- 27-Jul-99, VC Bothra spake:
|>But by definition violence means damaging a living being.
|>And violence in mind affects a living being i.e. you.
That isn't the definition I have seen and adopted.
I say it has to be another being. Violence means
to violate, and it can hardly be a violation
when your will is focused on you. You certianly
can violate another person, but to propose
that anything I can do is a violation of what I
am is just nuts.
Lets make a distinction, call it Bothra Violence
or something to prevent confusion.
|>behind an act. A smile from your daughter and that from an
|>airhostess is not equivalent because you know that the one
Yes, that's perfectly clear to me. To do violence
you must have intention. If you accidentally drop
a house on someone then nobody can call you a
violator- it isn't something you are. Of course
negligence can well leed to a violation, different
|>daily 'puja' (worship) part of which involves bathing the
|>'murti' (idol). Now bathing invloves violence, that towards
|>micro-organisms of water. But the intention is to attain
|>Moksha (Nirvana) and thus get rid of all kinds of sadness
|>and its sources like violence.
Haha, very good. Of course I don't consider micros
to be eligable to be violated anyway.
I finished my essay, and I took the side that
total nonviolence is wrong. Not a bad argument,
from ideology but practically I wasn't all that
happy. I read up from liberals but hardy anyone
can back up their beliefs with reason.
Perhaps it'll still be a little while before I
can fully know that I'm right to take this
approach. The crux of the approach is that
violation must be minimised, and that the most
practical way is to destroy the destroyers.
Retaliation and punnishment are OK, initiation of
violence is always wrong.
Cool Enough, TTFN!
- Rick Giles wrote:
>that anything I can do is a violation of what IWhat do you say about cigarette smoking? What
>am is just nuts.
about suicides? As you say that violence means
violating why does it have to be with respect
to someone else? If violence always affected
someone else than I wouldn't have worried
about it. To put it in another way - If you
love someone and the other person doesn't
know about it or isn't affected by it than
does it make your love less love or no love.
As I had said violence is violence. There is
no context in which violence ceases to be
violence or changes it's nature.
>a house on someone then nobody can call you aSaying things in your way - What difference does
>violator- it isn't something you are.
it make to the poor guy who is crushed under the
house? He is violated by your act and thus you
have committed violence. This is just a question.
>Haha, very good. Of course I don't consider micros??? Whats the funny part? Is caring for the smallest
>to be eligable to be violated anyway.
living being funny? You might not even consider hens
and cows to be eligible for non-violence cause you
may be a non-vegetarian. But does that make them so?
I don't think so. Lets call it "The Giles Eligibility
(Hope you take it lightly. No hard feelings. Only
trying to explain things in your manner. Hoping to
make it easier for you to understand my point.)
>total nonviolence is wrong. Not a bad argument,My stand is this:
Total non-violence is ideal. But not possible generally.
Jainism tries to minimise the amount of violence in our
life. By practising non-violence we are working towards
attaining the state of total non-violence i.e. "Moksha".
It like 'friction' for scientists. Its just not possible
to have 'friction-less' testing. That doesn't mean they
are comfortable with it.
>practical way is to destroy the destroyers.Lets try identifying the destroyer. Hitler was not the
real destroyer but it was his "thinking". Similarly,
if you want to safeguard yourself than simply destroying
one or one thousand people wont help. On the contrary
you are committing counter-violence i.e. violence.
It is the opposite that anulls. Therefore, violence has
to be annulled by it's opposite which include love and
whoami - VC Bothra
ehome - http://kmjcomputers.hypermart.net/vcbothra
email - vcbothra@...
icq - 26874606
Living on Earth maybe expensive,
But it includes an annual free trip round the Sun!
- 06-Aug-99, VC Bothra spake:
|>>that anything I can do is a violation of what I
|>>am is just nuts.
|>What do you say about cigarette smoking? What
|>about suicides? As you say that violence means
|>violating why does it have to be with respect
|>to someone else?
Yes it does, because none of the above is a
violation. You only mention smoking, and even
suiside, because to YOU that would be a violation.
To others that is who they are, what they do, part
|>know about it or isn't affected by it than
|>does it make your love less love or no love.
In the case of love you must refer to the
definition. Depends if love has some action,
violence does- violence requires you damage
someone and that's why it can't reside in the mind
|>As I had said violence is violence. There is
|>no context in which violence ceases to be
|>violence or changes it's nature.
Nope, certianly not. In the mind it dosn't change
it's nature, it simply dosn't exist.
re Accidental damage
|>Saying things in your way - What difference does
|>it make to the poor guy who is crushed under the
Nothing at all. In practical terms violence is
meaningless, in the real world we live in it's
just damage and counter damage, benifits and
counter benifts. To police this world jungle we
have politics, to protect each others interests.
We need to know more about this damage we're
defending against, so we find out about intention.
When it is an intended violation, we call it
violence....or at least I do. That's the
Something happened recently, I changed my mind
about words. Usually I'd just make up my own
definitions which are better than those of others.
But I think now that I should use the inferiour
ones even if my explainations are made more
complex. So I should refer to some dictionary to
express exactly what I mean, it might be that
violence is more or less than intentional damage
|>??? Whats the funny part? Is caring for the smallest
|>living being funny?
Yes, pretty funny. But that's not the smallest
living being, what about viruses? What about
inanimate minerals even? What about cement? Men
should care about men. Men should make mens lives
better and nature less dangerous and let no cow,
chicken or germ get in the way.
|>I don't think so. Lets call it "The Giles Eligibility
Let's call it reason and vioition. Let's call it
|>(Hope you take it lightly. No hard feelings. Only
No no! Well expressed.
|>My stand is this:
|>Total non-violence is ideal. But not possible generally.
|>Jainism tries to minimise the amount of violence in our
That is a mistake. If you mean to target something
like that then it could mean that slavery is okay,
or mass killings even. Anything you like, just so
long as it works toward reducing violence or
removing perpetrators completly.
The propper focus is utilitarianism, all people
freely living their own lives without force.
Nonviolence is only a means toward human interest.
It is human interest that must be served, that of
every single individual (not just most!!). It is a
system of social intercourse that needs to be the
focus, how people must or must not conduct
themselves. All you're talking about is taking the
guns away from people who still can't get along so
as to serve the ideal that they can't express
|>>practical way is to destroy the destroyers.
|>Lets try identifying the destroyer. Hitler was not the
|>real destroyer but it was his "thinking".
Sure, target the thinking where you can. It is the
idea that we are fighting of course. I havn't
resolved the way to draw a line about when it is
appropriate to use violence and not to yet. I
think it comes down to personal right to defence,
that you can either kill your attacker or be free
to reason with them.
Certinaly in law it comes down to appropriate
Cool Enough, TTFN!!!
What walks on four legs in the morning,two at midday,and three at twilight?