“Every now and then go away, have a little relaxation, for when you come back to your work your judgment will be surer. Go some distance away because then the work appears smaller and more of it can be taken in at a glance and a lack of harmony and proportion is more readily seen.” ~ Leonardo da Vinci
Work in progress (discussion welcome). Please no voting until this notice is removed
---------------------------------------
Table Of Contents
“As a single footstep will not make a path on the earth, so a single thought will not make a pathway in the mind. To make a deep physical path, we walk again and again. To make a deep mental path, we must think over and over the kind of thoughts we wish to dominate our lives.” ~ Henry David Thoreau
Work in progress (discussion welcome). Please no voting until this notice is removed
---------------------------------------
ac·count
/əˈkount/
Verb
1.) To present a detailed summary and/or record of a course of events. Ex: The government official was unable to account for the missing equipment and money.
[ Etm: From Latin computare “to sum up” ]
Work in progress (discussion welcome). Please no voting until this notice is removed
---------------------------------------
Love
/ləv/
Noun
1.) a:Active concern for the well being of family b:Favor.
Work in progress (discussion welcome). Please no voting until this notice is removed
---------------------------------------
re·li·gion
/riˈlijən/
Noun
1.) a:The human habit of forming ideological alliances with one another, regarding issues commonly accepted as being of highest importance. b:An institution, organization, or group based on such alliances.
HOW TO USE THIS BIBLE
Being an owner/user of Free Press Bible, you are required to decide whether you will be using all, some, or none it's features.
Since the Free Press Bible process is by it's very nature a self guided process, please do not look for any sort of official guidance as to what specifically is worth keeping in your collection, as that would essentially defeat the purpose.
If you are inclined to use only the tangible printed product, the directions for use are most simple and straight forward:
Remove the cover and you will notice binding screws that hold the pages of your bible together. Loosen and remove the screws with a screwdriver and your bible can be disassembled for adding or removing pages.
The pages of Free Press Bible are half-letter sized. This means that suitable pages for your collection can be made by folding an ordinary piece of paper in half, punching holes into it, and assembling it into your book.
The Free Press Bible Process, also referred to as “Self-Canonization” is essentially a self guided process.
This particular collection belongs to:____________________________
Who began self-canonization on: __________________________________
The contents of this collection (if it belongs to you) are to be accepted, rejected or modified. The articles are printed in a gray color. Darken in black articles you accept, Blot out articles found not to be worth inclusion. Highlight articles, relocate articles, note your own thoughts next to those who have influenced you.
Consider what is more or less important to include. Though modern technology allows easy creation of libraries of considerable size, a collection printable within the confines of a single book requires a much more discerning approach.
Some possible sources for content for your collection are
3. Your own memory and imagination
4. Conversations you have
5. Public and Private Libraries
6. The Internet
Getting started is easy. Start by filling the various sections with articles that you either strongly agree, or disagree with. Place the articles you feel most strongly about at the forefront of the section you've categorized them in. This task can be done in complete privacy for however long you like. Attractive articles can be found all over the place, and building a collection of favourites is a good way to start. The things you find attractive, reveal important aspects of your personality.
Content for your collection can come from anywhere. Any material that can be printed on a piece of paper, you are free to include in the bible that you hold in your hands. Just as no law can justly stop you from committing to memory the things you read and witness, no law can justly prevent you from utilizing tools like Free Press Bible to develop your personal philosophy. What some might call religion.
The act of self-canonization involves prioritizing some articles ahead of others. This is a great way to refine the way you think.
Start with a blank collection, a collection you already value, or the promotional publication if you so choose.
If you choose to build your collection from the promotional publication, please keep in mind that it was not compiled with any hope or expectation that owner/users would wholeheartedly agree with and accept every portion. Much of the content is included only because of it's controversial nature.
It may well be that you will prefer not to base your collection on active and open public controversies, debates and discussions like the promotional release is.
How closely, you choose to involve others in the development of your collection is up to you. You will find that without being stimulated by others, progress will be painfully slow. Conversations with other people are very useful for helping to challenge the way you think, and for finding more effective ways to express the way you think.
Important conversations are worth keeping a record of. There is a section entitled “suspicions”. This section is for material of suspect, or potential value. Things you want to look through, consider, “distill” or “mine” valuable content from.
There is no need to limit your collection to printable material, unless for some reason you do not have access to the internet or a computer.
Since the directions for how to use the digital media based features are different for different computer systems the how to use sections for those can be found either at:
or on the Free Press Bible DVD
There is more than one way that the Free Press Bible product can be acquired and used.
For users who have no interest in buying a copy, they are free to download one. All the current content of the promotional release, (including all the software included on the Free Press Bible DVD) can be downloaded from http://www.freepressbible.net/download/
If you want the snazzy Free Press Bible binder and it's accompanying DVD though you'll have to purchase it at http://freepressbible.com.
