Keeping our violence in check

1043:

Take the violent world.  In it, we always try to get what we want.  We bend the rules and intend to fix things up properly later and then, forgetting to do that, end up with the same mess.  We never seem able to solve the problem of human-induced violence.

           

It’s different in the violent world of Nature.  Events like storms, epidemics and earthquakes destroy on a massive scale. But it’s not the same as human violence, which is so damaging and wanton or so coldly calculated; I want what you’ve got, I threaten you, I go to war, I win or lose.

By implementing the principles of non-violence, it’s implicit that we aren’t wanting to win. Instead, we are looking to understand the root of our problems; not just trying to catch the serial-killer but understand why the sociopath-psychopath has chosen that path.  It’s slower and takes more effort but is a more thorough way of dealing with complex problems. Non-violence always has a better look than violence, and if it solves anything at all it provides a much more permanent solution. 

Violence has an unattractive look, especially when we examine our own relationship with it.  And if we see it for what it is, we might want to do something about it.  In one of those moments of self-realisation we’ll look to see how to fix it, properly. And there’s no more obvious place to start than with our food.  It’s the first step in keeping our own violence in check.

But there’s no gain without pain.  Dropping violence involves a long to-do list of things to NOT do.

           

Here’s the theory - when I change, to accommodate an idea as universal as non-violence, I’ll need to test it against other people’s opinion of it.  If they’re as impressed as I am, they’ll change accordingly, and their change will make my change easier.  My non-violence will therefore win a following.  But it’s not as simple as that.  This isn’t how it works.  Non-violence is not a reality in the same way violence is.

Violence brings advantage especially when others engage in it and I reap the benefit, especially if I’m not directly associated with it.  And also, if it comes close to me, if it seduces me, the damage it might do me is lessened by the fact that everyone else is doing it. It is so omnipresent.  It’s visible everywhere, in everyone, in children, in our partners, in the collective consciousness, and we all make use of it. We say that if they use violence why shouldn’t I?

However we come to regard violence, it’s not that easy to shake off.  If we don’t like it or we see that it doesn’t bring the results we want, we might drop it.  But then we must replace it with something just as strong and almost as advantageous.

Non-violent principle looks strong but its advantages aren’t quite so obvious, being less in touch with reality.  It just seems like a good idea that’s not very practical.

If we can see the difference between the two (the most obvious place is abattoir versus non-abattoir) we might vote for non-violence.  The safest and most appropriate place to trial non-violence then would be at home, in our relationships with fellow humans and with companion animals and in the commodities we buy.  This would be when our latest change brings more harmony into our lives and acts as a springboard to everything else.  By checking ourselves for violence, by seeing how respect for non-violence affects our closest relationships, we can watch things beginning to grow, things which before might have seemed static.

By applying non-violent principles to our lives, at home in our relatively safe environment, we can better deal with praise, mockery, criticism, intimacy, ridicule, lack of encouragement, etc., and the impact is softened by the very intimacy of living amongst people who know us, especially if it’s mixed with true affection.  It’s with the people we are closest to that we can work through our differences, perhaps slowly but perhaps more thoroughly, more ‘organically’.

           

Hopefully, at home we can look out for each other, and try to never ‘leave one another behind’, which again is a central principle of non-violence.  If we have a bond with non-violence we won’t break-up with each other so readily or not with so much acrimony.  There’ll be fewer contracts of hatred and things will be done in a more civilised and less destructive way.

By using non-violence to build a more mutually caring society, we’ll come to feel safer and be more able to express ourselves freely, even with strangers.  We’ll be able to communicate more openly, by stating without aggression, “this is what I reckon” or “I disagree”, and we’ll be able to take others’ opposition to our views without flaring up in ego-defensiveness and violent reaction.