Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: violence

Expand Messages
  • Rick Giles
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      story though.

      |>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!
    • VC Bothra
      ... 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?
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Rick Giles wrote:

        >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? 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 a
        >violator- it isn't something you are.

        Saying things in your way - What difference does
        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.
        Pls explain.

        >Haha, very good. Of course I don't consider micros
        >to be eligable to be violated anyway.

        ??? Whats the funny part? Is caring for the smallest
        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
        Criteria."
        (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
        non-violence.



        VC

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
        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!
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      • Rick Giles
        ... 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
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 6, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          of them.

          |>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
          alone.

          |>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
          |>house?

          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
          difference.

          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
          to another.

          |>??? 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
          |>Criteria."

          Let's call it reason and vioition. Let's call it
          man, huMAN.

          |>(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
          |>life.

          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
          their intentions.

          |>>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
          defence.

          Cool Enough, TTFN!!!

          --
          What walks on four legs in the morning,two at midday,and three at twilight?
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.