If for some reason you cannot get a copy through the website, please write to:
FORWARD
_______________________________________
The FREE PRESS BIBLE is a special sort of Bible. It is in a very important sense non-religious. It is emphatically non-sectarian, and by virtue of it's promoting owner/users to modify it in whatever way they desire, it is in essence authentically non-denominational. It differs from predominate collections in that it was designed specifically to be modified, continually updated and personalized by ordinary people. It is meant to inspire readers and owner/users to collect, create and prioritize their most valued texts, documents, and recordings how they see fit. It is meant to be useful to people who think of themselves as anti-religion or simply have no particular religious affiliation, as well as those who do consider themselves religious. It is meant to contain articles that the owner/user wishes to identify with, and also articles that show aspects of ideologies they are opposed to and fighting against. It is meant to contain symbolic expression of strongly held sentiments and philosophical ideals, prioritized in a unique way by any individual who works to adapt it to their purposes. It is meant to be published in such a format that derivative and competing works can be easily made by anyone so inclined. It is meant to be not only a book, binder and journal, but also a set of tools that encourages and better enables people to respectfully and safely compare their strongly held beliefs with each other. It is meant to promote the preservation and expansion of intellectual rights. It is meant to help owner/users become and remain philosophically self critical. It is meant to provoke open controversy and debate on as broad a scale as possible. It is meant to be criticized. It is meant to become a catalyst for cooperation and collaboration among people that have common values. It is an expression of faith in symbolic language's usefulness and intrinsic goodness. It has been put together collaboratively utilizing peer influence. It is meant to be entirely non-sexist. It is a joint product with a software based content creation/selection and archiving system, operating freely and openly according to creative commons, open source and GPL standards and principles as both a personal binder, (Bible) and personal media management tool.
I hope you find this approach as inspiring as I have and that we find the opportunity to have many great conversations.~ atypican
Copyright 2009-2013 FREE PRESS BIBLE™
The printable or text portion of this publication is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.
This means there are no legal restrictions to prevent the copying, distributing, or creation of derivative works from it,except that any derivative work must also “Share Alike” and not just allow, but specifically stipulate that the same liberties, and liberty preserving restrictions must extend to any subsequent derivative works. Also attribution must be given to the original author or copyright holder in a manner prescribed by the copyright holder.
The computer software portions of the Free Press Bible publication are released under the GNU General Public License Version 3 and include third party software products also released under that license.
Owner/users of the Free Press Bible product need not concern themselves with the restrictions explained in the licenses unless they intend to distribute a modified or derivative work.
With the primary intent of Free Press Bible being to encourage the creation of derivative works by owner/users, it is fitting to mention that if the derivative work in question is to be offered for sale commercially, neither the Free Press Bible name, or the cover design or artwork may be used. These are trademarks belonging to freepressbible.com
MADE ON THE INTERNET WITH OPENSOURCE GPL SOFTWARE
How so?
By promoting personal responsibility as opposed to finger pointing.
I would prefer that I got paid for bothering at all.
Not saying that an arrangement couldn't possibly be made but your statement calls attention to what I am struggling with. How to make the project seem (to others besides me) like something worth bothering with. I have benefited profoundly through the practice of self-canonization, and it's something I started out only dabbling with in my spare time.
Notice that no one else seems the slightest bit interested?
You can stop rubbing it in any time now!
Why do you suppose that is?
I imagine the word bible keeps a number of people from giving the concept deep consideration, also I am sure it's partly because I need to improve the project description. I do get quite a bit of people popping in to check out the site and I do think that if I had a downloadable software product that functions like I envision, people would try it and see the value in it rather quickly. I need to hire or partner with a programmer for that, and that takes money, or finding someone who is passionate about the idea and either works well with me, or wants to compete. I am working on a promo video for kickstarter, and I am trying to write the narrative right now. And shame on me I am trying to get help with that too!
Why?
Ok so the primary purpose of the promotional publication is to popularize self canonization, to facilitate more robust philosophical self criticism. In other words..I want to improve my collection, and in order to do that more effectively, I need to see how my articles stand up to the scrutiny of my peers, and be able to compare articles with them. I am the ultimate authority over what is included in or excluded from MY personal collection, however I have decided that the decision making process regarding what articles are included in the promotional publication will be subject to an open public debate/discussion using the createdebate platform. Now the possibility does exist that the article inclusion debate forum could be flooded with material that will have the effect of making the Free Press Bible Project look sectarian in nature. The reason I think this can be prevented is that sectarian ideologies are easy to logically dismantle and should anyone participate for reasons other than improving their collection or helping to develop the promotional publication their contributions will stand out like a sore thumb and will be either be ignored by users who are already having in-depth discussions or their unwillingness to logically engage will quickly be made apparent with sharp questions and retorts.
What is the difference between your collection and what you intend to publish?
