[Elissetecausa]

the only reason i keep talking is because i think you misunderstand me. i half-agree with everything you've been saying, but there is sort of a specific twist i'm trying to express. it's hardly a big deal, but since this is a philosophical website i guess i feel like if there is any place for me to elaborate, this is the place.

firstly, i'm speaking generally, not with reference to you specifically.

secondly, i truly think there are many different loving responses and that in the end a response can never be planned, only prepared for by practicing compassion. ultimately every response needs to be made in the moment. text cannot express the infinite subtleties of every specific situation. two situations may be described with identical text and yet be miles apart in what is "actually" happening and what is actually appropriate. to any given scenario i don't put any stock in the idea that there is "a right answer" which can be pre-planned, only that by exploring the scenarios we can possibly expand our thinking.

as far as the misunderstandings, i don't consider non-violence to be a solution to any problem. i don't particularly think problems are there to be solved. in my way of thinking, non-violence is a choice made without reference to solutions. non-violence itself is the reward. it is an end in itself, not a means to an end.

so this means that when one chooses to be non-violent one is necessarily accepting the consequences. one does not say, "i will be non-violent until it stops working," or "i will be non-violent if you be non-violent."

if that is how it is approached, then it's nothing more than another tactic of manipulation and control.

i'm not suggesting that we institute laws to this nature or something like that. i'm not laying out a vision of utopia. i'm not saying, "teens should behave like x, adults like y." i'm rather suggesting that one option, for whomever, is to behave like x. and note that i don't say, "everyone should be non-violent." i don't feel qualified to make such a statement.

rather, my first point is quite simply, "non-violence is an option available."

for most people i imagine my usefulness ends here and they will say, "ok, i opt-out."

but for those who are interested in "opting-in" there is a lot to explore and a lot to learn. there is a certain technique to it - society conditions us to be violent in the most insignificant and subtle ways. our language itself is a language of violence, a language of control and manipulation. learning to speak without violence is truly like learning to speak again. all of a sudden patterns of behavior that are so deeply ingrained in popular culture have a new light shed on them. one of these is definitely the stereotypical parent-child relationship, the kind of thing that dr. phil is always talking about.

dr. phil's approach is a total polar opposite of my approach. to me, dr. phil's approach is basically "how to successfully navigate modern human dominance hierarchies."

to me dominance hierarchies are both unnecessary and inherently violent. human hierarchies are really just highly sophisticated chimpanzee dominance hierarchies. the violence is still there it is just masked behind all kinds of perfume.

i've always been a bloodhound for this type of perfume, and it has always smelled like poisonous gas to me.

but that's just me. i'm doing fine in this world by refusing to co-operate with dominance hierarchies and turning them on their head using purely non-violent techniques. it's not pragmatic though - i'd certainly be richer and more powerful and be more popular and have more people love me if i "played the game".

so my advice is really only suited for those who decide to opt-out of "the game" and opt-in to "non-violence as a principle, not a means to an end."

so knowing this, i suppose you can get a better idea of how i approach the "problem" with my mother. these days, i don't consider it a problem. it just is another circumstance be accepted and transcended - another challenge to remain non-violent and compassionate in the face of.

i never have little talks with people with the goal of changing their behavior, to me this kind of goal is inherently manipulative. rather, i have talks with people trying to express my genuine situation, and then make requests which they are free to ignore, and in which i do not twist their arm at all.

to me, this process is a reward in itself.