Positive statements

I just had an interesting conversation with jneal that brought yet another perspective into the the idea of cr for me. We talked about how using the word 'nonviolence' simply states how you aren't going to respond, it says nothing about how we are going to respond. This speaks to the issue of creating positively vs negatively - a subtle but important difference. Creating from a loving perspective instead of a fearful perspective. It's all about the intent behind the thoughts and words.

I suppose what fascinated me the most was that I hadn't thought about it in that way before. I hadn't consciously considered the profound difference between stating something in the negative (I believe in nonviolence) and stating the same thing in the positive (I believe in peaceful protest). That seems a bit unclear so let me try for a bit of clarity - nonviolence connotes *only* that violence will not be used to respond. It says *nothing* about what the response *will* be or whether or not there will even be a response. This poses an even more interesting theoretical consideration when you use the word nonviolence because it raises the question - exactly *what* is meant by nonviolence?

We all know what violence is - it's the use of force to coerce, manipulate, threaten, or otherwise get people to agree or go along with you. However, nonviolence, which implies the absence of violence, has no such connotations. It suggests no action but merely the absence of violent action (or reaction). Absolutely fascinating! I'm guessing this question has been, or is being, addressed by nonviolent activists and other such persons but I have no idea how to find out what they're saying just yet. Another topic of study when I'm hitting the books I guess.

I realize it's all just a matter of semantics but I believe the words we choose are extremely important because they help shape the reality we create. If the words and their connotations are unclear or poorly defined, the reality that results is a morass of confusion and conflicting purposes. It is difficult, though, because violence is so pervasive and we are so conditioned to its acceptance and promulgation. Nonviolence, however, is different. The word itself, while meaning only the absence of violence, needs to have a much larger connotation that includes peaceful opposition and other types of resistance that don't include physical force.

Oh - something that just occured to me - how do we redefine nonviolence to include action against nonphysical violence? Violent words and violent energy also need to be addressed as they are usually preludes to violent action. I'm not sure if these two aspects are always included when we talk about resisting violence but quite possibly they are. It's funny, we're so focused on the physical world and the physical manifestations of violence - is it possible that we often overlook the subtle hints that violence is coming? I know there are more and more movements to address the root causes of violent behavior and that may exactly the preventative measure I'm talking about.

Alright - enough ramble for one morning...time for some breakfast!