Let's face it, humanity has a lousy definition of peace.
In fact, because there exists the lack of a common definition that is put into practice, and the fact that all such practices are not self-sustaining beyond a given centrality of application; it is of need to point out that Peace is a dysfunctional, hit-and-miss, poorly subsidized welfare program. This is how humanity treats the topic of Peace.
Whatever the underlying intentions of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, it nonetheless acts like so many institutions... so very many businesses, governments and religions; in that they do not seek a commonality of sustainable peace in its larger meaning. This "commonality" is better known as equality. Though the expansive ideal of equality is itself a problematic issue in definition that is superficially addressed with words such as "access", "opportunity", "diversity"... and the like; the Nobel Prize Committee is focused on awarding who they think exhibits some type and level of superiority. Indeed, the same is true for businesses, governments, and religions, not to mention so many individualized efforts accordingly. Whereas the notion of "peace" may be regarded as relative stability and thus... and equality; the majority of human institutions such as the Olympic games seek otherwise... though it is sometimes looked upon in different venues as a vehicle to bring about "peaceful relations amongst a spirit of mutual competitiveness in order to foster goodwill"... which is full of hypocrisy.
The same goes for the practice of a Democracy. It too is a sham... particularly noted in those countries such as the U.K. and U.S. whose political and military leaderships believe themselves to hold a sacred quality their of most closest to the greater ideal... because such definitions assist them in sustaining their respective superiorities. There is no equality when the people are consistently preventing from participating in an established process of required referendum so that they can collectively vote on any and all issues the people want to, and have the result made into law without the process being mangled by political or judicial maneuvers meant to undermine the public's collective will such as by pathetic forms of vicarious "representation". No less, the people should be a direct part of any "checks-and-balances" configuration by having its own legislative body in a Congress or a Parliament. While politicians do at times seek public opinion, they simply want to use the opinion in order to construct their own politicized variation instead of permitting the people themselves to discuss, define, and vote on that which is the result.
From a Wikipedia article on Peace, an article that explicitly states it is about the idea of harmony and the absence of hostility; we find the following description:
Peace occurs between heterogeneous social groups and is characterized by a lack of conflict and freedom from fear of violence. Commonly understood as the absence of hostility, peace often involves compromise, and therefore is initiated with thoughtful listening and communication to enhance and create mutual understanding.
Peace can be defined in a positive direction and in a negative sense. Positively, peace is a state of tranquility and stillness; however, in a negative sense, peace is the absence of war or violence.
While some readers might feel the foregoing expression is an adequate illustration of what peace is universally viewed as representing, the fact remains that such a perspective, regardless of language or how the words may be substituted and sentence structure altered to convey another's "more precise" interpretation; the resulting practices... based on such definitions, are not self-sustaining. In other words, we do not yet comprehend the short, medium, and long-term dynamics of what is actually being conveyed on a basic level. In other words, we are not saying what we actually mean when describing peace. Similar to the reference about Jesus on the previous page whose words about bringing division instead of peace are dismissed as some sort of metaphorical narrative... instead of viewing it as the expression of someone confronted by those who were trying to pin him down to a given conception, but that he reflexively chose to refuse such a confinement and presented his questioner with an era-specific opposite reply; like many a schizophrenic who does not like the idea of feeling trapped or controlled.
While the reinterpretation of Jesus and so many other religious leaders as examples of different mental illnesses does not sit well with believers because acceptance would create disruptions in their belief and social systems and create larger reverberating convolutions in various cultures; the ensuing ideological contortions and confusion would eventually be replaced by a greater sobriety that would enable the idealism of peace to become more self-sustainable. It would not need recurring infusions of Nobel Peace Awards, money and various business, government and religious machinations like so many governments rely on because they too are not self-sufficient or they would otherwise not need a persistent tax-based subsidy. In such a comparison, peace is being run like temporary koolaid and cookie stands which crop up from time to time in different U.S. neighborhoods run by inexperienced kids under the watchful eye of a helicopter parent that does not permit the kids to learn how to transact business to learn diplomatic skills... and instead wants to butt in while thinking their womb-like presence is both protective and nurturing... while the kids learn that they need to find some other effort that will afford them peace from an intrusive parental figure.
Just because there is a lack of inter-government hostility does not mean there is peace for a given public who may be suffering from a lack of basic necessities, such as in the case of the Irish Potato Famine to which the following Britannica article is quite succinct in bringing to mind key points, one of which needs to be viewed from a perspective with respect to the recurring "threes" theme being promoted herein.
