The Dream of Non-Violence

Identity

Identity,
Oh, how you seduce,
Filling that gap.

You know my scars, you are my scars,
Tear them open, revel in my pain.

Time does not change you, cruel mistress,
Perpetually in youth.

You lead on, you lead astray.
Clinging; can't get away.

Justice, hah. There is no reform.
Corrupt at your conception.

Calling for help, they stare, they stare.
Your reflection colluding them,
Seizing their air.

Breathe.

In, out.
Your life force, your power.
Enchanting; exhausting.

The ruse of weakness, you put on with mastery,
No knight, but slave, stumbling to your aid;
No chivalry, but pride, marking the way

Slave, drugged by your presence,
Wake up.
Wake up.






The weakness of our notions of 'self' and 'other' is not their contrast, but their reflection. Words have no inherent meaning, they gain it by their distinctiveness from other words. The coins and notes we use to convey wealth have little value on their own.

Just like our language and our values evolve over time, we ourselves do not remain fixed. Even a statue is battered by the elements. Yet how often we try to cast ourselves in a mold that we call 'identity.' We are deluding ourselves.

We often desire a sense of completeness, but how can such a thing exist in a world that's constantly changing? The media exploit this desire to no end, and it is the basis of advertising. Our life wouldn't be complete without product X, they say. You haven't lived until you've experienced product Y.

We give ourselves names, we wear certain brands of clothing, and some of us follow a kind of religion. It seems kind of ironic that we have the so-called 'world-renouncing religions' like Buddhism and Jainism, but it's not surprising that they have come about. Henry Thoreau was on to something too. Exclusion is a necessary consequence of identity. And war has been a very common result of exclusion throughout our history.

Am I endorsing homogeneity? Not at all, I just think it's damaging to think so much on difference. Thinking on difference is reflecting on the past, and why expend so much effort on something you can't change?

Yesterday I attended a lecture entitled “Is Non-Violence Politically Viable?” The presenter showed great experience and a wealth of thought in the areas of peace and human rights, and it was on the whole a thought-provoking, fascinating session.

Of course, I wouldn't be writing unless I had an itch to scratch. Here was a man who was involved in an organisation pursuing the elimination of war, the thrust of his thesis however was that we should be trying to rid our society of the things that dispose us toward violence. Admirable, for sure, but it came across as both quixotic and dissonant.

We cannot compound our thinking on global conflicts with that on national and domestic conflicts; they all require different strategies. The decision-makers in all of these conflicts differ. Considering western democracy, since it's most familiar to me, we must remember that this means 'representative democracy;' it is not the public making the decision to go to war – even though their sentiments may support the idea. Different governments will respond to public in their own ways; some will wage violence, some will find peaceful resolutions. To reduce global conflicts, it seems sensible that we should promote leaders of educated, cosmopolitan backgrounds; a problem that seems much more soluble than trying to bring all of society up to that level.

During question time, I asked him “given the advances in technology that are always making it easier for individuals to kill larger numbers of people, do you think that makes the ideal of reducing conflicts on a global scale less significant.” He said that basically supports his thesis. Well, sure; it would have been nice to know his thoughts on the other half of the question.

We live in troubling times. I can't help but wonder whether the problems of global warming are going to eclipse those of violent conflict; no doubt the former could lead to the other.