Free Interpretation Redux

BOOK II, First Word

2008-12-15T23:59:00.043-02:00

•••

As mentioned earlier, the only way to finish the first book is to end it before it is actually finished. So, we wrapped up the first part of the study and is now starting with the second one. Just to let you know, a friend doing the editing of the book just informed me that the editing will be finished by next week. Another good friend will be writing the Preface, and an old friend will write the Introduction. So, yesterday was really a great day. It is now just a matter of time and the book will be published. Hopefully, it will be available from amazon.com and your favorite bookstore by the summer of next year. Summer in the North Zone, that is; winter here in Rio de Janeiro, the cidade maravilhosa.

Now, on to the next.

Like the entries in the first book, this one will also be written in blog form. It will be a continuation of this blog on vengeance, violence and nonviolence. This time, we will try to analyze vengeance and violence in all its forms -- in all its subtleties. It will be tentatively titled, "Beyond Mere Survival: The Instinct of Nonviolence".

Among other subjects, we will tackle the themes on possession, imposition, laws, war, suffering, sacrifice, criticism, self-criticism, freedom of choice, tolerance, receiving, giving, forgiving, reconciliation, meaning, humility, cultural diversity, individual diversity, "letting go", and for some reason, I would like to include the theme of aesthetics.

•••

Note 1: If you want to read Book One of this series, please go to the August Archive, or click here.

Note 2: If you prefer to read Book One offline, please click here to download the manuscript to your computer.

Note 3: If you prefer to read Book One in PDF form, please click here.

Note 4: If you prefer to read the Spanish version in PDF form, please, click here.

•••

IMPORTANT NOTICE

2008-12-15T23:59:00.041-02:00

•••

Please, take note that since this blog was intended to be published later in book form -- it reads from top to bottom -- instead of the normal blog form, where the latest post is always at the top. In this format, you can find the latest entry at the bottom.

If you like to read Book One, FREE INTERPRETATION REDUX, Please, click here.

Thanks, for following...

Godi

:::::

If you like to read and know more about Silo, please, go to...

http://silo.net

•••

The Pre-condition

2008-12-15T23:58:00.003-02:00

•••

I know I begun the first book with questions and ended it with even more questions; but what can I do? This is how it is -- I just do not know the answers to most of these questions. I am finding out that the more I know, the more I know that I do not know anything. But at the least, this I know for certain: the only way for man to stop violence is for him to stop thinking that his violence is inherent in him -- to stop thinking that it is natural for him to be violent. But this is just the pre-condition. Knowing you're sick does not cure the illness, but anyway, you have to know first that something is wrong before you can make it right. Right?

And how do we make it right?

How else, if not by asking more questions.

•••

Possession

2008-12-15T23:57:00.015-02:00

•••

• Why talk about possession? How is possession related to violence?

• But first, what is possession? What is it to possess?

• Is to possess the same as to acquire, to own, to have? Does it refer to the actual owning of objects and objects of affection, or does it have to do more with the emotional attachment to the thing or person that we possess? Is it the opposite of "letting go"? It is like saying, to dispossess is to let go. But, let go of what?

• Is controlling, the same as possessing? Is to possess something or someone, the same as to have control over something or someone?

• Why then, do we want to control? Why do we want to possess?

• Is compassion the anti-thesis of possession?

• Does possession have anything to do with the consciousness' inherent need to perpetually balance* itself? Is it trying to be in equilibrium by compensating, by possessing, by owning, by controlling?

• Is to control also to impose?

• Is losing control also losing "balance"?

• Does balance have anything to do with symmetry? with aesthetics?

• It is like we have many worlds, and we need to control these worlds.

•••

*To read more about balance, please, go to the entry in Book I, The Balance.

•••

Possession, Part Two

2008-12-15T23:56:00.004-02:00

•••

Continuing with the theme of possession...

• Do I exist because of the "objects" around me? Are these "objects" there to give me support?

• Do my identity, my integrity depend on these "objects"? Do I exist because they exists?

What does my identification with these objects got to do with my existence?

• And if they do not exist; where will I be?

• Why are we so very much identified with these "objects"?

• And what are these "objects"? These are things we have, want to have, or things we are afraid to lose. These could be actual objects, like our cars, houses, knick-knacks, pimples, etc.; or intangible things such as ideas, doctrines, causes, opinions, place in society, etc.; or people like, friends, children, love ones, relatives, family, wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends, enemies, etc.

• Yes, enemies. Sometimes, people do need to have enemies, they have to have someone to fight with, to be angry with, to compete with. Films, dramas, need to have villains so that the actions of the hero will have meaning. Is it this same as in real life? Do we really have to have an adversary to give meaning to our lives?

• Even the existing economic system, so called "laissez-faire" is based on competition -- unless of course, the companies of their friends are in danger of collapsing -- then, they start to talk about financial aids and bail-outs.

• And because of this -- because, my existence depends on these "objects" -- is this the reason why it is very hard to let go? Is this the reason why it is not so easy to dispossess?

• And when I lose these objects that I possess, these things that I "own", I suffer. Is it because the balance, the equilibrium is somehow lost when the object is lost -- putting the whole structure out of balance, the whole structure out of equilibrium?