The articles (which includes everything from literature, to audio and video files, and computer software applications) that constitute the "promotional publication" or "promotional release" are to be selected through a peer-to-peer process of open public debate and discussion using the createdebate platform. Nothing but freely licensed media will be included in the promotional release.
The contents of my personal collection are determined solely by me
If you want people to decide for themselves what to include, what are you publishing?
A set of software tools and an example of the quality of publication that can result from a peer based free exchange of ideas.
If you did have the technical skills you see as being required to move this project forward, what would you use them to do?
I would create a repository using strictly FOSS, that users could submit articles to, that they regard as valuable. The contents of this article archive would be displayed in a random manner that wouldn't give priority to one article over another. Users would be able to either keyword search the archive or view articles in a random manner.
I would create an application that makes use of a web browser plug-in that would interact with an ODT file on the users computer that is specially formatted to print on half letter sized paper, that can also convert and save multimedia files to an open format on a folder on their computer and/or one that is cloud based. This would enable users to conveniently add material they find while surfing the internet to their collection. It would be a bundle of GPL licensed content curation software.
So far I see nothing particularly novel or compelling.
We have the ability to search and manipulate literature and other data like no time before in history. Certainly important personal record keeping is nothing new, but it is being done in new ways, and more people than ever have access to immense libraries like no time before in history. I understand that I haven't done anything close to amazing, and that I am shamelessly piggy backing off of other peoples work, but I feel like if I could explain the project succinctly yet thoroughly, I could attract people to help me make it into something that would improve the ideological atmosphere in neat ways. I prefer your good questions to your harsh commentary.
So suppose you attract a bunch of "collaborators" whose input you don't value, how will you keep that from projecting an image contrary to the one you'd like to?
This is a real risk. The way I see it right now is that this can only happen if the initial collaborators don't grok the non-sectarian approach and start posting a bunch of articles that will make people jump to erroneous conclusions about the nature of the project. Those who think of themselves as secularists might think it promotes superstition, and those who think of themselves as religious may think it aims to invalidate their tradition. Since there is to be an article archive that anyone can post articles to, I will try to make sure that there are so many diverse articles being displayed (randomly) that it will be clear that no specific ideological tradition is being given priority. I imagine that I will at some point have to delete some articles. When I do I will be transparent about it so anyone who disagrees with the moderation policy can fork the project. As far as the inclusion debates for the promotional release, all I can say is that I have faith that reason will be diligently applied and the worst articles will fade into obscurity in it's light.
I checked out your site and it doesn't look like you have accomplished much.
Ouch! Well my personal collection is where the bulk of my work is. I have some strong biases that I think will put off too many potential users should I publicize everything in my collection too soon.
It looks to me like you want people to team up with you and basically make up for your lack of passion.
While I certainly would like to attract collaborators, they don't need to be "teamed up" with me. The project encourages competing works, and is licensed in a manner that specifically preserves the right to do so. I even have another domain registered called "amenablebible" for someone who might be interested in a competitive relationship. It's not so much a lack of passion I need to make up for, as a lack of technical skills.
I hope you see the hypocrisy in trying to "get others to focus on themselves"
Actually my primary focus is improving my own collection. This is the reason why I need to be public about it. I am seeking help to improve my own collection.
Isn't the internet already taking care of that much better than your little pipe dream could ever hope to?
I do not expect my project to compete with the internet as a means of expanding intellectual liberty, but rather to make use of the internet in a novel and compelling way.
Why do you suppose anyone would be impressed enough by the very little you seem to have accomplished to want to jump on your little bandwagon?
I have to start somewhere, and if there is a "bandwagon", it is that of those who are keeping a prioritized collection of valuable articles, and it's no more my bandwagon then that of anyone who is into keeping a collection and enriching it through interactions with others.
The project is a publication, NOT a membership organization.
I don't know what that project is and I'm on my phone so I can't look it up
I seem to recall you offering a pretty good challenge to me before, so I appreciate what ever sharp wit I can get out of you. I kinda want to be talked out of the idea or emboldened.
Going with the assumption it's a proactive Christian project:
I am hoping the project will be no more appealing to Christians than any other religious sect, or for that matter people who don't think of themselves as religious at all.
one of the things I find most common among Christians would be, following and/or enforcing particular verses of the Bible while ignoring other verses, even from the same book or letter.
I don't wish to address Christianity or it's literature in particular, but the Free Press Bible project does promote a process referred to as "self canonization" where an owner/user is encouraged to include, exclude or modify content based on whether or not they find it worthy of keeping in their collection. If the user wants to pray about the content of their collection because they believe in god, that's up to them. Some users may view the project as purely secular or "non-religious" and I expect people of that disposition to think of "self-canonization" as a philosophical endeavor.
For one, because they already understand that improving one's own ideology, or philosophy, or religion is a wiser focus than attempting to influence others to improve theirs. Another reason would be because they want to see tools that promote self guided philosophical development, and expanding intellectual liberty, outmode instructional methods that are seen as too centralized or authoritarian. Early on though I expect that the metaphorically challenged, and those who have a habit of quickly jumping to conclusions won't be much interested at all, and I see that as a good thing.
