Certainly the ground one stands on and for is often and most usually confusing. certain things support what we personally see as negative or positive. the very nature of this existence as Susan points out so well is that it is not static, it is a state of experience. There is no need for overt guilt in supporting one thing or the next if one is actively attempting to achieve balance and the enlightenment of truth in ones life.

my use of the term “exist” is in the moment, the now, and for me personally that includes the future and the past. often one will need to read what i write with the eye of the poet as Jason often points out, as words have many meanings in a given situation and i will tend to use what is often the most obscure and in fact may be a personal reality of my own which one must explore more deeply if they are interested in what is being presented. as my*partner points out to me very often, my commutation skills are not of this world and so it can be a struggle to accept*me, which ironically is exactly the case for me* when dealing with much of the way man tends to act and think ;)

i highly recommend that one takes Susan's advice on being at peace, for one is all*ways shifting their ground, yet the line is there, so spend as much time on the side of peace as you can stand, and we will all eventually find each other at peace.

“But most of all, be at peace, and you will radiate peace. "The times, they are a-changin'!"

BL*M

"There is no middle ground to this reality, one exists on either one side or the other, and crosses the line by choice."

I don't know how to interpret this, other than Rainbow is saying that every conscious decision we make is a clear choice for either violence or peace. To me, it's painfully obvious that many of the decisions we make in our day-to-day lives have far-reaching implications that can't be known at the time of the action. And some choices often have the consequences that are the opposite of what was intended.

Everyone can't buy from Citgo. Are those who buy from other vendors choosing a culture of violence? The vast majority of Americans are not war tax protestors. Are they consciously, willfully choosing a culture of violence because their tax dollars fund are funding war in the Middle East? Maybe this is what Rainbow meant. If so, then what he's saying is that the vast majority is consciously choosing the culture of violence.

In short, I think there is a vast amount of middle ground. There is a rainbow of shades of grey between the black of violence and and white of peace. There are whole continents of middle ground where thoughtful people struggle with the consequences of their decisions.

This is a very interesting thread because I agree with both of you. Artie, I don't think we "exist" in any static state, and I regret that Bruce used that word. I think that even when you pay your taxes or buy gasoline, you can be moving toward a culture of peace.

From your prior posts, I believe you are a peace-loving person. Do you feel guilty when you pay your taxes? I don't want to rehash a discussion we've already had on this website, but I would remind you that there is an active tax resistance movement out there, and barring that, there is a Peace Tax bill you can support by writing letters and lobbying. Do you feel guilty about buying gasoline from war profiteers? Then make it a point to buy Citgo, who gets fuel from Venezuela, or from one of the independent stations, minimize your fuel consumption as much as possible within our current unsustainable infrastructure, and take a vow that the next vehicle you purchase will burn biofuel.

But most of all, be at peace, and you will radiate peace. "The times, they are a-changin'!"

Editor, propeace.net

...drive my car?
...pay my income taxes?

When I pay federal income tax, have I chosen to live in a "culture of violence" or a "culture of peace?"

When I buy gasoline that comes from the war-torn Middle East, have I made a conscious decision to exist in a culture of peace or a culture of violence?

one who lives in fear, always looks to place them self in the middle ground, that does not make it a reality, and being either "for or against" is a very simple way to place a group into the middle ground they so desire to create, building and profiting from violence does not allow one the true comfort to sleep at night with dreams and hope for peace, just as the term "all consuming" is not complete, as violence can not consume all of peace, and peace will nuture all violence, the similarity is only in the illision of the middle ground which those who desire both peace and violence wish to maintain and create.

BL*M

"There is no middle ground to this reality, one exists on either one side or the other, and crosses the line by choice."

This is remarkably similar to George Bush's cliche "you're either for us or against us."

You might want to consider that there is some ground, middle or otherwise that is neither completely violent or peaceful. Or put another way, no good deed goes unpunished.