COMING TO TERMS WITH VIOLENCE
_____________________________________
My
definition of violence is that it is an act upon any flora or fauna
that is a direct and deliberate use of a destructive or negative nature.
In terms of survival of all species of flora and fauna it is a negative of survival, including the perpetrator.
The
creature (fauna) Man appears to have (ultimately) a non-survival
nature. His ‘societies’ have been doomed to failure since the begining.
It is true that Man has survived for thousands of years but the quality of that survival is rapidly diminishing.
It
is true that Man’s survival has been ‘his’ ability to create tools for
his existence but these have degenerated into weapons of destruction
and not survival.
Since the ‘Man’ creature is weak in strength
compared with other creatures, he has developed tools to compensate for
this. This is the nature of survival.
However, it is also the nature of demise.
Deliberate
violence cannot be accepted when one is aware of the nature of
violence, which is the desecration of the ‘right’ to survival. Thus
deliberate ‘murder’ is not acceptable. If one takes away the survival
mechanisms of another, one loses the ‘right’ to their own survival;
anything else is a ‘cop out’ which is a human notion.
Present
‘societies’ assume that some sort of violence is acceptable. Everything
we see and hear about in present ‘society’ is a ‘war’ on something.
Life seems to be a perpetual ‘war’ on something or other.
The creature ‘Man’ is, in common parlance, mostly a ‘loser’. The ‘loser’ is himself.
If
the dinosaur went its way because it got too big to breathe, then Man
will go his way because he got too big to live with nature in a
different way. He got too big because his technology outweighed his
ability to use it in a constructive, positive way to aid his survival.
In
other words, Man’s mind went beyond his capabilities to use it
constructively for the purposes of survival at a lower level that would
ensure it. In short words, he failed to meet Nature on her own terms
and decided that he could do better. His tombstone will read: ‘Here
lies the Dark Age Man’.
I have no idea if Man is terminally
violent or not. I would like to believe that he is not but I am not
convinced from his actions over the many centuries. Like I say: Here
lies the Dark Age Man.
It is not surprising that Man likes
things static. When one is unsure, one likes some sort of permanancy;
the cave to come home to, the good woman at the door, our off-spring.
This
is not to be. There are Very Dark Agencies abroad. They do not wish
this to happen because, given your original survival mechanisms, you
could survive these tribulations.
The creature Man seems to have
lost his ability to survive. He has allowed others to control his
survival for their own selfish ends. He is a ‘loser’ as they say.
We have become entranced with violence. We seem to revel in the murder of innocents because we are rarely confronted in ‘real’.
I
walk in my local town and I never see violence of the kind one sees in
movies. Even in the U.S. I am sure people rarely see actual violence
(although I do not know this as I have never been there and certainly
have no desire to do so. I have been around the world by ship).
I
am sorry to say, that most of the gratuitous violence that one sees,
hears about, or whatever, emanates from the U.S. and I wonder why this
is.
Yet I do not wonder because the U.S. is full of the poor
quality humans who emigrated to that continent (full of survivalist
aborigines) and who decimated them for the sake of their survival to
nothing. These immigrants had no idea abour survival; they were
victimes (possibly) of the regimes they came from but were probably not
capable of survival on their own personal merit.
This is not
necessarily to denegrate them but to point out that not all of human
creatures are able to survive on their own merits. Maybe that is the
‘law’ of the jungle, as they say.
Return
to CONTENTS page