FORWARD
_______________________________________
The FREE PRESS BIBLE is a special sort of Bible. It is in a very important sense non-religious. It is emphatically non-sectarian, and by virtue of it's promoting owner/users to modify it in whatever way they desire, it is in essence authentically non-denominational. It differs from predominate collections in that it was designed specifically to be modified, continually updated and personalized by ordinary people. It is meant to inspire readers and owner/users to collect, create and prioritize their most valued texts, documents, and recordings how they see fit. It is meant to be useful to people who think of themselves as anti-religion or simply have no particular religious affiliation, as well as those who do consider themselves religious. It is meant to contain articles that the owner/user wishes to identify with, and also articles that show aspects of ideologies they are opposed to and fighting against. It is meant to contain symbolic expression of strongly held sentiments and philosophical ideals, prioritized in a unique way by any individual who works to adapt it to their purposes. It is meant to be published in such a format that derivative and competing works can be easily made by anyone so inclined. It is meant to be not only a book, binder and journal, but also a set of tools that encourages and better enables people to respectfully and safely compare their strongly held beliefs with each other. It is meant to promote the preservation and expansion of intellectual rights. It is meant to help owner/users become and remain philosophically self critical. It is meant to provoke open controversy and debate on as broad a scale as possible. It is meant to be criticized. It is meant to become a catalyst for cooperation and collaboration among people that have common values. It is an expression of faith in symbolic language's usefulness and intrinsic goodness. It has been put together collaboratively utilizing peer influence. It is meant to be entirely non-sexist. It is a joint product with a software based content creation/selection and archiving system, operating freely and openly according to creative commons, open source and GPL standards and principles as both a personal binder, (Bible) and personal media management tool.
I hope you find this approach as inspiring as I have and to meet you soon as an opponent.~ atypican
additional content to be incorporated to this section follows:
This publication is designed to make it easy to maintain and develop:
1. A printed collection and/or
2. A privately and/or publicly stored digital media collection
It consists of a printed product (perhaps you're holding it now) which is an heirloom quality journal binder with replaceable pages. And a software product which is a bundle of Open-source/GPL computer software tools that make managing/building a rich collection a breeze. Besides the software product and the binder, there is a promotional website http://www.freepressbible.net
This website is where the promotional release is developed. The whole point of the Free Press Bible Project is to stimulate self guided instruction. The layout and articles chosen for the promotional release were chosen with that in mind. It is however impossible to create a publication that doesn't reflect the biases of it's authors. In it's defence however. Free Press Bible contains no content that isn't easily removed or modified by owner/users who may find it objectionable.
Besides being able to Change the content of your own collection, Any owner/user (and the public at large) can express concerns about how the promotional release might be improved. Articles contained in the promotional release are on display in an open public debate forum where objections to the content can be brought up and addressed, and new articles can be presented for consideration. There is no need to visit www.freepressbible.net unless you are interested in helping to develop the Free Press BibleTM product, or you want to safely store articles in the public archive. There is no Free Press Bible organization to join. Nevertheless, if you have ideas that you think can broaden the appeal of the “self-canonization process” please share them.
The Free Press Bible Project is designed to make use of the latest developments in information sharing technologies. Free Press Bible's aim is to make apparent the unprecedented opportunities emerging as our ability to share information continues to develop.
The Free Press Bible Process is designed to be enhanced by but not require internet access, or a computer.
Build your collection from anywhere in the world and keep it safe even if your primary copy is lost or destroyed. Possible without ever accessing a computer.
The Free Press Bible forums are accessible from anywhere in the world and exist for one purpose. So that improvements to the promotional release can be continually made by exposing proposed improvements to public scrutiny, critical review, and thoughtful perspectives and input.!!!
(no forums other than to leave PR open to pub scrutiny...too much risk of becoming a sect rather than a pub)
The article selection process for the promotional release of Free Press Bible is to have open ended debates during which articles in question (officially all of them)can be independently evaluated in light of various perspectives. It's up to you which you find most valuable and/or convincing, (if any at all).
Free Press Bible is essentially a way for you to freely and easily keep and maintain a collection of personally valuable recordings. It's easy to recognize that the making of a recording is an attempt to improve upon our natural memory function.
The value in that lies in the promise of being able to better learn from history.
The most important set of recordings are those in your own mind. Should they be of poor quality, or arrangement, they won't serve you as well as they would if they were refined and prioritized through deliberate thought. Free Press Bible is largely about the kind of thoughts YOU want to give priority to.
This collection is for improving yourself and the way you think in a self guided manner.,,no need to use FPB unless you'd like to help promote it (the underlying self guided process) and you think the FPB brand is still effectively doing that. Many people already get the gist of it and have been “compiling their own collection” all along. Some in a more accountable sense than others
Free Press Bible asserts and makes use of historically unprecedented intellectual rights (such as the right to freedom of religion) only recently being realized as electronic information technology develops.
