Violence, Is there a positive side?

[Kristen]

Hi Cainam -

Nice topic.  

I think that so much depends on the kind of aggressive act - the intent behind it (which can not really be truly known unless one reads minds) for what an appropriate response would be - I think a general way of approaching the question for me would be to say that aggression for the purpose of self defense is justifiable until the perpetrator withdraws or is disabled from perpetrating.

I think that aggression is too much when it begins to not serve a good purpose - and I think that purpose aught to be the preservation of the integrity and dignity of body/mind/soul/property, if it is to be good.  If aggression escapes the boundaries of wise discrimination - which consideration I think should include the understanding and capabilities of the opponant -  then I think aggression is wrong  - I think that the feeling of aggression tied with feeling of power can set up a sort of expansive dynamic in the ego or psyche - that becomes self-perpetuating and non-discriminatory and feeds on itself.  If that is where the aggression is coming from then it is dysfunctional on any level as to intent and purpose but not necessarily result.

2 cents

Kristen

[Adept_of_Light]

Hi all,

"An eye for an eye, only makes everyone blind" - Gandhi

From an extreme spiritual point of view violence is never ok. Even at the threat of death one is not to retaliate in his defense for if you are a Christian to harm is to sin and you shall pay for it on judgement day, and if you are of a belief system involving karma and reincarnation then you should not fear death in the first place, thus removing any intellectual justification to fight back.

In reality however, under threatening (and so many other) circumstances us sapiens behave little differently than animals - with instinct and reflex, rather than with thought based on wisdom. As you've stated at times, even intellect is not sufficient to overthrow threat and it is not because there is a lack of intellect but rather a lack of understanding. In the last few thousand years man may have grown intellectually by leaps and countless bounds, but man has done little to perfect himself. Yesterday's barbaric man suffering from passion, desire, sin, anger, fear, and countless other flaws is little different than today's supposed evolved man. In this respect, humanity has not evolved what-so-ever. While we may now understand with words what our flaws are, we have been unable to translate this knowledge into an ultimate solution.

In any war we're all losers, regardless of what side we are on. The illusion of any gain by overthrowing an opponent does not compensate for all that is lost if one contemplates this matter seriously. If we destroy our enemies, who then shall be our teachers of what is wrong? Are we so perfect that by overthrowing our opponents we will be able to establish a truly utopian environment - No. And what we will create will eventually be destroyed as well. If there is anything we have learned in our human history it is this truth.

So what does violence and destruction really accomplish for us? At times I wonder if we don't deceive ourselves in thinking that we have become more civilized throughout time due to wars which allow us to stand up for our rights and freedoms - in a way - justifying murder. Once we mutilate our enemies, are we really any more civilized than they are ? And what of the day our basic needs are not present (food,water,sleep) - will we then also be civilized enough to avoid hurting others for the sake of our physical survival?

There is a reason why neither Gandhi nor the current Llamma of Tibet retaliated when their countries and their lives were being threatned :
Violence is never justifiable.

"Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to retaliation and retaliation to suffering" - Yoda
To avoid violence we must inoculate fear within us - it is only our shells which are mortal, not our eternal spirits. Understand this and violence will never be a justifiable action.

--
Adept of Light

"What in fact does man know? Nothing, and at the same time he is allowed to ignore nothing. Devoid of knowledge, he is called upon to know all" - Eliphas Levi

[cainam_nazier]

Adept of Light.

   Although I believe that a person should do thier best to talk thier way out of a situation, I also believe that at times the only solution is violence.  I consider myself to be more a man of action than of words.  I have been in a few situations where there is no talking your way out of.  I value the lives of my friends and family above my own, and I would, with out hesitation, put myself in harms way to protect them, and I will also take the confrontation as far as the aggressor is willing to go.  Should he choose "to the death" then to the death it shall be, but as long as I breath he will not get past me.  But quater will be given when asked for.
   I also believe at time people need to be treated in a manner in which they understand.  Much like when your most beloved pet dog snaps at you the first time, despite how much you love that animal it must be shown is place in line.  Some times a swift hand is the only way to teach a lesson.  Some people can only realize thier place by being put there.


David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.