• Or, could it be that this disequilibrium cannot be offset with compensating possession? That when I am able to compensate this disequilibrium by possessing, I am really just getting a temporary reprieve, a temporary balance, an illusory equilibrium?

• And what exactly do we mean when we say that this equilibrium is illusory?

We will discuss this on later blogs.

•••

Music to My Eyes

2008-12-15T23:55:00.011-02:00

•••

I received a short but very incisive comment from someone yesterday. I just want to say here that it is always very nice to receive commentaries and feedbacks from others. I am like the classical composer hearing his composition for the first time.

Music is produced in most musical instruments (for example, the guitar and the piano) through its "sound board". The music we hear is not coming from the strings of the guitar or the piano. The music we hear is coming from their "sound boards".

That's the reason why I am always happy to read comments from others; because they are the soundboards that actually create the music.

Indeed, they are music to my eyes.

•••

Real Estate, Is it Real?

2008-12-15T23:54:00.004-02:00

•••

We received a feedback from one of our friends following this blog. They asked, "So what's wrong with my owning a car -- I use it to go to work. And what's so wrong with having my own house?

Of course, there's nothing wrong with owning a car -- to go to work or to go on a holiday. Surely, there's nothing wrong for people to have their own homes. In fact, we believe that every one should have their own homes.

You can own a car, a house, a giant 72-inch LCD High Definition TV, a 200-foot luxury yacht, etc. You can even have your cake and eat it too -- if you can.

But that is not the problem. The problem is not our having, owning or possessing. The problem is our identification -- our emotional attachment, our psychological dependence on these objects. The problem is that we have given these objects attributes that are not present, attributes that they do not have, we have given them false attributes. Sometimes we are still almost like the superstitious caveman believing in the power of his talisman -- although in a more subtle way.

We are so identified with our possessions, we believe they are part of us. If they are damaged or lost, we suffer. Remember the time when your favorite toy got broken? Or the time when your first love broke up with you?

•••

Non-tolerance of Violence

2008-12-15T23:53:00.008-02:00

•••

I was just reading a news article regarding the conviction of four members of the Animal Liberation Front getting a maximum of 14 years in prison for a six-year campaign of blackmail against an animal research laboratory in the UK. Although, we condemn extremist activities, no matter for what cause or issue; we think that this sentence is too harsh.

On the other hand, I just cannot understand how some people upon witnessing an animal being abused - say, a dog being beaten by its owner - will do something instantly to stop the owner from continuing his violent act, even to the extent of calling the police phone number, 911, which, by the way, should only be called during emergency – but, will not do anything to stop their government from going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.

War is the worst kind of violence that could be inflicted on innocent people of the world -- no matter where they are, whoever they may be.

Here is a good example of what we said in an earlier post, that tolerance of violence is violence.

We will add something to this. If tolerance of violence is violence, therefore, non-tolerance of violence is nonviolence.

Working for cessation of wars is active nonviolence.

Wouldn't it be just great if people have the same abhorrence and repugnance to wars and to violence inflicted on their fellow human beings as they have to animal abuse?

•••

Judgment Day

2008-12-15T23:52:00.010-02:00

•••

I am deleting this entry from Book I and will post it here in Book II instead. It seems to me that the subject is a step closer to the core of the theme of vengeance and violence.

People are so concerned with justice and its application -- they are so obsessed with it, they even invented a god that is ALL-JUST. Why? If not to punish -- and get my vengeance in the afterlife -- people that have done me or other people harm. If I am not able to have my revenge in this life, with a god that is all-just, I am assured that those people will get what they deserved in the afterlife.

In short, people would rather avoid reconciliation and just ignore the principle of solidarity, that says, "Treat others as you want them to treat you" and just go with the principle of "justice" -- which is really masked revenge -- that says, "Treat others as they deserved to be treated".

So, they came up with the concept of the final justice, the ultimate justice, or the ultimate application of justice -- "Judgement Day"! Where, on the "end of days", all sinners who will eventually go to eternal hell will be on god's left, and those on the right will go to heaven (I am not so sure who are the people that will stay on god's right since everyone sinned anyway -- based on their own criteria, anyway).

But, can you see the deep rooted mechanism working here? How a whole culture's psyche is so obsessed with vengeance and revenge? So much so, that they would not only pursue perpetrators to the ends of the earth, but also to the ends of life, and even the afterlife!

In Christian eschatology, the Last Judgment, Final Judgment, Judgment Day, or Day of the Lords is the judgment by God of all nations.[1] It will take place after the resurrection of the dead and the Second Coming (Revelation 20:12–15). This belief has inspired numerous artistic depictions.

The concept of a Last Judgement[2] is also found in all Abrahamic religions and elsewhere (for example, see Duat).

There is little agreement among Christian denominations as to what happens after death and before the Last Judgment.

In Islam, the Last Judgment is called a number of things, including yaum al-Qiyamah (literally "the Day of Standing") and God Almighty, or Allah in Arabic, will judge all Creation. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgement

•••

Child Play

2008-12-15T23:50:00.007-02:00

•••

Barely two weeks ago, a boy of nine years was tried for the double murder of his father and his father's friend. He was tried as an adult and voluntarily pleaded guilty to avoid harsher punishment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6920449

Yesterday, in the news, a boy was charged with the killing of his father's pregnant girlfriend. He too, will be tried as an adult.