The process of maintaining a collection of valuable recordings is a continually evolving ancient tradition with deep roots traceable in every culture.
Free Press Bible is not an ordinary publication. It is a fully customizable set of tools. The most basic of these tools is the printed product which can be used either independently, or in conjunction with is digital media based counterparts.
Anyone who agrees with what?
Clarify what you don't agree with specifically.
You equate standing up for yourself with violence? violence of what?
As to your statement "It must have been so improper of us to take down Hitler"
Well if we had been more clever we could have done it without killing so many innocents don't you think? Is it unrealistic to have non-violence as a goal?
The point I am making is that responding with dangerous or even deadly force isn't violence unless you are violating a right the person has. For example we could say that people generally have the right not to be shot at. My thinking is that they lose that right if they begin shooting at others.
Can you understand my frustration with how difficult it is to make this simple point? Check the debate description...am I that unclear? I stand by my observation that most people view violence as meaning "use of dangerous force"....I think that that way of interpreting the word is suboptimal.
HOW TO USE THIS BIBLE
Being an owner/user of Free Press Bible, you are required to decide whether you will be using all, some, or none it's features.
Since the Free Press Bible process is by it's very nature a self guided process, please do not look for any sort of official guidance as to what specifically is worth keeping in your collection, as that would essentially defeat the purpose.
If you are inclined to use only the tangible printed product, the directions for use are most simple and straight forward:
Remove the cover and you will notice binding screws that hold the pages of your bible together. Loosen and remove the screws with a screwdriver and your bible can be disassembled for adding or removing pages.
The pages of Free Press Bible are half-letter sized. This means that suitable pages for your collection can be made by folding an ordinary piece of paper in half, punching holes into it, and assembling it into your book.
The Free Press Bible Process, also referred to as “Self-Canonization” is essentially a self guided process.
This particular collection belongs to:____________________________
Who began self-canonization on: __________________________________
The contents of this collection (if it belongs to you) are to be accepted, rejected or modified. The articles are printed in a gray color. Darken in black articles you accept, Blot out articles found not to be worth inclusion. Highlight articles, relocate articles, note your own thoughts next to those who have influenced you.
Consider what is more or less important to include. Though modern technology allows easy creation of libraries of considerable size, a collection printable within the confines of a single book requires a much more discerning approach.
Some possible sources for content for your collection are
3. Your own memory and imagination
4. Conversations you have
5. Public and Private Libraries
6. The Internet
Getting started is easy. Start by filling the various sections with articles that you either strongly agree, or disagree with. Place the articles you feel most strongly about at the forefront of the section you've categorized them in. This task can be done in complete privacy for however long you like. Attractive articles can be found all over the place, and building a collection of favourites is a good way to start. The things you find attractive, reveal important aspects of your personality.
Content for your collection can come from anywhere. Any material that can be printed on a piece of paper, you are free to include in the bible that you hold in your hands. Just as no law can justly stop you from committing to memory the things you read and witness, no law can justly prevent you from utilizing tools like Free Press Bible to develop your personal philosophy. What some might call religion.
The act of self-canonization involves prioritizing some articles ahead of others. This is a great way to refine the way you think.
Start with a blank collection, a collection you already value, or the promotional publication if you so choose.
If you choose to build your collection from the promotional publication, please keep in mind that it was not compiled with any hope or expectation that owner/users would wholeheartedly agree with and accept every portion. Much of the content is included only because of it's controversial nature.
It may well be that you will prefer not to base your collection on active and open public controversies, debates and discussions like the promotional release is.
How closely, you choose to involve others in the development of your collection is up to you. You will find that without being stimulated by others, progress will be painfully slow. Conversations with other people are very useful for helping to challenge the way you think, and for finding more effective ways to express the way you think.
Important conversations are worth keeping a record of. There is a section entitled “suspicions”. This section is for material of suspect, or potential value. Things you want to look through, consider, “distill” or “mine” valuable content from.
There is no need to limit your collection to printable material, unless for some reason you do not have access to the internet or a computer.
Since the directions for how to use the digital media based features are different for different computer systems the how to use sections for those can be found either at:
http://www.freepressbible.net/htu.html
or on the Free Press Bible DVD
There is more than one way that the Free Press Bible product can be acquired and used.
For users who have no interest in buying a copy, they are free to download one. All the current content of the promotional release, (including all the software included on the Free Press Bible DVD) can be downloaded from http://www.freepressbible.net/download/
If you want the snazzy Free Press Bible binder and it's accompanying DVD though you'll have to purchase it at http://freepressbible.com,.
If for some reason you cannot get a copy through the website, please write to:
FPB
type new address here
I like the way you put it. It adresses a hierarchy of rights that I think needs to be considered. ( I don't do that as well in my definitions)Here are some other candidates for discussion.
