solution. It is however the brave warrior who asks himself his true reasons for his involvement in conflict.

*The possibilities of influence reside in the choices one makes, and there is always more choice – perhaps not considered as an ‘option’, but there nonetheless. In truth, each man is his own warrior, his own decipher of fate, but contrary to common understanding, such a warrior never undertakes ‘defence’. Life exists in action and stillness – the movement which creates wonder. It does not however reside in the removal of another’s life blood for the sake of his own. Such action, one would call, of a selfish nature. It is the choice as to how man navigates his needs which defines the outcome – and as such, every man influences the nature of war".