These stories are becoming frequent and I am going to put a little twist on this issue. I am not going to invoke the usual anti-gun rhetoric – which would be nice to do, or will I sing the "children are now becoming more violent" song, either. I will still continue to look at it from the vengeance angle.

Trying children as adults are becoming a norm. And why do I think is that? It seems to me that trying our children as adults is really just another means for society to avoid responsibility for its children. If we are not responsible, then, we can never be guilty. If we are not guilty, then, we will avoid the "punishment" here and in the afterlife -- as a consequence of that failure. Especially, if the child is found guilty, then we are not guilty. Our hands are totally washed, totally sanitized, totally clean. We are completely absolved from the crime and the responsibility of bringing up the child in a nonviolent world. Therefore, we avoid the consequence of punishment in that final judgment we talked about in the previous entry -- not to mention that we also avoid that nasty feeling we call guilt, which we said in another entry is actually self-punishment.

I am slowly realizing that indeed, everything in this culture is, and does revolve around vengeance. How to get vengeance and/or how to avoid vengeance.

This time, it is all about avoiding guilt, avoiding punishment, which is the same as avoiding vengeance.

•••

This issue is related to the discrimination against the young as one of the main form of violence. I believe that no one should be tried and/or sentenced under laws that they did not choose or vote for. If someone is not qualified to vote -- because of mental incapacity or age, then they cannot be tried under laws they are not able to vote for.

•••

"Leaders will also have to take positions regarding youth, increasingly characterized as constituting a “threat to society,” with dangerous tendencies toward drugs, violence, and lack of communication. Those leaders who persist in ignoring the profound roots of these problems will be in no position to give satisfactory answers simply by inviting young people to participate in conventional politics or the traditional cults, or to enjoy the offerings of a decadent civilization controlled by money. Meanwhile, such leaders are contributing to the psychic destruction of an entire generation and the rise of despicable new economic powers that grow rich by preying on the anguish and psychological alienation of millions of human beings.

Many leaders now ask in surprise where this growing violence among young people is coming from—as if it were not these leaders themselves, the former or current generations to hold power, who have overseen the perfecting of a systematic violence, exploiting even the advances in science and technology to make their manipulations ever more efficient. —Silo

•••

Intolerance

2008-12-15T23:48:00.002-02:00

•••

Do you notice that society is becoming less tolerant? That punishments and penalties are becoming harsher and more stringent? In the US, some States have adopted the so-called "Three Strikes and you're out!" law. When a convicted felon -- who has been punished and has served time in prison -- is charged with a third felony crime -- no matter how minor this third crime is -- like say, stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children, on the third sentencing, he is going to get 25 years to life in prison.

When a society is intolerant, doesn't that mean that it has already lost patience with people who are not following the norm?

This intolerance is not just in the justice and criminal systems. But it is also prevalent in the private sector. It is also, being applied in the education, sports and all other sectors of society. In most K-12 schools in the US, the "one strike and you're out" rule are now becoming the norm.

Society are now more concern and give importance to rules, more than to human concerns. Forgetting totally, that these rules were supposedly formulated to benefit the human being. Take for example, that high school student who was barred from attending his graduation ball party right there at the ball entrance, because he was dressed as a girl. This was his only chance to be part of this very important and traditional event -- to be happy and to enjoy the great occasion with his friends, but instead, he is forever scarred from this experience. This young boy IS that human being.

Why is it that a young black man caught stealing a pack cigarettes and some bottles of beer for his third felony conviction can get a life sentence, while a financial magnate who run away with 50 billion dollars -- some of these from pension funds of old people are not even brought to court to face charges?

•••

Notes
Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).

In one particularly notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for the crime of stealing four chocolate chip cookies (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).[9] --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law

•••

A Short Chat on Nonviolence

2008-12-15T23:42:00.000-02:00

•••

I prepared a short talk on the theme of nonviolence that I am hoping will be read at one of the sessions in the upcoming symposium on nonviolence at the Attagliano Park in Rome. It is basically composed of excerpts from two chapters of my book, Free Interpretation Redux, An Inquiry into the background of Vengeance, Violence and Nonviolence.

---

Nonviolence

I had a nice online chat with one of the bloggers following my blog, "Free Interpretation -- An Inquiry into the Background of Vengeance, Violence and Nonviolence".

We were talking about free interpretation and its connection to nonviolence. And, as is usual, every time nonviolence is talked about, Hitler and the Nazis are almost always invoked. Even just for the sake of argument, they would always asked how nonviolence could have been used against Hitler and the Nazis. They say that nonviolence could have never won the war against the likes of Hitler. They would say that nonviolence could have never stop the Nazis.

Anyway, I told him that nonviolence is not trying to stop Hitler or the likes of Hitler. Nonviolence is trying to stop violence. I continued that, sure, the Allied Forces won the war and stopped Hitler and the Nazis, but certainly, the Allies did not stop violence. You must agree with me that violence is clearly still with us.

I concluded by saying 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 you 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, I said, nonviolence is about liberating yourself when you
treat others as you would have them treat you.

---

"But what is violence, really? And what about the 'survival of the fittest' – as some people would want us to believe." He continued to query.

