•••
As mentioned earlier, the only way to finish the first book is to end it before it is actually finished. So, we wrapped up the first part of the study and is now starting with the second one. Just to let you know, a friend doing the editing of the book just informed me that the editing will be finished by next week. Another good friend will be writing the Preface, and an old friend will write the Introduction. So, yesterday was really a great day. It is now just a matter of time and the book will be published. Hopefully, it will be available from amazon.com and your favorite bookstore by the summer of next year. Summer in the North Zone, that is; winter here in Rio de Janeiro, the cidade maravilhosa.
Now, on to the next.
Like the entries in the first book, this one will also be written in blog form. It will be a continuation of this blog on vengeance, violence and nonviolence. This time, we will try to analyze vengeance and violence in all its forms -- in all its subtleties. It will be tentatively titled, "THE FREEDOM TO BE FREE".
Among other subjects, we will tackle the themes on possession, imposition, laws, war, suffering, sacrifice, criticism, self-criticism, freedom of choice, tolerance, receiving, giving, forgiving, reconciliation, meaning, cultural diversity, individual diversity, and for some reason, I would like to include the theme of aesthetics.
•••
Note 1: If you want to read Book One of this series, please go to the August Archive, or click here.
Note 2: If you prefer to read Book One offline, please click here to download the manuscript to your computer.
Note 3: If you prefer to read Book One in PDF form, please click here.
•••
15.12.08
The Pre-condition
•••
I know I begun the first book with questions and ended it with even more questions; but what can I do? This is how it is -- I just do not know the answers to most of these questions. I am finding out that the more I know, the more I know that I do not know anything. But at the least, this I know for certain: the only way for man to stop violence is for him to stop thinking that his violence is inherent in him -- to stop thinking that it is natural for him to be violent. But this is just the pre-condition. Knowing you're sick does not cure the illness, but anyway, you have to know first that something is wrong before you can make it right. Right?
And how do we make it right?
How else, if not by asking more questions.
•••
I know I begun the first book with questions and ended it with even more questions; but what can I do? This is how it is -- I just do not know the answers to most of these questions. I am finding out that the more I know, the more I know that I do not know anything. But at the least, this I know for certain: the only way for man to stop violence is for him to stop thinking that his violence is inherent in him -- to stop thinking that it is natural for him to be violent. But this is just the pre-condition. Knowing you're sick does not cure the illness, but anyway, you have to know first that something is wrong before you can make it right. Right?
And how do we make it right?
How else, if not by asking more questions.
•••
Possession
•••
• Why talk about possession? How is possession related to violence?
• But first, what is possession? What is it to possess?
• Is to possess the same as to acquire, to own, to have? Does it refer to the actual owning of objects and objects of affection, or does it have to do more with the emotional attachment to the thing or person that we possess? Is it the opposite of "letting go"? It is like saying, to dispossess is to let go. But, let go of what?
• Is controlling, the same as possessing? Is to possess something or someone, the same as to have control over something or someone?
• Why then, do we want to control? Why do we want to possess?
• Is compassion the anti-thesis of possession?
• Does possession have anything to do with the consciousness' inherent need to perpetually balance* itself? Is it trying to be in equilibrium by compensating, by possessing, by owning, by controlling?
• Is to control also to impose?
• Is losing control also losing "balance"?
• Does balance have anything to do with symmetry? with aesthetics?
• It is like we have many worlds, and we need to control these worlds.
•••
*To read more about balance, please, go to the entry in Book I, The Balance.
•••
• Why talk about possession? How is possession related to violence?
• But first, what is possession? What is it to possess?
• Is to possess the same as to acquire, to own, to have? Does it refer to the actual owning of objects and objects of affection, or does it have to do more with the emotional attachment to the thing or person that we possess? Is it the opposite of "letting go"? It is like saying, to dispossess is to let go. But, let go of what?
• Is controlling, the same as possessing? Is to possess something or someone, the same as to have control over something or someone?
• Why then, do we want to control? Why do we want to possess?
• Is compassion the anti-thesis of possession?
• Does possession have anything to do with the consciousness' inherent need to perpetually balance* itself? Is it trying to be in equilibrium by compensating, by possessing, by owning, by controlling?
