I recall (poorly) that it was a quote found on the internet. i’ve been looking for the source, as I guess you have, but have been unable to find it.

Violence always limits/diminishes the number of choices of some individual – because there is no consent.

That way violence also does not need to be intentional – although we mostly attribute to it at least indirect intentionality through negligence, I´d say.

A tree blown down by a storm killing a person usually is not viewed as violent. There is neither intention not negligence at work, just fate. (This view changes, however, once nature/the universe is populated with all sorts of “entities” possessing their own will power, from nature spirits to god.)

What about causing a person pain during some sexual practice or even helping a person in great and terminal pain to die, when she is begging for it? I´d say these are not acts of violence, because the receiving persons are asking for something. And because they are asking they are responsibly dealing with their choices. Maybe they´re feeling them to increase if they get what they´re asking for? Who would want to judge for them – assuming them to be sane.

Bottom line: Violence is contracting – love on the other hand is expanding.

(Those are the ‘win/lose’ versions: there are also somewhat-less-common yet almost equally dysfunctional ‘lose/win’ versions, respectively “any attempt to prop Other up by putting Self down” and “any attempt to take on responsibility from Other without engagement or consent”.)

Note that ‘Other’ can also be Self-treated-as-Other – such as in procrastination (offload responsibility onto future Self) or self-blame (propping present Self up by putting past Other down and/or offloading responsibility to past Self).

More detail in the ‘manifesto’ at http://tetradianbooks.com/2009/06/hss-manifesto/ and in practical workshop form at http://tomgraves.org/d_procedure .

Hope this is useful, and would love to talk with you about this somewhen?