[Qui-Gon Jinn]

Ones ´Greatness´ can only be measured through ones attitude towards spirit, spirit being all there is (meaning a peaceloving citizen without any sort of high status, is a greater man than for example George W Bush - not many reason like this though, I do..)  ...    violence can not be ´positive´, but when it is utilized in the defence of self or in defence of others (which from a larger perspective may be no difference) it can serve a ´purpose´ even if it perhaps still ain´t ´justified´..... well in a way, perhaps self defence can not be labeled ´violence´ if not used more than necessary to acchieve saving lives, because it really ain´t if under attack, now is it?´

   But using self defence, even if it means bringing the attacker to the ground, should perhaps be ´justified´ if done so for the good of spirit, without any personal gain...    although I really admire Ghandi and other anti- violence practicians, I for one wouldn´t stand still with a smile on my face if attacked by a crazy knifeman - as long as I haven´t done anything really stupid first...  but then again I wouldn´t if not attacked in the first place so....

   Summary: I´m not for violence, but I´m for defence of self and others....

  Take care //Qui-Gon

- Your focus determines your reality -

[Joe]

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

I'll try be a little more serious this time....and as it turns out I actually do believe what I'm saying for a change.

In my understanding, violence isn't just physical. Broadly speaking, violence is any action against someone, not in accordance with their will. It can be physical, verbal, emotional, mental or supernatural (magical), etc. The point is that violence arises when two parties have conflicting wills and take action to enforce their will to the detriment of the other. In that sense, there's nothing wrong with violence - it is neutral in the same way that "power" or "intelligence" are neutral - the morality of violence is really the morality of the *will* behind the violence. Even God and His angels wage war against the Infernal for the sake of goodness. Violence is the result of opposiing wills in action.

We know that people of elevated morals embrace peace. As for the non-violent, I think they embrace a superficial view of "peace". In the hard world of human experience, peace does not prevail by itself. We live in a world where those who hate peace live side by side with those who love it. What should we do? If we are challenged, should we acquiesce? Be pacifist? In that case, peace-loving individuals would be soon dominated/eliminated, and the notion of peace as well as the defence of it's existence would disappear as well.

It is a paradox that "peace comes by the sword". Peace is not an abstract notion, as Gandhi preached. Peace is a *state* - a consensual agreement between parties. It is not diminished when violence is used to uphold a present or potential state of peace in the face of a threat to it. Once you can accept that in theory, "peace" seems more pragmatic, and the question is how to define "threat" - is it when your enemy has the gun pointed at you, or when he is walking towards you with the gun, or when he is far away stewing on how best to shoot you... Although it attracts a lot of criticism, the current military practice of "regime change" and similar pre-emptive strikes against enemies of peace are both necessary and justified. In such cases, the same threat to peace exists even before violence is commissioned.

If one can accept the above, then violence can be a useful tool in any quest - spiritual or otherwise. Even Christ said, "The kingdom of heaven is pursued by violent men", ie, by those who are on fire with single-minded desire and will do whatever it takes to achieve their will. If only more people took such a radical approach to their life (within necessary morality parameters) they would meet with success more often. Violence is something to be embraced!!

Anyway, that's my opinionated take on it - don't shoot me down too badly...

[Qui-Gon Jinn]

"Violence is something to be embraced!!"
 
    Well Joe, that line above was one of the most stupidiest statements I have ever heard!´   But not to worry, I won´t shoot you down - cause I do not embrace violence.  I guess if you really meant that, you have other things coming your way...     my advice to you is to not watch as many violent movies and spend time trying to pierce through the illussion of killing oughtta be glorified..

  Peace //Qui-Gon

- Your focus determines your reality -

[cainam_nazier]

I will be making references to the current conflict of the world.  But I would like to say first that for the most part I support the US Gov. in it's actions against global terrorism.  But on the other hand I do see that it is infact the US that started this whole mess to begin with.  I will explain through the course of this message.

Violence in the name of ones beliefs is wrong.  But that is how war starts.  One side often strikes first because they believe that they are defending thier beliefs, they way of life.  In todays sociaty it is possible to avoid such conflics by stepping out, or asking that the 3rd party involved steps out.  I say third party because also in todays world thier is almost always a third party.  The UN backed mostly by the US.  The UN seems to have a notion that every country should be run with a bare minimal set of standards.  But why?  They do this thinking that they are doing it for the betterment of "mankind".  But what is often over looked is that despite thier intentions they are trying to impose thier will or way of life on others.  This in its basic form is an attack and an act of violence.  Who is to say that thier is one way that every one should follow?  Who gave them the power and the right to make those kinds of choices?