Irish Potato Famine
Also called Great Potato Famine, Great Irish Famine , or Famine of 1845–49
(The) famine that occurred in Ireland in 1845–49 when the potato crop failed in successive years. The crop failures were caused by late blight, a disease that destroys both the leaves and the edible roots, or tubers, of the potato plant. The causative agent of late blight is the water mold Phytophthora infestans. The Irish Potato Famine was the worst famine to occur in Europe in the 19th century.
By the early 1840s, almost one-half of the Irish population—but primarily the rural poor—had come to depend almost exclusively on the potato for their diet, and the rest of the population also consumed it in large quantities. A heavy reliance on just one or two high-yielding varieties of potato greatly reduced the genetic variety that ordinarily prevents the decimation of an entire crop by disease, and thus the Irish became vulnerable to famine. In 1845 Phytophthora arrived accidentally from North America, and that same year Ireland had unusually cool, moist weather, in which the blight thrived. Much of that year's potato crop rotted in the fields. This partial crop failure was followed by more devastating failures in 1846–49, as each year's potato crop was almost completely ruined by the blight.
The British government's efforts to relieve the famine were inadequate. Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel did what he could to provide relief in 1845 and early 1846, but under the Liberal cabinet of Lord John Russell, which assumed power in June 1846, the emphasis shifted to reliance on Irish resources and the free market, which made disaster inevitable. Much of the financial burden of providing for the starving Irish peasantry was thrown upon the Irish landowners themselves (through local poor relief). But because the peasantry was unable to pay its rents, the landlords soon ran out of funds with which to support them. British assistance was limited to loans, helping to fund soup kitchens, and providing employment on road building and other public works. Cornmeal imported from the United States helped avert some starvation, but it was disliked by the Irish, and reliance on it led to nutritional deficiencies. Despite these shortcomings, by August 1847 as many as three million people were receiving rations at soup kitchens. All in all, the British government spent about £8 million on relief, and some private relief funds were raised as well. Throughout the famine, many Irish farms continued to export grain, meat, and other high-quality foods to Britain because the Irish peasantry lacked the money to purchase them. The government's grudging and ineffective measures to relieve the famine's distress intensified the resentment of British rule among the Irish people.
The famine proved to be a watershed in the demographic history of Ireland. As a direct consequence of the famine, Ireland's population of almost 8.4 million in 1844 had fallen to 6.6 million by 1851. The number of agricultural labourers and small-holders in the western and southwestern counties underwent an especially drastic decline. About one million people died from starvation or from typhus and other famine-related diseases. The number of Irish who emigrated during the famine may have reached two million. Ireland's population continued to decline in the following decades because of overseas emigration and lower birth rates. By the time Ireland achieved independence in 1921, its population was barely half of what it had been in the early 1840s.
Joel Mokyr: Robert H. Strotz Professor of Arts and Sciences; Professor of Economics and History, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Author of Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History and many others.
Source: "Irish Potato Famine." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
It must be noted that the image showing people "attacking" a store (a word frequently employed by the British government in order to give it an excuse to use military force instead of using peaceful forms of diplomacy); does not adequately convey those reports which illustrate the many starving people alongside roadways who did not use aggressive tactics to secure a basic necessity of food... and instead died... all because "peace" was defined in self-serving business and government economic terms. No less, where is the mention of all the efforts of religious leaders in seeking a "peaceful" solution to the war-like conditions being foisted on the Irish people? Yes indeed... business, government and religion failed to deliver on on practicing "peaceful solutions" to a conflict that could have been resolved if all three traditional institutions had a better definition of peace.
And the point to bring out about the comment in the article describing the reliance of people on a "conservative" number of foodstuffs for their daily staple, is a situation in which the circumstances which predisposed the people to such a condition needs to be assessed since the usage of a "conservative" number in our physiology and ideologies may well bring about an unforeseen "famine" the likes of which may be described in terms of something other than food. In other words, the "conservation of number" being pointed out by the examples of "threes" in this series may be a type of "restrictive mental and physiological" structure making us susceptible to different kinds of future famine... with the word "famine" defined as a severe shortage... but not necessarily limited to food, and might well involve singular or multiple kinds of resource depletions... like, the world's spigot of oil drying up "all of a sudden" (due to our wastefulness).
If an "absence of war or (military) conflict" is to suffice for a definition of peace, then what do we make of a country such as the U.S. which likes to thrive in a cultural atmosphere dedicated to some sort of "war" such as "war on drugs", "war on terrorism"? Has the government become so used to a "war mentality" in order to provide it with a type of rationale to engage in "outside the lines of normal civil conventions", that there shall never be peace in the U.S... or its global partners who also learn to use the label of this or that "war" as a convenient means of engaging in one or another excess at the expense of one or another something/someone else? What then are the people to expect in the absence of these kinds of wars? A war on homelessness, poverty, joblessness, crime, disease, dirty diapers, or some internalized conflict? Surely, with the usage of the word "war" (or its derivatives) in so many "campaigns" one would think the public is subjected to a never-ending series of poorly made motion picture sequels because of the usage of such words as "theaters", "actors" and action!