• Is to control also to impose?
• Is losing control also losing "balance"?
• Does balance have anything to do with symmetry? with aesthetics?
• It is like we have many worlds, and we need to control these worlds.
•••
*To read more about balance, please, go to the entry in Book I, The Balance.
•••
Possession, Part Two
•••
Continuing with the theme of possession...
• Do I exist because of the "objects" around me? Are these "objects" there to give me support?
• Do my identity, my integrity depend on these "objects"? Do I exist because they exists?
What does my identification with these objects got to do with my existence?
• And if they do not exist; where will I be?
• Why are we so very much identified with these "objects"?
• And what are these "objects"? These are things we have, want to have, or things we are afraid to lose. These could be actual objects, like our cars, houses, knick-knacks, pimples, etc.; or intangible things such as ideas, doctrines, causes, opinions, place in society, etc.; or people like, friends, children, love ones, relatives, family, wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends, enemies, etc.
• Yes, enemies. Sometimes, people do need to have enemies, they have to have someone to fight with, to be angry with, to compete with. Films, dramas, need to have villains so that the actions of the hero will have meaning. Is it this same as in real life? Do we really have to have an adversary to give meaning to our lives?
• Even the existing economic system, so called "laissez-faire" is based on competition -- unless of course, the companies of their friends are in danger of collapsing -- then, they start to talk about financial aids and bail-outs.
• And because of this -- because, my existence depends on these "objects" -- is this the reason why it is very hard to let go? Is this the reason why it is not so easy to dispossess?
• And when I lose these objects that I possess, these things that I "own", I suffer. Is it because the balance, the equilibrium is somehow lost when the object is lost -- putting the whole structure out of balance, the whole structure out of equilibrium?
• Or, could it be that this disequilibrium cannot be offset with compensating possession? That when I am able to compensate this disequilibrium by possessing, I am really just getting a temporary reprieve, a temporary balance, an illusory equilibrium?
• And what exactly do we mean when we say that this equilibrium is illusory?
We will discuss this on later blogs.
•••
Continuing with the theme of possession...
• Do I exist because of the "objects" around me? Are these "objects" there to give me support?
• Do my identity, my integrity depend on these "objects"? Do I exist because they exists?
What does my identification with these objects got to do with my existence?
• And if they do not exist; where will I be?
• Why are we so very much identified with these "objects"?
• And what are these "objects"? These are things we have, want to have, or things we are afraid to lose. These could be actual objects, like our cars, houses, knick-knacks, pimples, etc.; or intangible things such as ideas, doctrines, causes, opinions, place in society, etc.; or people like, friends, children, love ones, relatives, family, wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends, enemies, etc.
• Yes, enemies. Sometimes, people do need to have enemies, they have to have someone to fight with, to be angry with, to compete with. Films, dramas, need to have villains so that the actions of the hero will have meaning. Is it this same as in real life? Do we really have to have an adversary to give meaning to our lives?
• Even the existing economic system, so called "laissez-faire" is based on competition -- unless of course, the companies of their friends are in danger of collapsing -- then, they start to talk about financial aids and bail-outs.
• And because of this -- because, my existence depends on these "objects" -- is this the reason why it is very hard to let go? Is this the reason why it is not so easy to dispossess?
• And when I lose these objects that I possess, these things that I "own", I suffer. Is it because the balance, the equilibrium is somehow lost when the object is lost -- putting the whole structure out of balance, the whole structure out of equilibrium?
• Or, could it be that this disequilibrium cannot be offset with compensating possession? That when I am able to compensate this disequilibrium by possessing, I am really just getting a temporary reprieve, a temporary balance, an illusory equilibrium?
• And what exactly do we mean when we say that this equilibrium is illusory?
We will discuss this on later blogs.
•••
Music to My Eyes
•••
I received a short but very incisive comment from someone yesterday. I just want to say here that it is always very nice to receive commentaries and feedbacks from others. I am like the classical composer hearing his composition for the first time.
Music is produced in most musical instruments (for example, the guitar and the piano) through its "sound board". The music we hear is not coming from the strings of the guitar or the piano. The music we hear is coming from the "sound board".