Quite honestly I am suprised that the US has not come under more attacks because of its involvement in other countries.  We send diplomat after diplomat in to different countries trying to establish "peace".  Be it between to sepreate countries or between the US and whoever.   The last part I can understand but the first I have difficulty with.  Granted it would be nice to be able to live in a world were there is no war, but this is reality.   So why do we constantly get involved with nations fighting amongst themselves?  In the long run we only risk aggression towards ourselves.  What happen on Sept. 11th is a prime example of this.  Naturally I do not think that it was neccissary for so many innocent people to loose thier lives.  More so because I seriously doubt that any of those peolpe had even given any thought to happenings outside of the US that morning or even that week.  Thier lives more concerned about how to feed the family, how the neighbor and friends are doing, and how bad the traffic was going to work.  They were not involved in the decisions to send delegates to the middle east.

But the US did any how.  And in doing so we picked a side, and there fore were trying to impose on set of ideas onto another, to change a way of life, a belief.  And in it's most basic form it was an attack.   I often think that we should and always should have stayed out of the affares of other nations.   We should be thinking of how we can protect ouselves not how we can protect the world.  We caused the whole mess to go as far as it did.  It should have been known that there would eventually be some one who was stupid/smart enough to make a strike in an attempt to defend thier way of life.  It is the natural progression of things.

So how can things like this be avoided?  Every one needs to look to better thier own lives, family, city, state, and country, and not go and stick thier noses where they are not wanted.

David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.

[Joe]

Hey Qui-Gon - well, I love a bold, well-stated opinion, even if it contradicts mine with the words "one of the most stupidiest statements I have ever heard!" http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0>

I think you may have taken my last line to be literal physical violence. I was trying to indicate that violence is not only physical, but psychological, emotional, etc. More than this, violence is a *by-product* when two opposing and wills meet. What is to be embraced is the psychological trait of pursuing one's will with fire, using violence in any of the forms above. Remember, "violence" is not the problem - higher entities are at war with darker entities. Would they do this if the concept of violence was against their very principles as angelic beings? Don't seekers of the truth make war on ignorance and deceit? Don't we strive to bind, expel and destroy Negs that attack us, through various means? All these are examples of "violence".

I'm not saying that street-style head-kicking or thuggery is to be embraced - the point behind "violence" as a tool is that the morality is in the *will* of the person being violent. Again, this is "violence" as the execution of one's will to the exclusion of all else.

Hope that helps clear it up a little. I'm certainly not the sort of person that goes around bashing people, which is the common understanding of violence. But I do actively pursue two things: (a) try and align my will with the highest understanding of Truth and Life I know, (b) then pursue my will "violently" (ie, fiercly). That's what needs to be embraced, even if it means physical injury to others if that were ever needed (!!).

Cheers http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0>

[Florian]

Difficult topic that...

I think an important factor here is to distinguish between peace like in war & peace and an inner spiritual peace on the other hand.

Violence arises if someone tries to enforce his desires against the will of another being. And unlest that other being is already in a state of profound inner peace, unchained form all desires themselves, and can react accordingly (ghandi, dalai lama), it will lead to mutual hurting and sometimes even killing.

Fighting wars to gain peace is just a try to force something externally what people can only find internally.

And to put a kinda controversial line in here: the same is true of many marriages http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_wink.gif" border=0>

[Tisha]

OK, my two cents and I'll try to make it short . . . here goes . . .

The Creator/Creatrix created a predator universe.  The evidence is everywhere.  The food chain, the cycle of life.  The Creator/Creatrix also put a little bit of Itself into us.  "Made in His image," if you read the Bible.  Many religions accept the idea of the Divine in humanity.

So Is the Creator/Creatrix a violent being?  Or a peace-loving being?  Well, yes, It is both.  And so are we.  We'll be able to reconcile this paradox only when we accept the Divine Design as the perfection that it supposedly is (bear with me, I'm trying to accept this myself and it's not easy).

Contrary to some people's opinions, violence is NOT always "Wrong."  It is only "always wrong" to you if you've accepted a religion or other belief system that even acknowledges the concept of "wrong" and says that all violence is Wrong.  Actually, most belief systems do NOT teach that violence is always wrong  . . . the opposite is more true!  Most religious history is dripping in blood.  The Bible is full of statements from God telling the Hebrews to "smite" people.  Smite means kill, folks!

I am trying to transcend duality.  It is important to my spiritual practices to rid myself of ideas such as "right" and "wrong," light/dark, good/bad, etc.  In a world that uses dichotomy to define almost everything . . . it's hard, but I'm working on it.

