Nihilism - Nihilists vs Anarchy - Anarchists.

A Nihilist is someone who, according to The Big Lebowski, is an individual who cares about nothing.  A Nihilist would argue that, "life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value" (thank you Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism).

Anarchy is usually defined as objection to any form of government.  An Anarchist would be an individual employing physical force as the statement of objection. 

I have a different idea of what constitutes Anarchy and Nihilism.

Nihilism is the lack of concern about the consequence of the act.  As there is no meaning, purpose, or value, then nothing has a point to it except the immediacy of the current act.  Their exists no constraint within the Nihilist.

Anarchy is the objection to all methods of control, most specifically in regard to the imposition upon the individual by another, or group.  This would include government, but it would also include things like clothing, peer pressure, medicine, food and, most certainly, the use of violence.  As noted in the previous post, an act of violence is the imposition of will of one against another unwilling/unknowing individual. 

I consider most anarchists to be nihilists.  Look up 'black bloc anarchists" on YouTube and you'll get more hits than their guidelines seem to allow for.  Most Anarchists that make it on film are not concerned beyond their immediate actions, they are acting without constraint. 

An Anarchist understands violence is just another method of control, and would therefore not employ it for any reason.  This is the point where a discussion on the difference between the ideology of Pacifism and Non-Violence becomes necessary, but that will be the purpose of the next post.

"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."   ~Chinese Proverb from http://www.quotegarden.com/violence.html.

Attacking Words 101: Violence & MMA.

     Over the course of my life I have discovered people use words in a different manner than I do.  I attribute the discrepancy to my four years in the U.S. Army and then four years earning a B.A. in English Literature.  These are two radically different environments, with two radically different purposes.  The same words would be used in completely different manners.  Disregarding the obviousness of the scenario, it is an entirely different experience than most could have.  Coming out of the military and trying to reintegrate into society is difficult enough, but I wasn't speaking the same language as everyone else, even  though it was all the same words.  These communication barriers still exist, but I've found it easier to understand others when they explain how and why  they are  using certain words, I do the same in return, and it gets me, and the other individual, in a place of understanding.

     This blog is my place to express how I view, use, and understand a word, or related words.  I will get this going by starting off with a single word, knowing that it will take more than this effort to fully place into context this, I doubt many understand this word the way I do:  Violence.

     I have boiled this single word down to a moment.  That moment is when one individual tries to impose their will upon the other in a manner of physical expression.

     The best sentence in the English language we all understand to be honest and bestowing a sense of correctness for the other person, "He threw the first punch".  I bet this idea crosses national borders.  It reinforces the idea that the person throwing 'the first punch' is the one engaged in the act of Violence.  I understand the word Violence to mean that first punch.  The individual on the receiving end of that first punch is acting in self-defense.  An act of self-defense is, by it's nature, not violent.  The line between violence and self-defense is a very tiny one, but it exists, and will be grappled with at a latter date.

    As words have implications, allow me to quickly analyze how the perception of certain things in our culture would be changed.  Mixed Martial Arts would instantly be considered a sport.  Violence is a prevalent word surrounding M.M.A., but it is due to a flawed understanding.  The mindset behind individual fighters is that their job is to 'impose their will' upon the other fighter.  In this scenario, the first to throw the first punch, go for the first take-down, is not behaving 'violently' because both parties have agreed to their situation.  Both parties are there of their own free will.  It was their individual choice.  If one fighter were to reach the ring, have the bell ring and the time start, a fighter still has the option to tell the referee that they quit, and the fight ends.  When a fighter taps out, whether due to a submission hold or punches/kicks, they are doing the same thing, informing the referee that they are withdrawing from the contest.  Then the fight is over.  This is not a violent sport, at all.