A nation focused on creating some "war" defined scenario as an impetus to create one or another self-serving policy will necessarily (intentionally or by its naturally learned inclination), engage in perpetrating conditions to foment a potential conflict in order to participate in a "good brawl". Because the U.S. and U.K. clearly do not seek to establish a nation of equality or full-fledged democracy, the idea of seeking peace is as much an erroneous gesture. When the incentive to promote some conflict as an expression of a one-upmanship exercise being so prevalent amongst so many business, government and religious entities; peace, like democracy, will remain an illusion. If governments are not vehemently condemned for engaging in war tactics, the activities of war to settle disputes will continue to be viewed as an acceptable means by which whose resources can be expended and created, as well as for creating conditions for a few to make large or larger fortunes... like boys being able to fight out their rivalries and those on the sidelines are permitted to make bets. But if not in direct military conflicts, then the stage is set for other types of conflict based on business or religious perspectives. And so on and on it continues, decade after decade... century after century... the same stupid definitions of peace.
In the previously mentioned Wikipedia article on Peace, provides a short etymological narrative:
The term 'peace' originates most recently from the Anglo-French pes, and the Old French pais, meaning "peace, reconciliation, silence, agreement" (11th century). But, Pes itself comes from the Latin pax, meaning "peace, compact, agreement, treaty of peace, tranquility, absence of hostility, harmony." The English word came into use in various personal greetings from c.1300 as a translation of the Hebrew word shalom, which, according to Jewish theology, comes from a Hebrew verb meaning 'to be complete, whole'.  Although 'peace' is the usual translation, however, it is an incomplete one, because 'shalom,' which is also cognate with the Arabic salaam, has multiple other meanings in addition to peace, including justice, good health, safety, well-being, prosperity, equity, security, good fortune, and friendliness.
At a personal level, peaceful behaviors are kind, considerate, respectful, just, and tolerant of others' beliefs and behaviors — tending to manifest goodwill.
This latter understanding of peace can also pertain to an individual's introspective sense or concept of her/himself, as in being "at peace" in one's own mind, as found in European references from c.1200. The early English term is also used in the sense of "quiet", reflecting calm, serene, and meditative approaches to family or group relationships that avoid quarreling and seek tranquility — an absence of disturbance or agitation.
In many languages, the word for peace is also used as a greeting or a farewell, for example the Hawaiian word aloha, as well as the Arabic word salaam. In English the word peace is occasionally used as a farewell, especially for the dead, as in the phrase "rest in peace".
Wolfgang Dietrich in his research project which led to the book The Palgrave International Handbook of Peace Studies (2011) maps the different meanings of peace in different languages and from different regions across the world. Later, in his Interpretations of Peace in History and Culture (2012), he groups the different meanings of peace into five peace families: Energetic/Harmony, Moral/Justice, Modern/Security, Postmodern/Truth, and Transrational, a synthesis of the positive sides of the four previous families.
: Online Etymology Dictionary, Peace
: Benner, Jeff: Ancient Hebrew Research centre: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_peace.html
Let all of humanity congratulate itself on such wonderful efforts at establishing some useful measure of peace... again, and again, and again... In other words, the way in which we are defining and thus applying our resources towards "Peace" is like trying to light wet firewood. It is not self-sustaining. And to which some readers might argue that peace is like a marriage which one must work at... instead of questioning this tired old analogical refrain of rationalization. Our actions of peace are reminiscent of someone doodling while talking on a telephone or listening to a long and boring repetitive lecture. While this is not to say that such efforts are not welcomed in contrast to not having any efforts at all; as a species we need to reevaluate our definition(s) and application thereof... in order to make sure that they are not due to reflexes exhibited when confronted with a flame, pungent smell, sour taste, loud noise, or visual distortion created by an impaired equilibrium due to a limited means of responding to decaying environmental conditions.