"Use of dangerous force without due regard for the rights of others" (that's a new one shaped by your influence)
"The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries."
Upon reflection, I don't think you and I will have much trouble settling on a definition. Much content in the official release is related to promoting a philosophy of non-violence. I will be satisfied to include only one usage definition.(the one dealing with interpersonal activity)
In my personal collection, in the section titled "convictions", I have the statement
"Violence never serves the cause of justice" .
Right now I am thinking about paraphrasing your statement for the definition's example sentence.
I haven't read all the arguments, and this is my first posting here. So excuse any misunderstandings.
Welcome. Nice to meet you. In my estimation our dialog has begun with a couple of pretty important understandings.
You are the first person (as far as I know) that I have recorded dialog with that understands how I view violence. I am glad you have tagged your argument "defining violence"
I would like to end this dialog to work together with you to create Free Press Bible's glossary entry for violence. If you are up to it let me know.
Thank you for your interest. Only with help can Free Press Bible be continually improved.
You might guess that my sentiments concerning violence are strong. I have already been convinced that "Violence is never justified" needs to be rephrased. I am looking for a simple statement that better makes the underlying point which I still hold a strong conviction about.
Meaningful discussion about this subject requires that we come to terms regarding the meaning of violence. To be frank, I am not concerned with it's common use definition. For the purpose of this project the current definition of violence is : The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries
Since every portion of this work is open to debate, you are welcome to criticize the glossary entry for violence and explain why we ought to modify our definition.
So please consider how we are interpreting the word differently and how that effects the logic we use to defend and promote the philosophy of non-violence.
What it seems like to me is that the word "violence" in most of your arguments could be readily replaced with "use of dangerous force." I do not think that violence and use of dangerous force mean the same thing.
So according to the way you (and most others me thinks) interpret the word, your arguments are sound. You are welcome to interact as a critic if you disagree with fundamental (or any) principles promoted by Free Press Bible.
Obviously I am interested in considering opposing viewpoints or I wouldn't be here. But so you know, I am more immediately interested in articulating agreements for a small team (The first Free Press Bible Canonization Group) to build upon.
Thank you for contributing your thoughts, I hope to read more of your comments.
I want to find out if we agree that logical defenses of violence are usually based on a commonly accepted definition of violence that is suboptimal.
I would like to expand this discussion to the glossary entry for violence. Considering your comments about aspects of violence, I am most immediately interested in pursuing : Violence is at the expense of reason. (expandable, but inferrable)
right now I am only getting online every so often. So.... slow for now:)
Demoting violence is a great way to start.
Thank you. I hope you will read through the following debate and comment about my assertion that the popular definition could use some refining.
http://freepressbible.createdebate.com/
validating the claim 'violence is never justified' may be hard to do.
If you notice in the debate linked to above, I was convinced to reprhase the debate. After all, violence is justified all the time is it not?
Can you think of a more succinct and easily understandable way to make the point?
I don't think I disagree with the underlying sentiment. I just don't think instances of defensive behavior (defending rights) you described should be thought of as violent. I ask you, what right is violated in the defensive action you describe?
Is this your proposed definition of violence?
No my definition is one of the first posts to this debate on the agree side. "Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries." What you pasted was an attempt I made to clarify. So much for that :)
What constitutes a violation?
A rightful boundary being intentionally breached.
Just making effort to answer all your questions.
You didn't answer my question
Thanks for pointing that out.
Who is in the right and who is in the wrong?
The one (to paraphrase my definition) who intentionally breaches a rightful boundary. In this case it would be the vagabond, who instead of being forthright about his "need" (perhaps deluded by a notion of false scarcity) decided to obtain his bread through violence. even you typed that Preemptive violence is never justified, as that would be a failure to communicate.
the shopkeeper in return in violating the bum by denying him the food he needs to survive.
I submit that wee do not have a right to eat at someone else's expense. So in accordance with my definition, the shop keeper is not violating any rightful boundaries by refusing to give away food.
This is a simple concept portraying why justice and order requires violence.
I am not following your logic here. I hope you will patiently break it down for me.
In a perfect system there would no reason not to give him the bread because it is in abundance and nobody would benefit from withholding it.
Somehow I imagine that in this perfect system you imagine, there would be no selling of bread and we would all just eat manna falling from the sky. The truth is that the foods we are accustomed to eating require work to produce, and no one has a right to force someone else to toil and work so that they may eat without working. There needs be an equitable negotiative relationship. I support a critical look at the relationship between real value and legal currency, but I am not sure that a monetary economy deserves the root blame for greed and delusions of false scarcity. The vagabond could have scooped up some bugs and ate them if he weren't too spoiled. :)
What is the cause of most crimes? I will contest that most if not all crimes and violations are the result (directly or indirectly) of monetary issues.