I am a peaceloving gentle person because it is my choice to be this way . . . I'm not doing it to be moral, I am doing it to have a peaceful life However, I would not think twice of ripping the throat out of someone who I felt deserved it.  Not that I've ever hurt anyone in my life . . . I just know that if faced with a threat to me or my child, my murderous Self would take over and that threat would die, or I would die trying.  And I feel no guilt about this, none whatsoever.

Is the U.S. right or wrong in its current military endeavors?  It's been hard, but I'm trying to let go of that too.  It just is what it is.  We wake up in the morning and we make our choices . . . and live with them.  In the end, we're all going to end up in the same place . . . together, As ONE, the illusion of separateness dissolved completely.  And everything will be okay.

peace,
tisha

[Fenris]

Hey Joe, Cainam stole our topic! And Adept stole the quote I was going to use! And you...YOU are being serious! Actually beliving what you are arguing...disjusting. http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_tongue.gif" border=0>

Well Joe dispite your current flirting with sanity Ill stand by you as illogically as ever! Dont you see good sir that being argumentative and illogical is like sitting on the fence and being in peoples faces at the same time? And EDUCATIONAL TOO!!!!!   Do you think its to late to introduce the rules this late into the topic? Probably...

The Dali Lama recently visited Australia, when he was questioned at a function about why if he taught love and peace did he carry a gun when he fled Tibet he responded "Because I am not stupid...but  I wound not have shot anyone in the heart, I would have aimed for the leg". Well I guess rules are made to be broken huh?


From the point of view that violence is spiritually wrong:
Peace is a decision, violence is an instinct. Is the instinct of violence a characteristic of a less evolved being? Perhaps. Do we live in a world numerically dominated by less spiritually evolved people, yes. And if you dont realise that your evolved concept of life is easily dominated by 'lessor' people with their violent ways, and adjust accordingly...you are already dead.

But if we disregard the BELIEF that violence is spirtually wrong (a common idea in various organised religions) and take a fresh look it is evident that violence and destruction are neutral. A natural force. The goddess of destruction of War and retribulation. Things that NEED to exist in our current world. Because in order to create something new, we must first destroy something old. This broad idelogy can be narrowed down to an individual conflict.  If someone attacks you wish for a change of situation. One in which you are safe and there are no threats. To create your prefered environment you have to change your current one. You must destroy what is preventing your prefered environment from existing to obtain it. Thus you destroy your opponent.

Violence is nothing more than a tool to create change, it is not 'Bad' or wrong. Do you blame the hand saw that builds the gallows?

What ever rights you enjoy, what ever peace you have, somebody has fought for. Where ever there is peace there was once blood.

Yes a world where nobody initiated violence against there fellow people and everybody just got along would be very nice. But it does not exist, and it wont. Thus is the nature of common man.

regards

Fenris

Veni Vidi Vici

[Joe]

Fenris - despite your protests to the contrary, you are a man of appreciable pragmatic wisdom. And you spin a good Homer quote as well. Despite my best attempts never to make a serious statement, I'm with you on the "practical use of violence" front. In real life, I actually try and practice reciprocating more than I am given (so do the mafia according to myth) : "Repay Everything Threefold". If your enemy throws a punch, you break his legs. If your ally helps you once, you help them three times.

I believe the universe works like that also - if karma simply repaid "pain dealt" with "pain received", I could easily "trade" my way into or out of karma. I could say that for me to intentionally injure someone, I have to expect the same in return, which may be an acceptable price for me to pay. I could then follow up with intentionally doing equivalent arbitrary good acts to wipe out the evil karmic consequence, and thus close the transaction to my net benefit. Some people I know actually try and think that way... But if karma repayed more than was given, in both directions, then to intentionally cause pain would result in greater pain for yourself, while intentional goodness would result in more goodness for yourself, leading to a real lessons, and a real step forward instead of a zero net result. As you will readily observe, the karmic accounting methods require more study, as does my incorrigible habit of talking crap and wasting valuable server space. A clue could be in the fact that I've had 4 hours sleep in the last 2 days, making me (a) much more incoherent, and (b) much more violent. And since at this point I'm sure the only people still reading are the moderator and a couple of email spambots, I'll give it up and go get some sleep....

[cainam_nazier]

Ahh, but has anyone here ever just had the urge to fight?  

I get like this at times.   I just want to box with some one.  Preferably some one I don't know so that I do not have to worry about it too much if I hurt them.  But also at the same time I do not wish to start a fight.  That is not in my nature.   But I will be the first to admit that I am an animal.  And because of this at times I have a base requirement to show my superiority.  To be the Alpha Male if you will.  

