Non-Violence

[Sculptor]

Non-Violence.

then non violence is not violent.

Non-violence is violence.

Patent rubbish.
FYI I did not read what followed.

[commonsense]

then non violence is not violent.

Non-violence is violence.

Patent rubbish.

Or non-rubbish.

FYI I did not read what followed.

Probably a prudent decision.

[commonsense]

FYI I did not read what followed.

In that case, what I posted on consciousness personified (on 9/2) is not for you. (ha!)

[Sculptor]

Non-violence is violence.

Patent rubbish.

Or non-rubbish.

FYI I did not read what followed.

Probably a prudent decision.

Yes not a non prudent decision.!

[Dontaskme]

FYI I did not read what followed.

FYI no one gives a fuck!

[Eodnhoj7]

Non-Violence is violence.

.

Truth, "non-violence" and "pacifism" are very forceful assertions.

Violence however is empty in and of itself, thus necessitates non violence.

The most original and true stance is to assume both, attachment to either necessitates fault in both as the failure to assume one or then other.

Illusion is divided assumptions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Violence never ends, therefore it can never start.

Non-Violence.

Non-Violence is Violence. Non-Violence can never end because Violence has no beginning.

Nonviolence is a context of violence as a force assertion, in itself is it empty like violence in itself is empty.

[Dontaskme]

Non-Violence is violence.

.

Truth, "non-violence" and "pacifism" are very forceful assertions.

Violence however is empty in and of itself, thus necessitates non violence.

The most original and true stance is to assume both, attachment to either necessitates fault in both as the failure to assume one or then other.

Illusion is divided assumptions.

I agree, very well said.

[Dontaskme]

Non-Violence.

Non-Violence is Violence. Non-Violence can never end because Violence has no beginning.

Nonviolence is a context of violence as a force assertion, in itself is it empty like violence in itself is empty.

Beautifully put.

[Sculptor]

FYI I did not read what followed.

FYI no one gives a fuck!

True. No one read what followed.

[Sculptor]

Non-Violence.

Non-Violence is Violence. Non-Violence can never end because Violence has no beginning.

Nonviolence is a context of violence as a force assertion, in itself is it empty like violence in itself is empty.

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

[Eodnhoj7]

Non-Violence is Violence. Non-Violence can never end because Violence has no beginning.

Nonviolence is a context of violence as a force assertion, in itself is it empty like violence in itself is empty.

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.

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

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.

[surreptitious57]

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

[Dontaskme]

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

Nature or IS-ness does not know violence. Non-violence IS violence only in the sense of ''something'' being knowledgable, which serves to inform the illusory nature of reality in that is does not know it is good nor bad, violent or calm, evil or loving, it just appears that way.

And this is the tragedy of life on earth in a cold impersonal universe, in that it's the most inhospitable and voilent experience ever observed. It's a cesspool of relentless mindless unimaginable horrific suffering on innocent life forms that never chose to be born into this hell hole of a place in the first place.

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics is the greatest killer of all time -

Knowledge informs life is dying as it is living simultaneously, as soon as we are born our body is already turning into a disgusting rotting decaying corpse. This cycle seems to be caught up in it's own self-perpetuating insatiable desire to be from which it is never satisfied, and is unable to escape from it's desires, it appears to be a non-extinguishable habit that it's totally addicted to. It's a brutal and violent blood thirsty killing machine that has no morals or justice or puropse other than to eat itself alive forever feeding from itself growing ever bigger each and every moment.

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

Humans will extinct soon because they are the cancer cells of the earth. Selfish to the core with an insatiable grandiose sense of self importance similarly to the way cancer cells themselves are observed to behave. So human extinction is a dead certain that we do know.
There is no hope of a utopian future for anything. Humans are total slaves to their egos which makes them the most sociopathic pathological narcissistic creatures to ever disgrace this planet. The earth will be well rid of them. For humans, love is just a false mask they wear to veil was is in truth a very deep dark evil intent to play god and rule the world like a bunch of insane criminals that will stop at nothing to get what they want, they are the devil incarnate. And what's worse is there is no certainty that after human extinction the whole human scenario will not start up again from scratch. Because if it's already happened once, then what's not to say it can't happen again and again and again. There seems no hope for any peace for any sentient creature on this earth. I used to think death would be the end of all this evil madness, but I'm not so sure about that now, but at least there is some rest bite as we yearn to go to sleep at the end of each day, but that's about all we are going to get, for there is no knowledge of the eternal peace of DEATH.
Also, lets not forget to look at what we leave behind us when we die, the suffering is endlessly continuing on and on for those who are still alive, there is no end at all, life is like a runaway train of suffering and carnage and pain to infinity and beyond.



.

[Sculptor]

Nonviolence is a context of violence as a force assertion, in itself is it empty like violence in itself is empty.

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

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.

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