That's the reason why I am always happy to read comments from others; because they are the soundboards that actually create the music. Indeed, they are music to my eyes.
•••
I received a short but very incisive comment from someone yesterday. I just want to say here that it is always very nice to receive commentaries and feedbacks from others. I am like the classical composer hearing his composition for the first time.
Music is produced in most musical instruments (for example, the guitar and the piano) through its "sound board". The music we hear is not coming from the strings of the guitar or the piano. The music we hear is coming from the "sound board".
That's the reason why I am always happy to read comments from others; because they are the soundboards that actually create the music. Indeed, they are music to my eyes.
•••
Real Estate, Is it Real?
•••
We received a feedback from one of our friends following this blog. They asked, "So what's wrong with my owning a car -- I use it to go to work. And what's so wrong with having my own house?
Of course, there's nothing wrong with owning a car -- to go to work or to go on a holiday. Surely, there's nothing wrong for people to have their own homes. In fact, we believe that every one should have their own homes.
You can own a car, a house, a giant 72-inch LCD High Definition TV, a 200-foot luxury yacht, etc. You can even have your cake and eat it too -- if you can.
But that is not the problem. The problem is not our having, owning or possessing. The problem is our identification -- our emotional attachment, our psychological dependence on these objects. The problem is that we have given these objects attributes that are not present, attributes that they do not have, we have given them false attributes. Sometimes we are still almost like the superstitious caveman believing in the power of his talisman -- although in a more subtle way.
We are so identified with our possessions, we believe they are part of us. If they are damaged or lost, we suffer. Remember the time when your favorite toy got broken? Or the time when your first love broke up with you?
•••
We received a feedback from one of our friends following this blog. They asked, "So what's wrong with my owning a car -- I use it to go to work. And what's so wrong with having my own house?
Of course, there's nothing wrong with owning a car -- to go to work or to go on a holiday. Surely, there's nothing wrong for people to have their own homes. In fact, we believe that every one should have their own homes.
You can own a car, a house, a giant 72-inch LCD High Definition TV, a 200-foot luxury yacht, etc. You can even have your cake and eat it too -- if you can.
But that is not the problem. The problem is not our having, owning or possessing. The problem is our identification -- our emotional attachment, our psychological dependence on these objects. The problem is that we have given these objects attributes that are not present, attributes that they do not have, we have given them false attributes. Sometimes we are still almost like the superstitious caveman believing in the power of his talisman -- although in a more subtle way.
We are so identified with our possessions, we believe they are part of us. If they are damaged or lost, we suffer. Remember the time when your favorite toy got broken? Or the time when your first love broke up with you?
•••
Non-tolerance of Violence
•••
I was just reading a news article regarding the conviction of four members of the Animal Liberation Front getting a maximum of 14 years in prison for a six-year campaign of blackmail against an animal research laboratory in the UK. Although, we condemn extremist activities, no matter for what cause or issue; we think that this sentence is too harsh.
On the other hand, I just cannot understand how some people upon witnessing a pet animal being abused, say, a dog being beaten by its owner, will do something instantly to stop the owner from continuing his violent act, even to the extent of calling police phone number, 911, which should only be called during emergency – but, will not do anything to stop their government from going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.
War is the worst kind of violence that could be inflicted on innocent people of the world -- no matter where they are, whoever they may be.
Here is a good example of what we said in an earlier post, that tolerance of violence is violence.
We will add something to this. If tolerance of violence is violence, therefore, non-tolerance of violence is nonviolence.
Working for cessation of wars is active nonviolence.
Wouldn't it be just great if people have the same abhorrence and repugnance to wars and to violence inflicted on their fellow human beings as they have to animal abuse?
•••
I was just reading a news article regarding the conviction of four members of the Animal Liberation Front getting a maximum of 14 years in prison for a six-year campaign of blackmail against an animal research laboratory in the UK. Although, we condemn extremist activities, no matter for what cause or issue; we think that this sentence is too harsh.
On the other hand, I just cannot understand how some people upon witnessing a pet animal being abused, say, a dog being beaten by its owner, will do something instantly to stop the owner from continuing his violent act, even to the extent of calling police phone number, 911, which should only be called during emergency – but, will not do anything to stop their government from going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.
