Inherently Violent?

Violence to me... to impose one's self though ego, resulting in the dividing, separating, partitioning, breaking, etc, of anything both tangible or otherwise... all is both a cause and an effect of intention born from the ego.

Violence is given opportunity to breed as soon as any personal position or opinion is formed, regardless of the intention. As soon as one makes up their mind about what they want, what they need, what is good, what is bad, or any other motive through a duality, an action is taken which somewhere down the line inevitably "harms" some thing or some one in some way. Even taking a position "against violence" is violence due to having taken a position "against" something at all. The only way out of "violence" would be through putting away any position about it at all, accepting its presence, and simply not giving into the game altogether. And the only way to do that is through a very personally dedicated attention to one's self and their reactions toward the world around them, not railing against it, nor justifying it, but simply observing it, accepting it, and thus, diffusing its power to play out within you.

lets try to stick to commonly accepted nomenclature. i think most of us as well as the original poster mean physical violence.

defined as 'behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.' someone on up the chain correctly put intent into the definition. bravo. ex: if you run into the street and strongly push a toddler out of the way of something, was that 'violent'? i dont think anyone would call it that, despite being abruptly physical and probably injuring the toddler a little, cuz it saved the toddlers life.

Desolous wrote: lets try to stick to commonly accepted nomenclature. i think most of us as well as the original poster mean physical violence.

defined as 'behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.' someone on up the chain correctly put intent into the definition. bravo. ex: if you run into the street and strongly push a toddler out of the way of something, was that 'violent'? i dont think anyone would call it that, despite being abruptly physical and probably injuring the toddler a little, cuz it saved the toddlers life.

I don't see much point in talking about the result (the physically harmful act) without talking about the cause (the beginning of the chain of thoughts giving into the actions that lead up to it). This cause is what I am pointing at.

that brings up slippery slope phenomenon. was the cause due to childhood trauma or drunkeness, some other mitigating factor? how far back does one go? intent is in the definition, but aside from that, violence is the physical act of damage.

Desolous wrote: that brings up slippery slope phenomenon. was the cause due to childhood trauma or drunkeness, some other mitigating factor? how far back does one go? intent is in the definition, but aside from that, violence is the physical act of damage.

In the end, it doesn't ultimately matter what exactly the cause was in my eyes. It is what it is, and I feel that it is all one movement. We tend to see events such as violence in the world in terms of cause and effect, but are they really separate just because we see them that way? Are you so sure that violence is only the resulting outcome and not to include what caused it? If the cause did not come about, would the result have?

making my head hurt, bro.

I think humans are inherently creative and destructive. Both, in many instances require a level of violence, sometimes willful, sometimes only seen in hindsight.

Certainly, we exhibit it due to our curiosity, passion, and ambition.

Creatively, or destructively, certainly it is an attempt to impose ones ego, or a groups ego, but that is besides the point.

Life moves towards greater complexity and separation, sometimes yes, violently.

The opposite of entropy is extropy.

Life is extropic, it splits, separates, defines, makes distinctions, organizes,etc. An example would be something as simple as fish have gills and we dont, and yet, supposedly we came from the water.

Life is inherently violent, because no act of creation or destruction comes without a level of it.

Doesnt have to be an extreme level mind you.

I saw something on the internet a couple days ago
about a father who witnessed a man trying to rape his 5 year old daughter who he proceeded to beat to, I believe, near death. He called the police, but the would be rapist died. He wasn't charged or imprisoned.

but you have to ask, was that justified?
and I dont think the answer is simply black and white. Certainly it is understandable why he was so angry and protective, and why he let those things get the best of him. At the same time a man was killed when it can be argued he didn't need to be. The father could of assaulted him and gotten him pinned or tied up or unconscious etc. and had the police arrest him and justice still be served.
anyway I suppose I am just rambling at this point, but I thought it was related.
All the same I agree that the father shouldn't be imprisoned (or worse given the death penalty)
it is better he be with the daughter he was protecting when he committed the violent act. Atleast in my opinion.

Also like his other quote

Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it!