So, I responded that it is not like that at all. Sure, sometimes, it is like a "jungle" out there, but people are not the same as the animals in the jungle. No, because people have freedom of choice – people have intentions. And this is the main difference between humans and the rest of the other living beings on this planet. Humans have intentionality; they have the freedom to choose. Each individual, each human group has intentionality. And very often, this is exactly where conflicts arise – when people choose to impose their intentionality on others.

When I impose something on another; I am actually choosing for the other. I am therefore negating his fundamental freedom – his freedom to choose. It could be as simple and as innocent as a censure – like stopping someone from saying their mind or voicing their opinion; or as extreme as choosing someone's death for him (murder) – the extreme case of stopping the other's intentionality (which is to preserve oneself and to continue living).

Violence then, is the appropriation of the other's choice or intentionality. Put in another way, violence is the imposition of one's intentionality on the intentionality of the other.

I can say then, that as long as one does not impose one's beliefs, one's faith, one's god, one's choice, one's intentionality, especially, one's stupidity on another -- then, one can freely do whatever one wants.

---

What about nonviolence – what is it exactly?

I answered that it is really not that complicated. If we know what violence is, then, nonviolence is non-tolerance of violence. In reality, we can say that tolerance of violence is violence.

If the human being is intentionality, and violence is going against that intentionality; then, nonviolence is to contribute to the enhancement of that intentionality. To put it simply, if the human being’s transformation is hindered by pain and suffering, and his basic project is the overcoming of this pain, this suffering – then, helping him alleviate his pain, his suffering, is nonviolence.

Helping him in his transformation, then, is the greatest active-nonviolence act one can do for another – the most valid of all actions!

It is life's project par excellence!

---

• In other words, to humanize is to act with nonviolence.

• The most important nonviolent act: to humanize the other.

• To humanize the other is to humanize the earth.

• To humanize the earth is to humanize yourself.

• Helping the other in his transformation is self-transformation.

• If you take this as your reality, as your mission, then nothing can detain you from your destiny, and you would have opened the other's future, his own destiny.

---

This, for me, is nonviolence.

•••

In Our Own Image

2008-12-15T21:40:00.005-02:00

•••

• Why is it that we are always comparing ourselves to others? Why are we always critical of others, always making judgments, always looking for what should be, for what should not be; always looking for what is "wrong" -- or what is not "right" with the other?

• When we see the other as different, why is it that that difference is always based on ourselves, on how we are, or what we are?

• Our tendency is to re-create the other into how we are, into what we are -- to re-create the other into our own image -- or even, into our own image of what is ideal.

• We often ask, "Why can't you be like this, or like that?" "Why can't you be like me?"

• The problem here is that this attitude is but one step closer from feeling superior, one step closer to feeling above the other, one step closer to discriminating the other, one step closer to imposing on the other, one step closer to dehumanizing the other.

• On the other hand, if we stop looking for what is different between us and the other -- and stop highlighting those differences -- and instead, start respecting those differences, start respecting diversity, cultural as well as individual diversity, then, we would be one step closer to resisting violence, we would be one step closer to nonviolence, one step closer to humanizing the other.

•••

Nothing in Between

2008-12-15T21:39:00.005-02:00

•••

A friend of mine and I were having lunch with some other friends yesterday, and the conversation somehow drifted to the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. My friend was a little unsure what to think about the war that Bush started as a response to the 9/11 bombings and is now being escalated by this new administration -- he was kind of leaning towards agreeing with the decision of this president to focus the war on Afghanistan. I said that I beg to disagree, and he said: "What else do you think we can do to stop the Al Qaeda and the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and Pakistan"? I said, we can stop this cycle of violence by helping the people of Afghanistan, instead of bombing them; by helping poor nations instead of exploiting them. By teaching our children nonviolence instead of vengeance; guiding them towards humanism, instead of grooming them towards more consumerism. We have to reconcile with our past, because only then can we move ahead towards a more human future.

Another friend asked: What do you mean "to reconcile"? I answered that every aspect of our past and present -- as a species and as individuals -- should be reconciled; every aspect of human relations, endeavor, art, culture, science, history, etc. should be reconciled. Without reconciliation, there could be no integration; and without integration, there could be no going forward. Without going forward, there is no future. Without future, there could only be death.

Reconciliation or death. Nothing in between.

•••

The Root of All Evil?

2008-12-15T21:38:00.007-02:00

•••

Towards the end of the '70s and early '80s I begin to be preoccupied with the problem of justice and injustice. I begin to realize that there could be no justice in this world with the working people being exploited. They were getting meager earnings, while their exploiters are enjoying the benefits of their hard labor.

I also begun to observe that most times, tensions between couples and families is due to lack of spending money. Money to buy food, to pay for the house rent, mortgage, to pay for school tuition, to pay hospital and doctor's bills, etc. Of course, money is not the solution to man's problems - but it is a start. And what's wrong with earning as one needs to earn? What's wrong with earning enough to sustain oneself and one's family? What's wrong with earning enough to not just have all the basic necessities of life - but all the comforts in life?

Then, I begun to ponder... why do man need to earn what he is supposed to have as a right? Doesn't he have the right to have a roof over his head? the right to sustenance? the right to the best health care? the best education? If these are his basic rights - then, why does he need to earn them? If these are his rights to have and enjoy, then, he should be able to get them if and when he wishes.