War is the worst kind of violence that could be inflicted on innocent people of the world -- no matter where they are, whoever they may be.
Here is a good example of what we said in an earlier post, that tolerance of violence is violence.
We will add something to this. If tolerance of violence is violence, therefore, non-tolerance of violence is nonviolence.
Working for cessation of wars is active nonviolence.
Wouldn't it be just great if people have the same abhorrence and repugnance to wars and to violence inflicted on their fellow human beings as they have to animal abuse?
•••
Judgment Day
•••
I am deleting this entry from Book I and will post it here in Book II instead. It seems to me that the subject is a step closer to the core of the theme of vengeance and violence.
People are so concerned with justice and its application -- they are so obsessed with it, they even invented a god that is ALL-JUST. Why? If not to punish -- and get my vengeance in the afterlife -- people that have done me or other people harm. If I am not able to have my revenge in this life, with a god that is all-just, I am assured that those people will get what they deserved in the afterlife.
In short, people would rather avoid reconciliation and just ignore the principle of solidarity, that says, "Treat others as you want them to treat you" and just go with the principle of "justice" -- which is really masked revenge -- that says, "Treat others as they deserved to be treated".
So, they came up with the concept of the final justice, the ultimate justice, or the ultimate application of justice -- "Judgement Day"! Where, on the "end of days", all sinners who will eventually go to eternal hell will be on god's left, and those (I am not so sure who are the people that will stay on god's right since everyone sinned anyway) on the right will go to heaven.
But, can you see the deep rooted mechanism working here? How whole cultures' psyche is so obsessed with vengeance and revenge? So much so, that they would not only pursue perpetrators to the ends of the earth, but also to the ends of life, and even the afterlife!
•••
I am deleting this entry from Book I and will post it here in Book II instead. It seems to me that the subject is a step closer to the core of the theme of vengeance and violence.
People are so concerned with justice and its application -- they are so obsessed with it, they even invented a god that is ALL-JUST. Why? If not to punish -- and get my vengeance in the afterlife -- people that have done me or other people harm. If I am not able to have my revenge in this life, with a god that is all-just, I am assured that those people will get what they deserved in the afterlife.
In short, people would rather avoid reconciliation and just ignore the principle of solidarity, that says, "Treat others as you want them to treat you" and just go with the principle of "justice" -- which is really masked revenge -- that says, "Treat others as they deserved to be treated".
So, they came up with the concept of the final justice, the ultimate justice, or the ultimate application of justice -- "Judgement Day"! Where, on the "end of days", all sinners who will eventually go to eternal hell will be on god's left, and those (I am not so sure who are the people that will stay on god's right since everyone sinned anyway) on the right will go to heaven.
But, can you see the deep rooted mechanism working here? How whole cultures' psyche is so obsessed with vengeance and revenge? So much so, that they would not only pursue perpetrators to the ends of the earth, but also to the ends of life, and even the afterlife!
In Christian eschatology, the Last Judgment, Final Judgment, Judgment Day, or Day of the Lords is the judgment by God of all nations.[1] It will take place after the resurrection of the dead and the Second Coming (Revelation 20:12–15). This belief has inspired numerous artistic depictions.
The concept of a Last Judgement[2] is also found in all Abrahamic religions and elsewhere (for example, see Duat).
There is little agreement among Christian denominations as to what happens after death and before the Last Judgment.
In Islam, the Last Judgment is called a number of things, including yaum al-Qiyamah (literally "the Day of Standing") and God Almighty, or Allah in Arabic, will judge all Creation. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgement
•••
Child's Play
•••
Barely two weeks ago, a boy of nine years was tried for the double murder of his father and his father's friend. He was tried as an adult and voluntarily pleaded guilty to avoid harsher punishment.
Yesterday, in the news, a boy was charged with the killing of his father's pregnant girlfriend. He too, will be tried as an adult.
These stories are becoming frequent and I am going to put a little twist on this issue. I am not going to invoke the usual anti-gun rhetoric – which would be nice to do, or will I sing the "children are now becoming more violent" song, either. I will still continue to look at it from the vengeance angle.
