Fight - struggle to overcome, eliminate, or prevent.

If two parties fight, and one party overwhelms the other party, truth has not been established by virtue of said overwhelming.

If two parties fight, and neither is sucessful, truth has not been established, but both parties’ beliefs are reinforced and they grow vehement against the alternative party and what it represents. Also, resources are lost, in accord with the gravity of the fight.

If two parties fight, and both destroy each other, truth has not been established.

If Party A says X is true and Y is false, and Party B says X is false and Y is true, the integrity of either position has not been established if Party A kills Party B.

If either party is interested is learning and understanding, they ought avoid fighting, for it clouds judgement. If other parties seek to fight, be cautious and conscious of what is happening and choose your steps with the above in consideration.

Fighting can reveal the truth if the question is “Who is stronger?”

Fighting has so far always enabled truths to continue to exist for me. Discernment and the continuous act of existing is the proof of those truths. By fighting I mean exerting my existence, I don’t always have to fight to exist, but I assure you, when I’m not doing it, someone else is doing it for me; friends, family, society, etc. A lot of truths for others has been lost along the way, fortunately those now untrue beings were generally de-truthicized overseas where I can make the pretense that it was all society. Another truth being how well I sleep at night.

That’s a good point, Stuart. Fighting can be used to preserve a truth.

It depends on the context. Can both parties co-exist without damaging each other? Not all parties, all the time, are interested in ‘learning and understanding’ the other as equals, most are interested in own survival.

The strongest is the one who ends the war.



I agree.

However, it’s not even who is stronger generally, but specifically to how the battle is fought.

To win in chess, is no measure of physical strength. To win in an arm wrestle, is no measure in planning and creativity. The same applies to all types of strengths.

Therefore, to conquer another provides less information than strength alone.


I understand that if one is being attacked, to fight off that threat, is a means of protection against said attack. However, this takes nothing away from what I said because I’m speaking of the context of learning and understanding.

To defend an attack, is not a means of learning or understanding, rather of preserving what one already believes and values. The intent is very different, and both intents are not mutually exclusive.


Therefore, fighting isn’t to be discouraged under all circumstances. I clearly stated in the OP, that IF one’s motivation is learning and understanding, fighting undermines/clouds this effort.

I did not say, there’s never justification to fight.


There is indeed a certain strength required to stop war.

The one who chooses to end the war.

…and the most strong is the one who refuses to end the war until justice has won out.

And yet incessant fighting is worthless if objectives or values are unclear, or if those are lost. If grudges are formed irrespective it is no longer a legitimate fought but one which is based mainly on emotional and not reasonable underpinnings.

And yet incessant fighting is worthless if objectives or values are unclear, or if those are lost. If grudges are formed irrespective it is no longer a legitimate fought but one which is based mainly on emotional and not reasonable underpinnings.

True. :mrgreen:

Only within the exact situation provided and in regards to the particular strength involved.

What is the purpose of finding Truth if not to win a fight (of one type or another)?

When people fight their environment, they need Truth of that environment so as to defeat it.
When people fight other people, they need Truth of those people so as to defeat those people.

Thus the environment hides its truth and people hide theirs. Truth becomes both friend and enemy to both parties.
Laws that forbid hiding truth from one party are merely laws to ensure conquering by that party.

Hey Jimmy

:confused: I’d like to be a fly on the wall during one of your sessions.
I think that ILP has greatly jaded you and influenced your thinking. :stuck_out_tongue:

Is the truest intent to win a fight? Poor Truth - knocked out cold before it has a chance.

Every effort is a contention between what is (Truth) and what is preferred (UnTruth), a “fight”.

Of course wisdom is knowing how to only fight battles that are already won. :wink:

{{…and if you had been a fly one the wall… geeez… what a life changer}}

I think Joe’s point is that we find truth first (or we think we do) and then fight over it after, and unfortunately, we seem to be a species that thinks if we can’t convince the other person of our truth, we have to kill him.

Sorry, I placed the reply within Your context literally, whereas it was meant as a separate reply, James.

My main implication was that Truth has a naïve, formal sense, in an absolute context, within which and without exclusive of opinion, one can claim an absolute vindication, or justifycation of it’s intent… It is for that sense, that the struggle to sustain the illusion of peace, rather than the reality of war to be the predominant force, that all fights go down. This illusion is not appearent, to most, and becomes a necessary tactic.

 The intent to fight, and the truth of the object for which it is fought, can become conflated, or may be more, - convoluted.

  The result may be a reactive, albeit unrealized process of fight, where force, object and rationale may not be adequately distinguished.

If people did that, there wouldn’t be any fighting.
Presumption is the seed of all sin.