privations in definition/non-violence

Alright, so I haven't posted anything in a real long time. And that's fair, I've gotten the idea to use this blog in a different way. My goal is to redesign a bit, and use this as supplementary notes on what I'm doing academically. That being said, I may be the only person reading it.

Oh well.

Today, I've been musing over the notion of pacifism, or non-violence. Before hitting that nail, some background is in due order to organize my thoughts. Heidegger makes an interesting idea when looking at the word truth, or in greek, aletheia. A-letheia.
The A-Privation there is intriguing, truth is then a "non" or "un" something, and of course this is where Heidegger goes with his understanding of truth as unhiddenness or unconcealment.

I've been thinking of other areas where this framework applies, one being in the word "Amen" and loosely with an understanding of pacifism. Amen is clearn, A-men, non-man. When this word is used in religious ideas, there is an inherent conception that the person being praised, questioned, protested, is not-man. This should be a key conception in the christian tradition which is notorious for using the word. Yet, it seems to me that it is not. Too often is god inferred to have human ideas, human abilities or characteristics, despite the dogma that says otherwise. Of course there is debate on the notion of human being an "image" of god, but that is for another time and another place. The issue that individuals need to grasp with "amen" shouldn't be what was stated above, but giving God human like motivations and concerns. I don't think god cared if George Bush or John Kerry was elected president of the united states. I'm not sure god is watching you to see if you aren't drinking excessively. I find it hard to tell that god is motivated by such concerns as "war on terror" or "stop abortions." I think god's motivation needs to be seen as something more than human, amen. Anyway, probably more on this later, I do want to get to pacifism.

Pacifism, defined by the OED is: "The policy or doctrine of rejecting war and every form of violent action as means of solving disputes, esp. in international affairs; the belief in and advocacy of peaceful methods as feasible and desirable alternatives to war." This is often summed as as simply, a policy of "non-violence." Before addressing the non-issue, notice that this idea is consistent throughout much of western and eastern history. Socrates argued for the lack of retaliation, or non-retaliation. Christ said something similar, not to meet anger with anger, but rather, turn the other cheek. The concept of ahimsa refers to "non-harm" and Daoists define virtue its in negation, and one virtue is non-harm and non-retaliation. Clearly the point I am about to address isn't circumstantial.

Non-violence must in some way pressupose a knowledge of violence, and understanding of violence, perhaps the act of violence itself. Pacifists, politically, are seen as "protesting" something, but there must be something to be protested. What I want to say is something deeper though: namely that to understand non-violence one must have more than an act of violence to react to. One must be violent. And this is where the error of many individuals stems. My basis for this is still maturing academically, but through lived experience in relation to martial arts and my personal fixation with Daoism, the theory stands quite solid.

"One must learn to be hit, before one may hit." Was something I used to tell my students, I'm recognizing now how limited it is (while still affirming its value, pragmatically). My statement above is based in a belief that one must know the experience of being harmed, before one can learn how or when to harm another. But knowing violence is much more than committing an act of harm, it is an orientation and a knowledge of the acts involved in violence.

To study martial arts is first and foremost, studying ways and actions that commit serious harm. This is the tool one uses to learn something more essential to ______. (substitute in, existence, ethical life, wisdom, practical knowledge, etc...) The tools used in development, are violent. Not simply violent because they have the potential to cause harm, but violent in intent. When doing a simple exercise routine, not even a kata or paired exercise, I am visualizing a strike against an object, a tree.* More than just the act, the visualized intent or reason for the motion is harmful. The tree, theoretically, is replaced by one's enemy. Martial arts, have at their basis despite their usually nonviolent goals, violent actions.

This seems to me to fit with the teachings of the Sages, who often say that one must know X, to shun X. The quote that comes to mind is, "Know Magic, Shun Magic." But one could see how sections of the Daodejing fit clearly into this. To be able to shun violence, as is the goal of most martial arts, one must know violence.

Bringing this back around to the pacifists, how many of them have a knowledge of said violence? They clearly have a motivation to wish it "gone", but do they have the prerequisite knowledge to truly make that happen? My contention is that so many individuals jump onto this idealistic concept, and yet our world has barely changed for the better, and oftentimes has changed for the worst. Is this because the "man" is still smashing us down? No. The man exists because of us, (see the Organization Man) rather we haven't been able to recognize the need of pacifism, because those who are acting violent aren't looking past their immediate ends, and those advocating nonviolence don't understand the prereq for their statement.

Embrace the uncarved block - be prepared to know about anything potential.


*Posture 6 in the Marrow Washing Classic, as taught by Deng Ming Dao