Let's think for a while on the concept of non-violence, and how is that different (if at all) from the ideal of 'not using violence to solve humanities problems'. I contend that they are two different animals. The ethics of non-violence proposes the ideal whereby all violence is rejected, at any stage of a dialogue between two parties. Violence is just not an option within the creed of non-violence. However, the proposal of rejecting the use of violence to solve the problems of humanity, speaks to us of a different perspective on the understanding of violence. If I reject the use of violence in attempting to solve humanities problems, what in fact does it mean? On a personal level it means that problems should be solved by dialogue and communication when at all possible. The idea of 'when at all possible' needs to be understood pedantically, and one would need to understand the context as if one were stating in terms of law. If someone punches me, what do I do? I dodge and try to bring the situation back into a state of equilibrium whereby the assailant and I minimise our chances of getting hurt. In the meantime I am attempting to get a dialogue happening. I gauge the success of my effort and make a decision to continue to incapacitate the assailant or if the level of violence has reduced, I continue with the communication process. This cycle continues until I have had to restrain or incapacitate the assailant, or we have managed to lower the level to the point that we're talking. It is through talking that we recognise problems and allows us the opportunity to find effective solutions. It means that on a fundamental level, we should seek to find out what the core issues are surrounding the problem, and then make a decision whether or not we will address the issues that we've identified. Let's ratchet the stakes up a bit. If someone shoots and kills a loved one, how might I respond. Initially I might very well decide that I need to respond in a similar manner, until I am able to get to a safer environment. However once the immediate situation is no longer life threatening to the ones who remain alive, my ideals would require of me to follow the rule I adhere to, that I seek to understand why the incident happened, and how I should go about ensuring that the cycle of violence doesn't continue. Whether or not I am able to live my ideal under all circumstances is still open to speculation, however as a human being, it is important that we fully inspect our own ideals. What happens when the perpetrator is a government, or a faceless political movement? What do you do when a bomb is dropped on your village, or a sniper in a tower kills your 12 y.o daughter? Or inflicts a rocket attack on your home? I see everyday in the world, where human beings decide that they will not bother with dialogue and communication, and will instead inflict their will in a variety of negative ways. This phenomenon is not limited to suicide bombers and the like, it is perpetrated on every level of human society, from governments to individuals. IMO, people from all cultures often make the decision that communication is too difficult. When communication is deemed too difficult, and there is an imbalance in the reality of our world, this will inevitably lead to violence. Those motivated to follow the violent path are often hidden, and difficult to identify. Often the perpetrators are puppet masters getting other people to do the dirty work, while they reel in the profits. They speak of honour, when they mean that the sons and the daughters of those less privileged do the dying. These types have always been with us through human history from the dawn of our time, and they are just as prolific now. All we need to do is to meditate deeply on the question, and see if we don't appreciate the social predicament in a new light. The approach of rejecting violence to solve problems, requires that we really do look at the source of the problems. We need to walk that mile in the other persons shoes and seek to find out why the violent option has been used to begin with. Is it greed, the lust for power, a perception that violence is the only way for the world to listen? We are living in the dark ages from a socio-philosophical point of view. The notion that there is a side is intrinsically good, and that the other side is evil, is simplistic, flawed and dangerous to the extreme. Such an attitude is counter-productive and inflammatory. These ideals of which I speak requires courage. No one really knows the depth of their own courage, until such time that the potential is required to come into play. Silat is a good vehicle to explore our own potentialities in a harmonious way. It also gives us the option to beat the crap out of the other person until such time we can align ourselves to our higher ideals ... hehe ... only joking!