Non-Violence

[Eodnhoj7]

True but that does not make non violence violent. It makes non violence the obverse of violence.

Not violence is a rigid assertion, as rigid it projects itself under a form of various actions as a display of ideological force that dominates those around the observer including the observing him/her self.

No. It is not a rigid assertion at all. It is not any assertion by necessity. It presents no action, no display, no force (particularly no force whatever, by definition), no domination , and it may be no more than a casual observation.
You are a loon

False, it is an ideology and as an ideology is an assertion. Non violence is definition by negation, it defines itself by what it is not. It is a negation of force, but there are various innumerable degrees and manners of force that non violence applies.

Non violence is a statement of pacifism and pacifism is a dogma necessitating observing not just a negation of force but also what is not forceful by nature...ie peace, thus it requires creating more and more definitions and contexts as to what peace is. It creates assumptions and layers these assumptions into patterns that form how one approaches the world or rather reality (such as empirical and abstract experiences, etc.

Illusions require violence to negate them, illusions are grounded in patterns by nature, with these patterns both being composed of and acting as assumptions. Pacifism is a pattern of assumptions, and so it warmongering as its relative antithetical element.

Both warmongering and pacifism are extremes, and as extremes represent an illusion by nature considering polarity as the seperation of assumption is the grounding of definition.

If you see the buddha...kill him. If you see Jesus...kill him. If you see Isis... kill her.

If you see it, it is an image that is intrinsically empty in and of itself thus an illusion.

Violence as a stance necessitates the same assertion of force as a rigid stance, and as such is self defeating.

"violence", yes. Non violence, no. That is how logic works.

And what is logic without making an assumption?

All rigid stances break, as both require attachment to some imagined idea. However a paradox occurs as this implies no morality, which is not really the case either as subjecting oneself to base attachments of appetite is a rigid stance as well as it is attachment to some imagined idea.

I can consume more food, or sleep with a multitude of women, but reptition of these manners of approaching desire only instills habits that act of binding patterns in themselves. Both appetites above in themselves are self defeating as they are never even satisfied, and empty assumptions in themselves.

People create patterns of thought and act which are empty in and of themselves to pursue that which is empty in and of itself, and in creating these patterns they become subject not only to a divided awareness but the pattern itself eventually must be continually assumed when in fact it is just hollow "imaging"...imagining being the giving of form to thought word or deed in an attempt to overcome and dominate there will on reality.

However if one is to assume the will truly for what it is, in assumed it we must assume also that the assumptions we make are fundamentally groundless and empty as well.

Violence and non violence are grounded in the pursuit and manipulation of forms empty in themselves, continuing fundamentally nothing.

Both are extremes and both are negated as extremes when we assume them strictly for what they are...groundless assumptions.


To say one or the other is true is hypocrisy when both manifest themselves in our lives to various degrees....either extreme divides the mind causing it to lose focus on what is needed in the time and space in which it exists.

PLONK

[Eodnhoj7]

Nature is violent because it is in a constant state of motion which is one force acting upon another force
And because of this there is no such thing as non violence there are merely different degrees of violence

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics is the greatest killer of all time - the only thing it cannot kill is Existence itself which is eternal
But everything else - that is everything within Existence - will eventually die by it for violence is literally everywhere within Nature

The human condition is a microcosm of Nature so is also full of violence in all of its various manifestations
That will be the death of us along with the aforementioned SLT but after our extinction has occurred we
will experience no more violence ever again and as death is eternal that is something to look forward to

True, but dont forget negentropy as well...nature is not strictly entropic only.

[Dontaskme]

Sculptor

I don't think you seem to understand.

Non-violence is violence.

[Sculptor]

Violence as a stance necessitates the same assertion of force as a rigid stance, and as such is self defeating.

Tell that to Ghandhi.

"violence", yes. Non violence, no. That is how logic works.

And what is logic without making an assumption?

Irrelevant.
By the terms of definition you are wrong.
A definition is an assumption. "non" is a negation.
Get a life!

[Dontaskme]

By the terms of definition you are wrong.
A definition is an assumption. "non" is a negation.

To negate something is to assume it exists. An assumption is it's own source that cannot be negated. You can negate every assumption except source of an assumption.

'Non' is not a negation. It's an assumption that 'non' is a negation.
By the terms of definition you are wrong.

Get a life!

You cannot get a life, life gets you. Non-violence is violence.

.

[Sculptor]

By the terms of definition you are wrong.
A definition is an assumption. "non" is a negation.

To negate something is to assume it exists.

Not necessarily. Think about it!

An assumption is it's own source that cannot be negated.

If I take up a position I can take up its converse, idiot.

You can negate every assumption except source of an assumption.

Rubbish. What I create I can destroy.

'Non' is not a negation. It's an assumption that 'non' is a negation.

You are contradicting yourself, idiot. If "non" is not a negation, then ""non" is not a negation" is not a negation either. LOL
You cannot negate anything I say based on your logic.
That means you have to agree with every thing i say.

[Dontaskme]

By the terms of definition you are wrong.
A definition is an assumption. "non" is a negation.

To negate something is to assume it exists.

Not necessarily. Think about it!

An assumption is it's own source that cannot be negated.

If I take up a position I can take up its converse, idiot.

You can negate every assumption except source of an assumption.

Rubbish. What I create I can destroy.

'Non' is not a negation. It's an assumption that 'non' is a negation.

You are contradicting yourself, idiot. If "non" is not a negation, then ""non" is not a negation" is not a negation either. LOL
You cannot negate anything I say based on your logic.
That means you have to agree with every thing i say.

I guess your back reading again then.

Is that because you just don't get what's being discussed here? and is why you have to call other people idiots, because only you are right and I am just plain idiotically wrong. Ha! If you knew what was being discussed here then you wouldn't have to keep calling yourself an idiot idiot

You seem unable to accept that everything you speak of or claim to know is an assumption that can be negated except the source of those assumptions.

.

[Sculptor]

"waiter, there's a fly in my soup"
" I can't see a fly!!"
"Silly it's a non-fly!"
"Ooops, sorry sir. Can you keep your voice down - everyone will want one."

If non-violence=violence, then violence=non-violence.
How does a policeman get away with killing a black man? Easy- violence is non violent.

[Dontaskme]

If non-violence=violence, then violence=non-violence.

Violence can never be not/non-violence otherwise violence wouldn't be known as the concept it is, therefore, non-violence is violence not the other way around.

Violence is a concept known, and concepts know nothing.

I repeat. Non-violence is violence.

.

[Dontaskme]

"waiter, there's a fly in my soup"
" I can't see a fly!!"
"Silly it's a non-fly!"
"Ooops, sorry sir. Can you keep your voice down - everyone will want one."

No thing has ever seen a fly

A fly is a conceptual thing known, a thing is just an empty conceptual known image looked upon by no thing imageless consciousness the only knowing there is.

.

[Sculptor]

"waiter, there's a fly in my soup"
" I can't see a fly!!"
"Silly it's a non-fly!"
"Ooops, sorry sir. Can you keep your voice down - everyone will want one."

No thing has ever seen a fly
.

And this is why you are an idiot.

[Sculptor]

If non-violence=violence, then violence=non-violence.

Violence can never be not/non-violence otherwise violence wouldn't be known as the concept it is, therefore, non-violence is violence not the other way around.

Violence is a concept known, and concepts know nothing.

I repeat. Non-violence is violence.

.

Yes and violence is non violence.