Then, I begun to remember how early man begun to domesticate plants and animals, and how they used the barter system* to exchange goods among them. Then, they used cattle as a form of money. In some societies, shells were used as money. Later, metal coins were minted - then, paper money were printed and used. Of course, now people get paid with e-money. I also, recall how before all this, when man relied on nature to provide for his daily sustenance, he did not need to barter; he did not need to pay with money - because everything is there for him to take and have - for free!

So, I speculated that maybe, just maybe, we are now about to come to a full circle; maybe the cycle is again here with us. Maybe, the time for the necessities of man to be free for his taking is again here. Although, instead of these necessities being provided for him by nature - this time these are going to be provided for him by man himself.

I concluded then, that the only way man can have true justice is by giving him economic freedom - when everything that up to now has to be bought and paid for by money or labor shall be available to him for free - meaning no need for payment, meaning no need for money.

As radical as it sounds, 30 years ago, I started dreaming of a time when all - not just education and universal health - but, all goods and services needed by man to live a life of comfort will be free.

I begun to imagine what could be a common scene in this just future.

Peter, a shoemaker is visiting his long time next-door neighbor and old friend, Paul - who is also a shoemaker. How are you? asks Peter. I am very good, Paul answers. How many pairs of shoes were you able to give away today? Peter asks. Paul responds: today is not as good as yesterday - I only gave away 7 pairs. How about you? Oh, I am totally happy today, Peter says, I gave away 12 pairs of shoes today. You should have seen the wide-open eyes of the little girl when I gave her her first ballet shoes.

Peter waited for Paul to close shop and the two walk to their favorite café to have their espressos - and talk about the "good old days".

•••

I understand that I do not know anything about money, this present economic and the banking system (what I do know is that most of the time I do not have money; that this economic system sucks; and banks will only lend money to people who already have money), but anyway, this is my hope and vision for the near future - that the day will come when man will benefit and enjoy the fruits of his being a human being, and if only for this reason - his being human.

•••

*Even today, there are still societies that uses the barter system. Sometime ago, I was in the Cordillera Mountains in Northern Luzon. I was with an author to photograph baskets weaved by the natives of this place. We went to a house to see one of the better known basket weaver in the area. He was busy finishing a most beautiful basket that he said he has been weaving for the past week. André, the author asked him if he would like to sell it to us. He said that he is weaving this one for somebody in the closest town. He will travel to this town by walking for 4 days going - to exchange his basket with cooking oil and salt - and come back walking for another 4 days. By the way, the old man is 73 years old!

•••

Message of the Profound

2008-12-15T21:35:00.003-02:00

•••

I have not been sleeping well this past few days; I would awake in the middle of the night -- only after 2 or 3 hours of sleep -- and today, it was the same. I went to bed at mignight and woke up a little after two. So, anyway, I continued to do my re-editing of the book and while re-reading the book for the nth time, somehow i begin to have the sensation that the root of all these preoccupation and obsession with revenge is about to reveal itself. So, I stop the editing and just went back to asking more questions. Later on, going back to the most fundamental of all these questions. If this theme of vengeance has to be seen from its very root, it has to be coming from the most basic of the mechanisms. Why? because I do not know why but in my last post, I referred to it as a mechanism. In short – and I am realizing this just this night – that everything and I mean every single thing in this culture is and revolves around the theme of vengeance. How to get vengeance, how to avoid vengeance. It is all about injustice and justice. It all about guilt, punishment and revenge.

Why is it a mechanism? It is a mechanism because one goes on with one's life with this acting as the background of his actions and reactions. It is an almost automatic response. It is an automatic response mechanism.

In Book One - on one entry, we said, "So, they came up with the concept of the final justice, the ultimate justice, or the ultimate application of justice -- "Judgement Day"! Where, on the "end of days", all sinners who will eventually go to eternal hell will be on god's left, and those (I am not so sure who are the people that will stay on god's right since everyone sinned anyway) on the right will go to heaven.

"But, can you see the deep rooted mechanism working here? How a whole cultures' psyche is so obsessed with vengeance and revenge? So much so, that they would not only pursue perpetrators to the ends of the earth, but also to the ends of life, and even to the ends of the afterlife!"

If it is a basic mechanism of response, then, finding the root of the theme has also to do with the most basic of mechanisms; the mechanism of individual preservation, and the mechanism of conservation of the species.

So, it was right there, where and when it happened – when he was "thrown out of paradise".

Okay, this an eye for an eye came more or less around the period of the Hammurabi code. But how come it is still with us, even if there have been other teachings more advance than this?

So, the later coming of Moses, then much later, coming of Christ -- didn't do anything to change that obsession with vengeance -- even if Moses' god said -- thou shall not kill, period; no ifs, ands, or buts. or Jesus saying "do unto others as you want others do unto you..." and "judge not, lest ye be judged", etc.

So, this theme must be very much older and basic than any of these -- to be still with us...

•••

This injustice and the obsession to get justice -- does it have to do with the allegory of the first people being "thrown out of paradise"? When they ceased from being "immortal" and became "mortal"?

