No worries. I'm not sure though that you understood me, unless you believe in initiating violence even if you are not under any attack? I have a feeling that you put what I said in a specific box, as things have to be black and white for you- that's because some of the things you said in your reply to me - I didn't even say or mentioned, it's your assumption that this is what I mean.. anyway, thanks for listening too. I like a discussion that involve more questions, and not assumptions, but it's harder in text I think.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Please be patient with me. I have many demands on my time. Our getting to know each other must be done in slow motion, over many days, in little pieces.
If we were chatting live, the conversation would be richer. Using text to converse is like breathing through a straw. Tackling a sensitive world-view values issue with text is like breathing through a straw when you are jogging.
On the battlefield, yes, I believe in initiating violence. "The best defense is a good offense." In my legal fighting against corrupt government, I get in a good punch whenever there is an opening. So does my opponent.
In nature, a carnivore initiates violence to obtain each meal. That is also the way of the man's world, although that nature is concealed.
Yes, we are very far in our approaches.
In nature a carnivore need to initiate violence - otherwise it will die - this is a different story.
I understand your approach but don't agree with it. The way I see it - in a way, you are part of the problem. You see me as part of the problem. so will have to agree to disagree...
By the way, that doesn't mean that I am not up for activism, but activism for me is non-violent.
I choose not to live in fear, I choose to live in love and in my experience I see that it also affects the people around me. You go in to a shop - you smile to the person there, you have a chat - it makes a difference.
Part of the difficulty that I am having is that I must presume without knowing that you are a female and I have to guess at how old you are. I'm not asking; just be aware that these mysteries make it harder for me to express my ideas in a way that makes them accessible to you. I am speaking as a 63 year old man, and we are discussing a topic that (I claim) men and women will naturally see from different angles.
In my opinion, we are not disagreeing. Using my metaphor of the village/hunt, we are conversing about the nature of human life and whether there is a potential for a fundamental change toward peace. You are a woman in the village. I am a hunter/warrior out in the jungle. The village is supposed to be a place of peace; that is purpose of the hunter/warriors, to protect and to provide for the village so that it will be a place of peace and plenty. The hunt, and the battlefield, can never be a place of peace.
As a woman, it is your nature to cooperate with other women to make the village a peaceful and joyful place. As a man, it is my nature to cooperate with other men to protect the village and to provide for it.
This is the pattern of life. It is a pattern that will never change, because it is built into us. Due to the complexity of society today, the relevance of the village/hunt metaphor is not obvious. But if you look with honest eyes, you will see it.