Trying children as adults are becoming a norm. And why do I think is that? It seems to me that trying our children as adults is really just another means for society to avoid responsibility for its children. If we are not responsible, then, we can never be guilty. If we are not guilty, then, we will avoid the "punishment" here and in the afterlife -- as a consequence of that failure. Especially, if the child is found guilty, then we are not guilty. Our hands are totally washed, totally sanitized, totally clean. We are completely absolved from the crime and the responsibility of bringing up the child in a nonviolent world. Therefore, we avoid the consequence of punishment in that final judgment we talked about in the previous entry -- not to mention that we also avoid that nasty feeling we call guilt, which we said in another entry is actually self-punishment.
I am slowly realizing that indeed, everything in this culture is, and does revolve around vengeance. How to get vengeance and/or how to avoid vengeance.
This time, it is all about avoiding guilt, avoiding punishment, which is the same as avoiding vengeance.
•••
This issue is related to the discrimination against the young as one of the main form of violence. I believe that no one should be tried and/or sentenced under laws that they did not choose or vote for. If someone is not qualified to vote -- because of mental incapacity or age, then they cannot be tried under laws they are not able to vote for.
•••
•••
Barely two weeks ago, a boy of nine years was tried for the double murder of his father and his father's friend. He was tried as an adult and voluntarily pleaded guilty to avoid harsher punishment.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6920449
Yesterday, in the news, a boy was charged with the killing of his father's pregnant girlfriend. He too, will be tried as an adult.
These stories are becoming frequent and I am going to put a little twist on this issue. I am not going to invoke the usual anti-gun rhetoric – which would be nice to do, or will I sing the "children are now becoming more violent" song, either. I will still continue to look at it from the vengeance angle.
Trying children as adults are becoming a norm. And why do I think is that? It seems to me that trying our children as adults is really just another means for society to avoid responsibility for its children. If we are not responsible, then, we can never be guilty. If we are not guilty, then, we will avoid the "punishment" here and in the afterlife -- as a consequence of that failure. Especially, if the child is found guilty, then we are not guilty. Our hands are totally washed, totally sanitized, totally clean. We are completely absolved from the crime and the responsibility of bringing up the child in a nonviolent world. Therefore, we avoid the consequence of punishment in that final judgment we talked about in the previous entry -- not to mention that we also avoid that nasty feeling we call guilt, which we said in another entry is actually self-punishment.
I am slowly realizing that indeed, everything in this culture is, and does revolve around vengeance. How to get vengeance and/or how to avoid vengeance.
This time, it is all about avoiding guilt, avoiding punishment, which is the same as avoiding vengeance.
•••
This issue is related to the discrimination against the young as one of the main form of violence. I believe that no one should be tried and/or sentenced under laws that they did not choose or vote for. If someone is not qualified to vote -- because of mental incapacity or age, then they cannot be tried under laws they are not able to vote for.
•••
"Leaders will also have to take positions regarding youth, increasingly characterized as constituting a “threat to society,” with dangerous tendencies toward drugs, violence, and lack of communication. Those leaders who persist in ignoring the profound roots of these problems will be in no position to give satisfactory answers simply by inviting young people to participate in conventional politics or the traditional cults, or to enjoy the offerings of a decadent civilization controlled by money. Meanwhile, such leaders are contributing to the psychic destruction of an entire generation and the rise of despicable new economic powers that grow rich by preying on the anguish and psychological alienation of millions of human beings.
Many leaders now ask in surprise where this growing violence among young people is coming from—as if it were not these leaders themselves, the former or current generations to hold power, who have overseen the perfecting of a systematic violence, exploiting even the advances in science and technology to make their manipulations ever more efficient. —Silo
•••
Intolerance
•••
Do you notice that society is becoming less tolerant? That punishments and penalties are becoming harsher and more stringent? In the US, some States have adopted the so-called "Three Strikes and you're out!" law. When a convicted felon -- who has been punished and has served time in prison -- is charged with a third felony crime -- no matter how minor this third crime is -- like say, stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children, on the third sentencing, he is going to get 25 years to life in prison.