Does it have anything to do with man's realization that his life is finite, when he started to have this illusion that he is not immortal? When he was still in this allegorized "Garden of Eden", he was supposed to be "immortal" – and that was taken away from him when he was banished from this "paradise". So, now, as any other living being on this planet, he is mortal, just because he ate this "red fruit". What a great injustice, indeed! And so, after thousands of years, he is still trying to compensate this great void left inside him by this event. And so, since thousands of years ago, he has been going around -- leaving death and destruction behind and all around him -- wherever he went – just like the rebel replicants in Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner", looking for their creator to demand that he extend their limited lifespan.

And so, maybe, the solution then, is for people to start having faith that indeed, death does not exist; that life is infinite -- and to put an end to this belief in the idea or concept of judgment day, hell and all those lies invented by demented people.

•••

"Finally, my friends, I want to share with all of you this profound certainty that says: "The Sacred is within us and nothing bad can happen in this profound search for the Un-nameable." I believe that something very good will happen when human beings find the Meaning, so many times lost and so many times found again in the twists and turns of History.

Friends, I would like this Message of the Profound to be heard. It is not a strident Message, it is a quiet message that cannot be heard when one tries to trap it.

Friends, I would like to transmit the certainty of immortality. But, how could what is mortal generate something immortal? Perhaps we should rather ask ourselves, how it is possible for the immortal to generate the illusion of mortality." –Silo

•••

Beyond Mere Survival

2008-12-15T21:29:00.003-02:00

•••

Why is it so hard to find the root of the act of violence?

Is it because it precedes even my own existence? my parents, grandparents, even my great-great-great-grandparents?
...
Did it all begun when the human being started to defend itself - when we begun to protect ourselves from the environment, from nature itself - when we begun to fight for our survival?

Did it begun with our ancestors - who had to face overwhelming odds against the forces of nature? And from them, did we inherited these instincts, these mechanisms - the instincts of self-preservation and the conservation of the species? Surely, our ancestors would have never survived without these mechanisms. It was these instincts that kept them together and united - but, later on, these same mechanisms made them turn against each other. Has the time for a new mechanism to develop arrived?

So, it must have been our primary function and purpose - first to survive - but now, it is clear that we need to go beyond mere survival - to survive.

With more than seven billion individuals on this planet, there could be no doubt that the human species will survive for a long foreseeable future.

Is now the moment for the human species to go beyond mere survival?

•••

The Instinct of Nonviolence

2008-12-15T21:27:00.001-02:00

•••

The two basic instincts of the human being are the instinct of self-preservation and the instinct of the conservation of the species.

I believe that in the future - and hopefully, the near future - a new instinct, a new mechanism, will be added to the two original mechanisms of the human being. I would like to call this new instinct, this new mechanism, the "instinct of nonviolence".

I also believe that the day will come when this instinct will be implanted in the human gene just like the first two instincts, and that it will be more dominant than these first two. In such a way, that when confronted with a particular situation - especially, a negative one - man will act or react in a nonviolent way automatically.

This will transpire when we, as a species have finally integrated the "Principle of Nonviolence" that says, "Treat others like they were Sacred".

And why would we treat others like they were Sacred? Because, they are!

•••

"'The Sacred is within us and nothing bad can happen in this profound search for the Un-nameable.' I believe that something very good will happen when human beings find the Meaning, so many times lost and so many times found again in the twists and turns of History." --Silo

•••

"Learn to treat others in the way that you want to be treated.

Learn to surpass pain and suffering in yourself, in those close to you, and in human society.

Learn to resist the violence that is within you and outside of you.

Learn to recognize the signs of the sacred within you and around you"

--Silo, The Path, Silo's Message

http://silos-message.blogspot.com/

•••

Survival and Compassion

2008-12-15T21:26:00.004-02:00

•••

• When did it all begun? This was our original query at the beginning of this blog. Did it all begun when we started to lose our innocence and begun this voyage on the road to ignorance? when we knowingly try to protect our integrity, our very own existence?

• When did it all begun? Did it begun when we knowingly try to preserve ourselves. Is the primary purpose of this life, my life, to just continue living – to survive? Are all my thoughts, feelings and actions revolve around this basic mechanism of self-preservation?

• Compassion – does it mean going against one's very own instinct to survive and going against the instinct to preserve oneself?

•••

Book I: Preface

2008-08-30T00:15:00.002-03:00

This blog was originally created to initiate a study and perhaps start a dialogue with others regarding the subject of violence and vengeance. This blog will try to find and go to the foundation or background of the act of violence and it will also try to find the root of the act of vengeance.

Although, when talking about violence, the immediate images that come to most people's mind is that of wars, crimes, guns, murder, gangs, muggings, or somebody stepping on one's toes, etc., we are going to go beyond physical violence and will include the other forms of violence – psychological, racial, generational, sexual, economic, religious, moral, etc.

This blog, as with most blogs, will not follow a linear flow, as in writing a book. Rather, it will be jumping from topic to topic; jumping forward and backwards. Later on, these will be ordered in the writing of a book -- hopefully, that is.

The blog, therefore, will try to look for answers to the questions, what is the foundation and root of violence and vengeance (in the context of the Western culture)? Later on, we will try to tackle the issue of reconciliation and together, perhaps, come up with a sort of resolution on how the problem of violence and vengeance could be overcame individually and socially.