To truely know yourself you must acknowladge how and what you are.  Ignoring all that is inside you, all that is inside everyone, is infact lieing to yourself.  It is in the end what you do with these things, and how you go about doing it.   Some times violence can be part of the growth process.


David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.

[Tisha]

Sounds like Testosterone Poisoning to ME!!!!!!!  http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_big.gif" border=0>

Take up boxing.  That way there are clear rules, and you are boxing with another consenting party.  Or take up any other agressive sport with clear rules and consenting parties.  Nothing wrong with that!

tisha

[kakkarot]

bleh. boxing sucks  IMHO. martial arts are better.

i get the urge to fight a lot as well. not hurt, but just the urge to "spar" with someone. unfortunately, to do it with a totally unknown person could inspire hate if i hurt him accidentally, and i wouldn't want to hurt a friend. so i often end up either practicing alone, or doing something else.

fenris: i don't believe that peace is a decision and that violence is an instinct. both are things that happen due to situations and decisions. someone who is about to be bullied (and can see it coming) can either walk/run away or choose to try to fight. by running away, there is "peace" (no violence), and by fighting there is violence. most carnivores and herbivores, for instance, can coexist with one another if the carnivores aren't hungry.  

~kakkarot

Secret of Secrets

[PeacefulWarrior]

I know I am jumping in to this discussion late, but I just wanted to share something I heard on the radio the other day.  The host was talking about the difference between murder and killing.  Murder is the killing of an innocent and killing, in essence, is taking the life of another individual in self-defense or defense of others.  Of course there's a lot of gray area, but generally I agree with this simplified definition.

fides quaerens intellectum

[alpha]

Its very hard to be always peaceful.Especially when people start pushing you,and they never stop.Heres how I am.I can tolerate a lot,even more so now.But after I reach a certain point and I cant get away from the threat.Its like a switch is flipped.And all that  peace will dissapear.All I want to do is kill or hurt this person anyway I can.This is something that just happens,and there is nothing I can do about it.

So I feel it is my right to protect myself,You could use words but it will just go on and on with some people.Force is the only option you really have than.The important part is that you do not feel guilty about what you are doing.If you are than you have to forgive yourself.

How about those intimitadors of the world.I was walking down the street the other day.And this guy was staring at me like he wanted to kill me. I could feel the negs coming off him. Ive never seen this person in my life. He didnt stop staring,even when I looked away,I look back he was still looking at me.So I just tried to ignore him as best I can and walked right by him.

I thought that he probably was not a very happy person.And had enough problems to deal with.I  wanted to say something but I felt it would lead into a fight. Part of me wanted to knock one of his teeth out.But I just let it go.And enjoyed the rest of my day.

What do you do when you come across some situation like this?On my way back I heard that same guy screaming away at someone who drove by.Because they had funny stuff done to there car.So I was right he was in a pretty messed up mind state.





-------------------------------
"WAKE UP!WAKEUP!WAKE UP AND LOOK AROUND YOU!WERE LOST IN SPACE AND THE TIME IS OUR HOME"
-------------------------------

[jilola]

Here's how I feel about the world: "What is necessary must be done, what is sufficient must not be exceeded."
Violence is always bad and sometimes necessary. But when it must be it should be in the quickest possible way with the least possible harm done.
There is no law that forces an n-fold return but there is the an inherent justice. If one persists in an egotistical and forceful way one will sooner or later get ¤%&/ed.
Do what must be done and only what must be done.

Jouni

[cainam_nazier]

Violence n. (L. violenius, violent) 1. physical force used so as to injure 2. powerful force, as of a hurricane 3. a violent act or deed 4. harm done by violating rights, ect.

So when is violence okay?  Can violence be good? Or is it always bad?  Is it possible to talk through every thing?  

The Yin and Yang, The Warrior and the Scholar, The Survival of the Fittest, The Warriors Code, The Good Fight, ect., ect.  

All used to justify ones actions, there can not be one with out the other, and so on.   But does any of it matter?  Violence is violence, evil begets evil.  But at times things can only be solved by the use of force, this being evident even so in the Bible. The War of the Havens.  Violence and war have done both good and bad things.  It has crushed countries but also has given birth to new ones.  

There unfortunately is a need for it.  With out it there would be no law or order to things.  Some times the only way to prevent the opression of another is to raise up arms against them.  But when is it too much?  When is it not worth the reasons?


David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.