Like with sex, most get very shy when it comes to war. “I didn’t want it”, “you made me do it”, “it’s your fault”, “look what you did to me”…
What’s wrong with letting those who’d want to fight, have a good fight? By the time they’d arrive to the battlefield on their own determination, their appetite to fight would be satisfied, and they would shake hands and go back home, and not even think about fighting each other again. Only if they felt forced to fight or inhibited from fighting would they keep it on.
They’d feel forced and inhibited as long as they’d think the other is responsible for it. That’s the problem, “it’s your fault”. To not take responsibility for the other can be bad, but to not do it for your own appetites is even worse.
Aside from those who fight, there are those who taunt. Those are the guys who tell each side “the other is responsible for it”. They are the ones who incite fighting and keep it going. In society they are mostly called ‘the press’ (not all the press). But anyone could play that role.
And beyond taunting and fighting there is something far more irresponsible and destructive, and that is suppression. It is “I wish I could fight, but I can’t”. A guy who is scared is more on the suppressed side. He will deny wanting to fight and he will want the others deny it as well, while he will be putting the desire to fight there, in the first place. Another instance of suppression is the false ally/friend who will shake hands and try to destroy you without your being aware of it. And he will most likely taunt you to fight against something else, at some point to get you ruined. He will make others wrong so you will hate them. He will say he likes you but your brains are malfunctioning, to make you doubt yourself for your own good. And he will never help resolve the problem he creates, despite what he claims; but only in a direction of furtherly doubting and suppressing yourself.
And of course there can be many more things that are not related to fighting, and they can be as exciting and more, and not eventually lay chains upon it’s participants. But to incite fighting and then stop people from having it, or making others who don’t want it to have it, is something that obscures those better things from view.
That cycle of inciting fighting, and then inhibiting it gives the impression that independence is wrong and that it brings about division. That is not so.
Truly independent ones -not only independent to fight or incite fighting- can allow independence for others, as they can tolerate it. They can tolerate their own independence and they can tolerate the other’s as well. And what do you know, they could thus co-operate as well.
And up there on top, a couple could be so trusting in each other, and so supportive that they could allow each other to control each other. Of course, there you would also have tremendous love, understanding, responsibility from both sides present. In their complete independence they would feel like one, and they wouldn’t need to try to dominate nor escape from the other’s domination. One’s control would be another’s control, and no opposition would be needed. They would feel like one being two persons at once.
But you see the example above couldn’t get imposed, as that would be an enforcement, suppression. It could only be done by allowing for oneself as well as for the other to be free. As regardless of their own distinct, individual perspectives, very deep down they are both made of the same stuff –infinity. And infinity is not a person, but can be many. And your infinity is my own too. And to allow that in you is to allow that in me too. And to agree over this, and support it, and understand it, and trust it is different than to agree over the opposition-related junk one might have accumulated through past experiences. Them appear to be unifying as well, but always towards a destructive end for infinity, for freedom, for each one of us.