"tied to" I will concede but "result of" is a bit of a stretch if you ask me.
"everybody wants to live life of kings and queens, but nobody wants to stay and plow the fields" ~Michael Franti
This dillema long predates robust monetary systems. Do you think I have made a respectful if not valid argument here?
watch the full version on google video.
I would love to have a conversation with the creators of that video. Since I don't expect that to happen any time soon, perhaps I can provoke you.... I assume you think that Zeitgeist is a well made movie, worthy of respect. In the interest of a healthy balance, I challenge you to offer some critical comments about the movie.
I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence.
Seems like you have your mind made up already. What if there were a non-violent option?
If you have truly understood my point about how the initiator of an attack DOES NOT retain the right to not be attacked then you will be able to see that using forceful or even lethal methods in self defense does not necessarily make those actions violent.
I am arguing for the philosophy of non-violence, which IMO could use to be better articulated.
Just admit that the better a system works the closer it adheres to fundamental principles of non-violence and I won't be forced to relentlessly debate you. :)
violation could be used subjectively.
It could, and is. But does that effect the validity of the proposed definition?
Someone must violate someone else in order for order to be maintained.
Will you please explain how you come to this conclusion?
In a perfect system where there is no money, where there is no "incentive" to be productive or do the right thing, I don't think violence would be necessary or even fathomable.
I am not sure what you are trying to convey here. I don't think we need a pefect system in order to recognize that violence is unnecessary. If you will notice, in my proposed definition I included intention. It is possible, even within this, our current imperfect system to have pure intent. We cannot avoid accidentally causing harm.
But since we have a monetary economy and everyone is brainwashed to think that they need money more than anything, people will be violated.
A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful.
It is the nature of the false scarcity that a monetary system creates.
A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful too.
I maintain that in today's world, justice requires violence.
I disagree with you here. Perhaps you could give an example of justice requiring violence we could debate this.
I hope that isn't the case forever.
What kind of hope? wishful hope or genuine discontent?
I am seeing a pattern on this debate, that is the inability to differentiate acts of violence from violent acts.
Do you mean Violent events as opposed to violent human behavior? I think they merit a separate usage definitions.
Something like : "Sudden, forceful or dangerous activity" would describe violent events not necessarily involving human behavior.
But that is not the violence that one can be religiously opposed to. So to clarify, the first usage definition I wish to address with this debate is the one addressed by the following:
2 Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. ~Wiktionary
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse ~ Merriam Webster
And your definition, Violence is that which causes harm. which common usage definition do you find that your definition states more clearly?
Considerations (about your definition) to account for, if you will:
1.)Accidents cause harm
2.)Harm is subjective. Harm to what?
Utter torture! you have my sympathy.. Running into instances where established societal rank trumps your basic rights is bad enough. Add a life and death situation involving your own daughter! You must have been insane. I can relate that to a hospital experience with my daughter when she had asthma
If you were able to go back and behave differently what would you do differently? Did you have a close relationship with a family doctor before this incident? Do you have one now?
I guess it's off topic but whatever I like to discuss primary root causes for dilemmas like you experienced. I will try to frame it as a debate. :)
short train of thought - please critique
Violence must violate something.
That "something" that violence violates is rights
certain [violent]behavior forfeits certain rights.
an attacker gives up their right to not be attacked whenever they initiate an attack
therefore a defensive attack is not necessarily violent
make any sense at all?
Ok how about if we think about it in terms of rights. We probably both agree that in general people have a right not to be attacked. Now if someone attacks you, do you think that they (during their attack) retain that "right not to be attacked"? I would bet that you agree with me that they don't. Now is it strange for me to think of violence in terms of what is violated? According to my proposed definition a right must exist for violence to violate.
I guess I sympathize with your cynical sentiment but...
In what sense is the notion of justice laughable? It seems to me that matters of justice tend to be of a most serious nature. Those concerned with justice are about the business of defending rights are they not? Or is the notion of rights laughable too? Trust me if rights precious to you are violated you wont be laughing, you'll either go the cowardice route or you'll seek justice. To further refine my argument: The doing of justice never requires violence. much better than my initial debate title. :) Thanx for the prod.
You say that " i have done some rather horrible things in order to defend myself"
At those times you knew of better standards to adhere to? and you accredit your ability to defend yourself to applying standards that were "lower" or not as good? it doesn't make sense to me.
My impression is that your standards as a result of your hard knock lessons have risen higher than most
. Also that following each experience that you noticed you had acted less than admirably, you were able to use that lesson to reform your standards for the better. You appear now to focus heavily on your role as protector. I don't suspect that those grievous situations you found yourself in earlier in life were arrived at as a result of understanding that role like you do today.
I'm finding it difficult to understand what you're saying but I'll try.
I am not as artful in my presentation of ideas as I would prefer to be. Respect such as you offer is rare and I am thankful to have you as an opponent. How else can I refine my thoughts but by having them challenged?
