The Last War Celebration

In Australia and New Zealand next week is ANZAC day. Officially a memorial day for and in honour of the soldiers that died fighting in World War One and Two: the ANZAC soldiers. In reality, like the memorial days other countries have for their wars of the past, it is a celebration of nationalism and war heroes, with many families honouring members of their families they believe fought in those wars – although a recent news report said that many of those heroes never really existed – and politicians appearing on TV holding speeches.

November 11th, also named “Poppy Day”, is a more worldwide memorial day for those same wars, in which those who want to honour dead soldiers wear red poppies on their clothing and those who want to remember civilian victims wear white poppies. Of course, apart from the people of Darwin, Australia and New Zealand did not have many civilian casualties, and they also don’t have much of a history – other than colonialism, which is unpopular – so they put everything they have into these celebrations.

I will not go into a long discussion about the rights and wrongs of war. I did that last year in two posts: and

In this post, I merely want to focus on the big 2015 celebration – the 100th anniversary of the First World War – that is coming up next year. I believe that it is about time, in light of the continuous environmental threats we are living with, that the people of this Earth start getting serious about wanting peace – as opposed to just paying lip service to the idea, because that is the popular and politically correct thing to do.

I am not sure whether people can even live without war – it is certainly not easy with overpopulation and crowded nations – and the cause of that may lie deep in their psychology, but that is not a reason not to try.
The very first step in that is to start acknowledging what causes and perpetuates wars: that celebrating soldiers as heroes is telling the next generation that killing other people because your government says you must, is celebrating servants to the tyrant, not heroes. That celebrating your dead ancestors as heroes is celebrating that they lost their one young life long before their time instead of mourning that wasted young life. That this same message, if expressed in front of your children, is telling them you would value them more dead than alive, would the situation call for it. That saying you want peace, while simultaneously honouring soldiers, is hypocritical.

And for those ready to attack me for this post:

No, I didn’t live through the horrors of those wars – Did you?

No, I am not related to ANZAC (or any) soldiers, so I cannot possibly feel the loss as you must.

I am merely the descendant of a Jewish family that lived in Holland during World War Two, and of which very few members survived. Those who did – my parents and grandparents – preferred not to talk about it; they wanted to forget. They certainly never saw a cause for celebration in memorial days. I don’t want to end up like them and I don’t wish such horrors on my children. I also don’t wish these horrors on the millions of children who are living with war today.

So I call for those people who are serious about wanting a future without war for their children and grandchildren, to use the next year to voice their concerns and organize an answer to the big hero worshipping celebrations the governments are planning. Instead of using war memorials for telling how wonderful wars are, because they produce heroes, we should use those days to remember why we need peace.

Soldiers don’t exist because there are wars; wars exist because there are soldiers. (In the Real World). That is all there is to it.

It would be a start if we could get more people wearing white poppies than red ones: more people wearing a symbol of peace rather than of blood. It would be a true achievement if we could get most countries to agree that 2015 will be the last war celebration. We have a year. If you really value life and the lives of your children, please share this message and start doing what you can to make 2015 the very last war celebration. One hundred is enough already.

According to the Dictionary (5)



This will be the last of my blog post series about the type-dependent interpretations of abstract words and probably the post people will have most trouble with, because where the previous words were in some ways still attached to circumstances or could be pictured as such, and tend to be the topics of discussion, today’s words are the foundation for such discussions.

The difference between objective and relative (subjective) views is not something that can be logically deduced or verbally explained. Our psychology determines whether we experience the world as objective or not and as we have done so from birth, we cannot even begin to imagine what the other perspective is like. As I have repeated over and over again: we cannot and never will be able to crawl into each other’s perspective.
Yet we all use the words in a manner that makes sense to us, which often means giving one or another word a negative connotation.

Additional complexity comes from the notion that there are four aspects to information and that all four aspects have a relative and an objective pole, so that some people may be ‘objectivist’ when dealing with some topics or in relation to some circumstances, yet they may be relativist with regard other aspects of information. This causes many to experience a dilemma. I know one very smart philosopher, who I respect very much, who keeps coming up with new theories, trying to overcome this dilemma, and the works of some famous philosophers, like Kant, can be seen as a compromise for such opposing experiences.

Of the sixteen types, two types are ‘lucky’, as the letters that signify their inborn psychological type, either all belong to the “objective accord group” (ESTJ) or to the “relative accord group” (INFP), so they do not experience such a dilemma. The former are unlikely to engage in philosophy. For them, reality is not negotiable and “reason” is measurable, because it “is obvious” that if they can see or understand something, so must everybody else. Consequently, everybody who doesn’t agree must be wrong and they can be somewhat tactless in their expression of this. The latter naturally question every philosophy, every accepted viewpoint, every new idea and are often considered “obnoxious and disliked” (as John Adams in the movie 1776 so aptly puts it) for not accepting what they are told.

To avoid confusion, let me clarify that information has four aspects and that the type differences in people are expressions of being attuned a little more to one or the other, so that as a whole, we all complement each other.
1. focus (where you pay attention): E or I
2. perception (what you notice): S or N
3. justification (what worth you give that perception – thus whether you consider it real or reasonable): T or F
4. orientation (how and to whom you express that worth): J or P

The objective poles of these dichotomies are E, S, T and J
The relative poles are I, N, F and P, in which I use the word “subjective” only for the introverted stance, because focus is about the object-subject relationship. Thus a subjectivist is a relativist with regard focus.

So here are the words with their most likely type letter interpretation and I look forward to the discussions. For more in depth descriptions, see the “Intermezzo” in Concerto for Mankind.

• claiming omniscience (I), being short-sighted (N), single-minded (F), or dogmatic (P)
• experiencing reality independent of the mind; every object is a separate entity with observable qualities (E)
• to see things as they are without interpretations (S)
• to comprehend the true nature of things, without distortion by personal feelings or desires (T)
• to know what is right without personal prejudices (J)

• being self-centred (E), unrealistic (S), irrational (T), or opinionated (J)
• to allow for each individual’s unique perspective (I)
• to allow for relationships, connections and possibilities (N)
• to allow for personal motivations and circumstances (F)
• to allow for people’s autonomous norms, values and beliefs (P)

• being self-important, sentimental, or out of touch with reality (E)
• a person’s unique individual stance that seeks no justification but their own (I)

• what can be observed, reasoned, and proven to exist independent of people’s minds (E)
• what can be abstracted to exist independent of people’s minds, since the mind cannot be bypassed (I)

reason: means using inference to come to a conclusion about something and can be interpreted:
• with regard to form (formulaic logic); reasoning in terms of “true or false” or “cause and effect”, using principles and criteria; truth-based, eliminative or deductive reasoning (T)
• with regard to content (reasons, motivations, justifications); reasoning in terms of “more or less”, human motives and limits; value-based, holistic or inductive reasoning (F)

Remember that it is likely that more than one interpretation of the above will ring ‘true’ for you,

Thank you for reading.