Hello my dear friends, I am here to present an interesting concept that I have been tossing around today, the idea that violence, or rather the acceptance of it, could be the answer to humans regaining a sense of balance in a world ripe with chaos and uncertainty.

Violence, as a concept, is universal in the basic structure of the world that we can observe. Nature is defined by the violent interactions that are carried out between members of different animal species, and even within the framework that surrounds animals of the same species. Depending on your definition of violence, even plant life could be defined as a facilitator of violence.

At this point, we need to solidify what exactly violence is, given the subjectivity based on context. In my definition, in an attempt to capture its essence, violence is an output of energy that causes another variable to change. This encompasses all organic instances of energy output, in addition to suggesting that chaos itself, or rather the flow of energy that takes place is in a sense, violence. Some people would hesitate to define chaos as violence, given the restricted conceptualization that violence suffers from. When I say this, I mean that despite human society having a fetish for violent acts, there is a rejection of it, and those who perpetuate its action must abide by moral standings in order to even be properly recognized for their role in it. The action itself, violence, is considered to be a negative, terrible thing. People strive every day to minimize and remove it from the order of things.

Why do we do this? If violence is so integral to the functioning of our world, why are we demonizing and restricting it, instead of accepting its everlasting facilitation in the organic realm? Now, I am not saying that instances of violence that are negative in result are something we should embrace and worship, rather that we need to open our eyes and accept that it is something to understand and study, rather than reject. A fair comparison would be our insistence of rejecting sex, labeling it a morally ambiguous action that should be hidden from plain sight. This is hilarious, because sex is literally the one action that keeps our little enterprise functioning effectively. Without people having the desire to have sex (hell, without orgasms) it would be very difficult to convince a sentient person (especially a female) to settle down, endure pain and hardship, just for the sake of perpetuating our species. Morality is a subjective notion that entirely depends on the culture and other random variables that coincide within the human social sphere.

So what, in the end, is the lesson that I am trying to deliver across this electronic medium? That, like everything, violence exists on a spectrum, and judging from the entirety of known history, has been a factor since the creation of our little organic spaceship. Nations have tried and failed to unite us all, instead embarking in violent enterprises to oppress humanity into an united front. Cultures judge other cultures for their understanding and role within violence. They enact violence at each other to try and convince the other that their style of violence is wrong. This continual ironic cycle is displayed to this day, as with the United States’ insistence to act as a moral judge of violence despite raining down our violence across nations, both with bombs, and with other, less direct forms of aggression.

In the end, all this does is perpetuate a cycle of violence that has negative consequences for all parties involved, while giving no actual credit to the action itself.

One wonders how long this practice will last.