The point about how not violating an agreement might cause violation of more fundamental agreements is well taken. You have convinced me here and now I disagree with the title of this debate because I can see also that it takes only one person to justify it [violence] and that's what justified means justified by whomever.
Violence is justified all the time....unfortunately
Violence is the last and most effective means to get a point across
You really believe that?
If I have completely missed the point I apologise and ask you to explain to me as simply as possible what you're trying to get.
I don't know to what extent you did or didn't miss my point. I think you compared mine to yours, or by responding at least allow for comparison which is cool..your welcome and thanks back.
Uncommon viewpoints there!! I strongly agree with the essence of what you typed.
I perhaps would only rephrase the "even if that means lowering your own standards" part.
Except that I (think I) understand what you are getting at. And I wouldn't be satisfied to simply remove that portion without carefully exposing the underlying point which i strongly suspect is valid.
I also appreciate how freely you blurt out what is on your mind. :)
Uncommon viewpoints there!! I strongly agree with the essence of what you typed.
I perhaps would only rephrase the "even if that means lowering your own standards" part.
Except that I (think I) understand what you are getting at. And I wouldn't be satisfied to simply remove that portion without carefully exposing the underlying point which i strongly suspect is valid.
I also appreciate how freely you blurt out what is on your mind. :)
i would do whatever it took to protect myself and my child , even if that resulted in the death of the other person
I would too. and I am arguing on the agree side. How can this be? Am I a hypocrite?
I would justify it to myself in that my intent was purely focused on protecting (if I was stronger I would have more options) and I was forced into the behavior
Thanx for the post
I appreciate your perspective. I agree that violating a channel of communication is a form of violence, and that violence takes many forms. I also agree that keeping channels of communication open is practically our only hope if we want our conflicts to become less and less violent. I don't however see how the female scientist/baby story demonstrates violation of a communication channel. The way I imagine it, the baby is learning how to deal with being ignored. Ignoring someone can be a violent act but it is not necessarily one.
so what you're saying is the killing of others is violent if you can somehow justify it...
That's not what I'm saying at all.
You will notice that a recurring theme with me is revisionism of this sort. It is understandably irritating to some. I appreciate your respect and criticism in any case.
I take the position that the popular definition could use some refining.
Do you agree that the meaning of violence is very very very closely related to the meaning of the word violate?
if so we might logically progress to:
What can be violated? A Law? nope, true laws cannot be violated. An agreement? Ding! Ding! Ding! agreements CAN be violated. care to offer another example of something that can be violated?
if you draw a blank there you might be soft minded enough to be persuaded that All violence is violation of an agreement. An integral and necessary component part of the philosophy of non-violence is to develop clearly understood agreements. If we are not working diligently on that, any commitment to non-violence we claim to have is in vain.
ramblings of a rambler known to trail off into nonsense at times :)
atypican
Beautiful, a response I will have to digest a bit in order to give a thoughtful reply. Thanx for that.
1) The lack of uniform boundaries, due to social development, or personal belief.
Lack of well understood boundaries, I agree acts as a strong catalyst as violence escalates and spirals out of control.
2) Whether an inital breach of common codes or boundaries, in disregard, affects the moral standards of both parties or just the antagonist.
It can, and all too often does, I think. But I don't think it necessarily does. One deeply committed to non-violence NEVER intends to harm anyone. They can (only through violent means) be forced to however. If I am forced against my will to harm someone, my moral standards need not change as a result, but they certainly could.
3) The classic "means justifying ends" debate.
That is the predominate angle of "disagree" posters to this debate. My aim is to promote the belief that the means we employ should be as pure as the ends we seek. In the face of dangerous violence, the primary goal of the non-violent activist is to stop the violence not upstage it.
I agree that violence is never justified
pleased to meet you!
but I do not agree that retaliation to injustice to the degree of mortality is justified.
I am strongly opposed to capital punishment as well.
It's a great irony in my personality, but it hearts from reason.
I would like to understood that better.
I am interested to see the validity of the following definition of violence challenged.
Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries
allegory example:
It is not considered respectful of rightful boundaries to shoot someone because of a verbal conflict. Now let's say they shoot at you and you shoot back in self defense. Were you the one who breached the boundary, or was it the person who set the precedent by shooting at you? I posit that once one person breaches a specific rightful boundary they demonstrate that (at least regarding interactions with them) that that specific, commonly accepted or rightful boundary is ok to disregard.
Not as simply expressed as I would have liked but oh well
atypican
i don't believe the ambiguity is violence
So then if you please, in your own words define violence.
I think it is what would be considered 'justified'. [that is ambiguous]
What justifies the use of dangerous force is indeed too ambiguous. I assert that this is partly due to our failure to come to terms about what violence is.
Question to ponder: What must violence violate in order to be considered violent?
example, when someone is likely to attack you
Ah the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. A violence promoting doctrine methinks.
atypican