Lastly, we will try to give a more ample definition of active nonviolence and its role in today's world.

Please, note that all these are personal interpretations -- nothing more. That all of this needs to be developed.

•••

Prologue

2008-08-30T00:12:00.012-03:00

By Dario Ergas, author of "The Meaning of Nonmeaning" and "The Look of Meaning"

•••

I met with Godi in Caucaia Park, Sao Paulo in September 2008. I hadn't seen him for a few years, from when we had gotten together with several friends to ask ourselves how one goes about integrating the death of someone we love. It had been an unforgettable gathering, in which something transcendent lightly touched us, reconciled us and launched us toward the future, in search of true meaning. Godi was now studying the theme of vengeance, and invited me to reflect together with him once again.

Both of us were very moved by Silo's talk in Rome, when he was asked about social reconciliation. What can those who have suffered wars and genocide do to reconcile themselves, and what can we ourselves do when we've been harmed by violence in our personal and familial life? Silo said on that occasion that if we want to truly enter into this theme, then let us meditate on Vengeance; he then added that we will be unable to answer the question about social reconciliation if we do not understand how deeply rooted the structure of vengeance is in Western culture. "That profound belief that one can resolve something by making the other person suffer the same thing that they made me, or others suffer."

In his book, Godi investigates the function fulfilled in the psychism by revenge, and gradually reveals it to us as a mode of re-establishing an equilibrium, of compensating a core of conflict in which vengeance is an instinctive reaction, in order to reestablish psychic equilibrium. He delves into our roots, enters into the psychology of Paleolithic man, attempts to show the usefulness of that mechanism when the human being struggled to dominate nature, and how that same mechanism, transferred into historical epochs, is leading us toward self-destruction. He carries out an inquiry, investigating and comparing different cultures, he discovers how, in Eastern cultures, great men arose who were capable of leaping over their violence and proposing nonviolence.

Vengeance (or revenge) consists of doing harm to another who has harmed me. It is a punishment that I inflict on another because of the evil they have caused me. Existentially, punishment and vengeance are synonyms. Revenge is carried out by applying a punishment. It may be that we don't consider ourselves as vengeful, but it is very probable that we administer punishment to our children, friends, subordinates, etc. When it is Justice that metes out the punishment, we don't call it Revenge. Punishment is not determined by my enraged impulses, but by the codes of a social contract that has been previously conceived, and supposedly with a certain rationality. However, in the background of these judicial codes, discipline and punishment prevail, as does the sentiment of revenge that we have dragged along as a burden since the times of our hominid ancestors.

"I don't want vengeance; I want justice," we say. I don't want to administer the punishment with my own hands; I want society to be the one to restore my dignity, by judging the person who has done me harm and punishing them. I want it to go on record publicly that their action deserves condemnation and is a bad example for all. In other words, I not only want punishment for the guilty -- I want my own vindication, my own affirmation through the punishment of the other. The harm I have suffered, besides the injury in and of itself, took away my dignity, stripped me of my humanity. And that dignity, that humanity that was taken away, is what I want to recover through the other's punishment.

Thus, vengeance is not just about seeking harm for the other because of the harm they did to me; it also seeks -- and this is what is important -- to recover the humanity and dignity stripped from me by the guilty person. And I do this by stripping them of their dignity and their humanity.

"When will the day come when the tables are turned, when the poor will eats bread and the rich, shit?" These are the lyrics of a song from last century. Why didn't people sing: "When will the day come when all of us will eat bread?" Because poverty isn't just poverty -- it is human dignity stolen, in this case, by the rich. I don't just want to eat bread; I want my humanity, my place in society, my human dignity.

Thus vengeance appears before us as a psychological mechanism for recovering the humanity of which I believe I have been stripped.

The object of my revenge, the one I consider to be guilty, will experience the same thing and we will continue with the cycle of violence until each faction destroys the other; in other words, until humanity's self-destruction -- or at least, until the self-destruction of the culture based on revenge.

We need to consider in this reflection -- that the human being is not his past; he is essentially his future, he is projected toward the future. Therefore revenge is not just about something that happened to me -- it is projected to the future by the harm that the other will cause me, by the humanity that the other will strip me of, should they ever reach that possibility. Then it will be necessary to dominate that other person, to subjugate, exploit them, impede them by any and all means from having any possibility of harming me in the future. It is vengeance about the future, or to resolve my fear of the future.

Let's move on. We are emphasizing the idea that revenge, though carried out by causing harm to the other that is similar to the harm they caused me, is really about recovering the humanity that was taken away. But what is this "humanity", this thing we so highly value that was taken away from me, and what is it that I recovered in effect, when I consummated my revenge? It is about something important that constitutes my life's essence. With the harm that was done to me, something essential was taken away from me, something of the essence of my life. That thing that was taken from me makes my life lose its reason for being, its meaning. Therefore, with Revenge I seek to recover the essence, and the meaning.

The engine of my revenge is not simply about harming the other; it is about extracting from the other a vital essence that I lost when they caused me harm. An 'eye for an eye' doesn't seek the other's eye; it seeks to extract from the other that essence of my humanity that I lost when I lost my eye.

We will not define that essence...but it is what makes me human, what gives me meaning.