When a society is intolerant, doesn't that mean that it has already lost patience with people who are not following the norm?
This intolerance is not just in the justice and criminal systems. But it is also prevalent in the private sector. It is also, being applied in the education, sports and all other sectors of society. In most K-12 schools in the US, the "one strike and you're out" rule are now becoming the norm.
Society are now more concern and give importance to rules, more than to human concerns. Forgetting totally, that these rules were supposedly formulated to benefit the human being. Take for example, that high school student who was barred from attending his graduation ball party right there at the ball entrance, because he was dressed as a girl. This was his only chance to be part of this very important and traditional event -- to be happy and to enjoy the great occasion with his friends, but instead, he is forever scarred from this experience. This young boy IS that human being.
Why is it that a young black man caught stealing a pack cigarettes and some bottles of beer for his third felony conviction can get a life sentence, while a financial magnate who run away with 50 billion dollars -- some of these from pension funds of old people are not even brought to court to face charges?
•••
•••
Do you notice that society is becoming less tolerant? That punishments and penalties are becoming harsher and more stringent? In the US, some States have adopted the so-called "Three Strikes and you're out!" law. When a convicted felon -- who has been punished and has served time in prison -- is charged with a third felony crime -- no matter how minor this third crime is -- like say, stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children, on the third sentencing, he is going to get 25 years to life in prison.
When a society is intolerant, doesn't that mean that it has already lost patience with people who are not following the norm?
This intolerance is not just in the justice and criminal systems. But it is also prevalent in the private sector. It is also, being applied in the education, sports and all other sectors of society. In most K-12 schools in the US, the "one strike and you're out" rule are now becoming the norm.
Society are now more concern and give importance to rules, more than to human concerns. Forgetting totally, that these rules were supposedly formulated to benefit the human being. Take for example, that high school student who was barred from attending his graduation ball party right there at the ball entrance, because he was dressed as a girl. This was his only chance to be part of this very important and traditional event -- to be happy and to enjoy the great occasion with his friends, but instead, he is forever scarred from this experience. This young boy IS that human being.
Why is it that a young black man caught stealing a pack cigarettes and some bottles of beer for his third felony conviction can get a life sentence, while a financial magnate who run away with 50 billion dollars -- some of these from pension funds of old people are not even brought to court to face charges?
•••
Notes
Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).
In one particularly notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for the crime of stealing four chocolate chip cookies (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).[9] --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
•••
In Our Own Image
•••
• Why is it that we are always comparing ourselves to others? Why are we always critical of others, always making judgments, always looking for what should be, for what should not be; always looking for what is not "right" -- or what is "wrong" with the other?
• When we see the other as different, is that difference always based on how we are, or what we are?
• Our tendency is to re-create the other into how we are, into what we are -- to re-create the other into our own image -- or even, into our image of what is ideal.
• We often ask, "Why can't you be like this, or like that?" "Why can't you be like me?"
• The problem here is that this attitude is but one step closer from feeling superior, one step closer to feeling above the other, one step closer to discriminating the other, one step closer to imposing on the other.
• On the other hand, if we stop looking for what is different between us and the other -- and stop highlighting those differences -- and instead, start respecting those differences, start respecting diversity, cultural as well as individual diversity, then, we would be one step closer to resisting violence, we would be one step closer to nonviolence.
•••
• Why is it that we are always comparing ourselves to others? Why are we always critical of others, always making judgments, always looking for what should be, for what should not be; always looking for what is not "right" -- or what is "wrong" with the other?
• When we see the other as different, is that difference always based on how we are, or what we are?
• Our tendency is to re-create the other into how we are, into what we are -- to re-create the other into our own image -- or even, into our image of what is ideal.
• We often ask, "Why can't you be like this, or like that?" "Why can't you be like me?"
• The problem here is that this attitude is but one step closer from feeling superior, one step closer to feeling above the other, one step closer to discriminating the other, one step closer to imposing on the other.
• On the other hand, if we stop looking for what is different between us and the other -- and stop highlighting those differences -- and instead, start respecting those differences, start respecting diversity, cultural as well as individual diversity, then, we would be one step closer to resisting violence, we would be one step closer to nonviolence.
•••
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
