an interpretative example of understanding environment (part 4: unwanted violence)

in applying or understanding the nature of environment as if possessed of conscious intent (not though in paradoxical actuality) we will inevitably hit metaphysical stumbling blocks.  but through this process of perceiving there is the idea that clarity is formed because if we have difficulty in applying what living is beyond us we will examine what does apply in regards of environment (including attempted insight beyond human behavioral contexts) and its potential to have influence on violence and volatile situations.  a useful way to think of environment as if possessing conscious intent is through terms such as peaceful or hostile – terms we are not unfamiliar with but in this context gives a grounding of what this is likely to be and what it is not.

the environment in its own right (without or beyond terms of living consciousness) should not inherently be disregarded as a lower order when it comes to how situations of violence and hostility evolve or devolve.  in fact and interestingly hierarchies of safety priority when applied to the places we might visit or frequent can recognise well the primary importance of external environments, conditions and setting.

in taoist terms the internal self and external world could in fact on a deeper level be argued as the same or at least more closely interconnected than we would have been led to believe.  the association with taoism is integral to this in so much as acknowledging we are a part of the world as much as the world is a part of us and so such thoughts can help to recognise this, but also to imagine what it is to move beyond the boundaries of self and behavior.

some thoughts on rule & conduct (Herrschaftgebilden – part 3: unwanted violence)

extremis*1. or in this understanding of violence is not just the physical onslaught or verbal assault by those considered by any establishment to be deviant in action, but is also inclusive of violence (political oppression) legitimised by official power.  yet interpreting from the sociologist Max Weber there is indication that legitimising “rule (Herschaft) of man over man ”is an inescapable fact of human existence.  the concern is that if man is inherently violent and/or political (involving the nature of rule), then are we all not involved with a nature that is diabolical*2. in force?

whilst we may confine ourselves to the conjectured forms of understanding rule, legitimacy and deviance, we may overlook the very nature of rational thinking; doxa (in this interpretation to mean right opinion) with gnosis (interpreted in this context as debated knowledge).  

*1. in this context extremis is an aggressive restless state, which is externally characterised by destructiveness towards self, objects or/and others.
*2. diabolical forces does not relate to some real or imagined external link to malign intelligent forces outside human consciousness or even nature,but to the destructiveness that exists both within self and nature.