Is violence the reaction to the knowledge of uniformity?

Could the predominant cause of violence be the awareness of uniformity? Or does the knowledge of uniformity have nothing to do with violence?

good question. seems like a possibility

I think it’s reasonable that a politician wouldn’t refer to violence being caused by the knowledge of uniformity - where would the chain start?
That being said, I suppose one could argue that any war is the same as any hostile reaction to an unwanted routine: in both cases the sources of problem were the knowledge of uniformity.

It’s because of the knowledge of uniformity that housing is never not for profit, or healthcare, and so as market forces inevitably violence will occur.

The question this raises is if a civilisation free of violence is one that is free of the knowledge of uniformity?

Both uniformity and individuality can lead to violence.

Can individuality be uniformity?

Shelly

Individuals want to assert that difference through violence for sure, but i’d say that’s an extremity of the case. Its probably an exception based in frustration, as there are many ways to exert ones individuality without any need to further enforce that. An artist will do it with a brush, a businessman with their gains/success. …that’s if its a conscious thing…

Or do you mean that there is some deep seated agitation which manifest in violence, perhaps akin to how a lion possibly thinks? Which would be more on the level of the subconscious.

If it were air, its very weight [or presence] moving over the landscape generates the wind. so its an inner ‘force’ or some such thing?

Or do you mean that there is some deep seated agitation which manifest in violence, perhaps akin to how a lion possibly thinks? Which would be more on the level of the subconscious.

If it were air, its very weight [or presence] moving over the landscape generates the wind. so its an inner ‘force’ or some such thing?
[/quote]
I think you’re right about deep seated agitation. An example is that person Y being violent, because of their knowledge that persons X and T can never be expected to help them, because of persons X and T’s knowledge that others won’t help them, etc etc.
It’s an objective fact that nations need violence, as do systems of capitalism, and status-economies. And so I suppose this is the problem in raising the question: why bother linking violence to the knowledge of uniformity, when anything in reality is linked to the knowledge of uniformity?

The logical conclusion of the link is that the First World War was caused by the knowledge of uniformity, and thereby the First World War is identical to any hypothetical person’s act of violence.
Can the two be linked: the cause of the war 1914-18, and something as general and random as road rage, or shoplifting, or any domestic disturbance?

There are similarities.

The person who caused the war of 1914-18 would’ve experienced the same knowledge of uniformity, and so I suppose their act of violence is identical to any household act of violence, or brawl on any street.