Again, humanity is subjected to expressing physiological and mental configurations representing a recurring limitation. It is not that we are/may not be unable to exceed the limitation of effect, but the ongoing decay of environmental conditions may be dictating to us for us to be conservative in order to retain some relative equilibrium within the field of the planet's containment because its nature is to greedily hold on to its resources for as long as it can... of which humanity is one of them. Analogously, the Earth is a big system of Capitalism whose greed will end up killing us unless we remove ourselves from its persuasive control and venture forward, away from its greedy grasp. It is not that the Earth is in and of itself bad, just like Capitalism is not in and of itself bad, it's just that those who are claiming dominant ownership of it (through their respective beliefs and accompanying social practices); are being used by it instead of the other way around... as a tool. Both the Earth and Capitalism are tools that humanity has been seduced to be inebriated by, without realizing that both can provide curative healing as well as poisoning... depending on dosage that is consumed... and is thus perhaps consumed by.
Let us now look at some more examples of the recurring "1,2,3 (one-two-many), 3-to-1 ratio" (and multiples) conservation effect:
Interestingly, though there are many different kinds of animals, we humans distinguish between three different feeding types:
3 groups of animals based on eating habits: Herbivore (plant eating)- Carnivore (meat eating)- Omnivore- (both plant and meat eating) *** There are typically three number "words" of primitive peoples: One for the quantity 1, Two for the quantity 2, Many for any quantity beyond two. *** When a person has had too much alcohol to drink, we say they had "one too many". *** The sleeping arrangements of prisoners are: One man cell - Two man cell - Many men 'cell.'
Here's the data on an experiment about memorization citing a triplet preference:
Table 2.4 Examples of imposed recall structures. Most frequent grouping for each class with frequency given in parentheses. (From Wilkes, A.L., P and Simpson, I., Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 48-54.)
of group structure
All lists and Subjects
In a further study a partial replication was carried out using random samples of children of 10 and 8 years. Each child started with a consonant list of three items which was read and recalled to the usual criterion. Thereafter list lengths of four, five, six, seven and eight consonants were tackled in ascending order, the list at all lengths being randomly chosen for each subject. Tape recordings of the criterion reading and recall trials for each list were pause analyzed and imposed groupings identified from the presence of inflection pauses. There were 20 subjects at each age level with equal numbers of male and female children. As with the adult subjects the classification of imposed structure is based upon the size of the first-imposed group and included in Table 2.4 are the mast popular groupings observed during the recall at these age levels. The numbers in parentheses refer to the number of subjects choosing a given structure.
Taking adult performance over list length as a reference point a triplet preference is clearly shown. For all list lengths except list 8, the most frequent adult pattern is built around an initial triplet grouping. As Ryan (1969) has observed where symmetrical grouping is possible this tends to be preferred, serving to emphasize a 3:3 grouping for list 6 and to attenuate a 3:3:2 grouping for list B. If grouping type is expressed as a percentage of all grouping occurrences then strict comparisons are only possible for the doublet and triplet types since list 5 could be divided as 2:3 or 3:2 but not as 4:1 given the dependence on an inflection pause measure for identifying group boundaries. It follows that the incidence of doublet and triplet groupings can be meaningfully compared over list lengths but not groupings in excess of three items. For adults the incidence of doublet structures was 29 percent and, of triplet, 46.8 percent.
For the 8-year-old sample no predominance of triplet groupings was found, the percent incidences being equivalent, 41.1 and 39.7 percent. In the 10-year-old sample the distribution was close to the adult form, 30.1 and 49.3 percent. The grouping structures given in Table 2.4 apply to recall during criterion trials and it is possible to compare them with the grouping structures imposed during reading. It should be noted, however, that structural alterations from reading to recall can take different forms which need to be distinguished. Suppose for example that list 8 was read as 2:2:4. During recall the grouping pattern could again be 2:2:4 (Duplication), 4:4 (Omission), 2:2:2:2 (Addition) or 3:3:2 (Change). Of these possibilities Omission and Addition retain features of the original structure whereas change need not do so. Of the adults, two subjects introduced a change in their recall of list 5 and four subjects did so for list 8. The 8-year-olds showed a greater tendency to change from reading to recall than the adults but not to the extent found for the 10-year-olds of whom 12 out of 20 changed for the eight-item list. It seems plausible that the age difference is due to a developmental shift in the grouping base-tending to three items for older subjects. The established increase in memory span over this age range would appear to support this interpretation (McLaughlin, 1963).
Wilkes, Lloyd and Simpson (1972) argued that for adult subjects a single repeated rhythm based upon triplet groups was underlying the observed results. Subjects repeatedly imposed groups of three items leaving a terminal group of either two or four items. Assuming Broadbent's estimate of a register capacity to be correct at three items the present results couple the maximum use of that capacity with a single repetitive rhythm. The children's data did not permit a similar conclusion for the repetitive use of a single base but strongly implied a developmental progression in this direction. In general, therefore, the use of inflection pauses to identify spontaneous grouping structures provides an account consistent with other independent descriptions of similar learning tasks.