Synopsis

At the start of this blog we explained that our interest for creating this blog was to initiate a study and search for the root of vengeance and violence in the context of the Western culture. But from the beginning, I already had the intuition that the scope of research and study for the theme will necessarily have to encompass the whole gamut of elements that have to do with not only the vengeance and violence; but will also require delving on the theme of nonviolence. And if we are to go deeper into the study of vengeance and violence, it would be fundamental to also talk about forgivesness and reconciliation. It was also clear that the study within the context of the Western Culture alone will not be able to stand on its own; the Eastern Culture necessarily have to be part of it.

• So we started by posing questions regarding vengeance and violence. Afterwards, we asked more questions. Later, we posed even more questions. It was clear to me that I am writing this blog, because, I myself want to find the answers to these questions. And that perhaps, through this research and study, I might stumble on some of the answers. Or I could be hoping that the answers might present themselves as we go along this path.

• So the fundamental questions were what the words vengeance and violence meant. And are these intrinsic to the human being?

• We then, said that vengeance is not a mechanical action-reaction phenomena. That it is actually at the base of all violence. That vengeance is the balancing act to a given imbalance; that it is the equilibrium to disequilibrium. We said that the act of vengeance is always present, even if subtly, always working in the background. It is always present in the work of the structure, act-object, trying to compensate one's inadequacy, one's lacking, one's fears, one's frustrations; trying to compensate one's reverie nucleus -- one's cultural nucleus.

It's clear, that this interpretation of vengeance would seem to the reader a little bit radical. But, I will have to leave at that.

• Then, we came out with another not so usual idea, the notion that violence is never personal. We said that, more often than not, our anger are directed to people closest to us, and that the reasons has nothing to do with what our loved ones did or did not do to us; but rather it has more to do with our own frustrations -- those negative experiences that have accumulated within us. And that we are really just waiting for a justification to release our anger, our internal violence.

• It is the same with government leaders; they need a rationale, a justification to go to war; they always need a reason to express their inner violence – to express their violence on others, mostly on innocent people.

• Later, we talked about the basis of most laws, especially in the West. This very old and archaic edict from the Hammurabi Code that says, "an eye for an eye". Which we said was formulated to stop people from meting out disproportional punishment. We said that it was a good concept for its moment. But we also said that more advanced and updated upgrades to this old concept have been released throughout the centuries from different messengers and enlightened ones.

• We posit that when the integrity of an individual, a people, or even an entire culture is threatened, a sort of warning signal is registered by the structure under threat -- a sort of imbalance is registered - and instinctively, a reaction (balancing) is done (getting even, vengeance, justice, going to war).

• We were asked by one of the readers of the blog to define nonviolence, and we said that if the human being is intentionality, and violence is going against that intentionality, then, nonviolence is contributing to the enhancement of that intentionality. To put it simply, if his transformation is hindered by suffering and his basic project is the overcoming of this pain, this suffering – then, helping him to alleviate his pain, his suffering, is nonviolence. Helping him in his transformation, then, is the greatest act of nonviolence one can do for another – the most valid of all actions!

In other words, to humanize is to act with nonviolence. To humanize is to give in unifying acts.

• We talked about the ethic of reciprocity and later, we enumerated some famous passages from the text of various religious and secular beliefs.

• We theorized that the West was interested in promoting justice to the rest of the world, and the Non-west (the East) was more interested in spreading the concept of ahimsa or nonviolence.

• We then, talked about free interpretation. We said that free interpretation basically means that one has the right to interpret anything and everything according to one's experience, according to one's level of understanding, one's comprehension, one's culture, one's personal history. Everybody’s "truth" is an interpretation. In this sense, from the point of view of this concept of free interpretation, either I comprehend the other's action, or at the very least, I am understanding of the other's action; because from this point of view, no interpretation is wrong – only different. I am not saying that we tolerate or accept their violence; I am saying that it is better for us to understand their action, because by doing so, we lessen your suffering.

• Someone asked to elaborate on that nasty feeling called guilt. We said that every time consciousness receives an external stimulus that puts it in disequilibrium, the natural tendency of the consciousness is to react and to try to bring back its "lost" integrity by bringing itself back to equilibrium. It has to get even (vengeance) what was now uneven. But, the reaction is usually an over-reaction (or is perceived as over-reaction); and so either, a greater counter-action is received in return, or if there is none, somehow, the feeling of guilt is felt, because it satisfies the void created by the absence of the counter-action. In other words, Feeling guilty somehow gives the consciousness the illusion of equilibrium. It is akin to self-punishment. So, if we do not receive the expected "vengeance", we create the "vindication" ourselves by feeling guilty.

• Later, we went to develop further, our definition of nonviolence. We said that nonviolence is not just about going against the horrors of war; it is not just about going against all forms of discrimination; it is not just going against all forms of violence. It is more about working in favor of peace and doing something for peace. It is more about carrying peace within yourself and carrying this peace to others. It is more about reconciling with yourself and reconciling with others. It is about feeling the human in you and feeling the human in others. It is about humanizing yourself. It is about humanizing the other.

Finally, we said that nonviolence is about liberating yourself when you treat others as you want them to treat you.

•••