Why is it that I experience the harm done to me as a loss of meaning?

We are now at the heart of the issue. Could it be that at the moment preceding the harm, I was in the presence of that essence, of that meaning? Was I then actually experiencing in myself that "humanity," that "human dignity"? Well, no – meaninglessness is what precedes and succeeds the act of revenge. It is from meaninglessness that revenge is possible. It is from the illusory state of the consciousness that believes it has meaning, that it is possible to believe that revenge will enable it to recover meaning.

Our reflection on Revenge led us to ask about the Meaning of existence.

In that talk of Silo's that I mentioned in the beginning, at Attigliano Park in Rome, he reminded us of Nietzsche's Zarathustra, saying: "Let us save man from revenge! Zarathustra comes down the mountain to visit humanity, and the first thing that attracts his attention is that the people don't know that God is dead. God's death makes Nietzsche presume the possibility of a new human being, and this is the gift that he brings them, from the high mountains. Man is something that must be surpassed, he tells them -- I bring you the super-man. From this perspective, from the look we are employing, God's death is the meaninglessness; not to see it, is the illusion of the consciousness, believing it has a meaning it no longer has: God has died. Nobody listens to Zarathustra and everyone prefers the last man. "Convert us into the last man!" they yell at him, "and keep your super-man." The last man -- the one who invents happiness because he doesn't have the experience of happiness. The one who takes drugs and escapes in order to forget God's death and his own death.

Towards the end of the 1800s, the last man had not yet arrived. But today he is among us. It is no longer possible to await him. He is already here. And in the echo of the high mountains, in the murmur of the rivers, the phrase is heard: "Man is something that must be surpassed."

Dario Ergas
Santiago, Summer of 2009

•••

Translated from the original Spanish by Elizabeth Medina. To access the Spanish version, please click here. Thanks, Liz!

http://violenceisneverpersonal.blogspot.com/2009/02/prologo-free-interpretation-rdux.html

•••

First Word

2008-08-30T00:10:00.022-03:00

Are vengeance and violence part of human nature? Is it really part of the human psyche to be vindictive and vengeful? Was the zoological vision* of the human being correct regarding its so-called "survival of the fittest"?

Are we really a violent species?

We think not, and this blog was created to try to prove that indeed the human being is not violent and that vengeance is not part of human's nature. This blog, therefore, will try to search for the foundation of vengeance and violence, and perhaps, discover anew the true meaning of nonviolence.

*Sociological school of the late nineteenth century that extended English naturalist Charles Darwin’s ideas on the evolution of species through natural selection, to the social evolution of humankind, thus confusing biology with sociology. Positing as an absolute the thesis of the survival of the fittest and extending it to the social life of humankind leads to the negation of another tendency in the evolution of nature: solidarity within the species and mutual aid. –Dictionary of New Humanism, http://www.silo.net/referenceMaterials/Diccionario_en.rtf

*"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection.

Although Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection", it is a metaphor, not a scientific description. It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase "natural selection" almost exclusively.

•••

It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition" and led to "social Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944. When used as a criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution, this claim is also an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy – even if the concept of survival of the fittest was used as a justification for violence in human society, this has no effect on the truth of the theory of evolution by natural selection in the natural world. –wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

•••

Second Word

2008-08-30T00:05:00.018-03:00

Okay, I have to admit that violence is all around us; in the news, at school, in politics, in the workplace, even at home. But is violence really part of our ethos? If it is, are we doomed as a species, to endless pain and suffering, to endless violence, endless retributions and endless wars?

How about the other forms of violence, like economic, sexual, generational, religious, racial, psychological, moral, etc.? And what about discrimination? Isn't there a sort of violence somewhere, when one billion children are going hungry everyday – when 40,000 of them die each day from hunger? Isn't there violence present somewhere when women are being treated as second class citizens in almost all societies? Isn't there violence somewhere when young people are tried as adults under laws that they did not have the privilege of voting for? Isn't there violence somewhere when beliefs and truths are imposed on others? Isn't there some violence somewhere when one is discriminated against, because of one's race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? Isn't there violence somewhere when whole peoples are threatened with the horrors of war and terrorized with the threat of nuclear annihilation?

And what about vengeance? What drives people to take revenge? Why is it that up to now, there are still some "advanced" societies that practice institutionalized vengeance disguised as justice in the form of harsh punishments – like the death penalty? Why is it that there are more than two million people – most of them minorities – in American prisons? That is just a little less than the total populations of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose combined! Is revenge ever justified?

So, are these issues problems that could be resolved? Or are they intrinsic to human nature?

Or, could it be possible that nonviolence is what is inherent in the human being?

•••

The Questions

2008-08-29T01:01:00.005-03:00

• How do we go deep with regards the question of violence and revenge? How do we get to the root of the theme? When did all this begin? What about nonviolence? Where does it come in -- in this critical moment in man's history?

• These are the questions that we hope to answer, not with answers but with more questions. Maybe, we can give some answers to the questions together.

• But, as they say, for one to get the right answer, one has to ask the right question.

• If human beings were not born violent nor vengeful, where and how did it all begun? Are violent actions and reactions to stimuli learned from our immediate environment, or are they intrinsic to our instinct of self-preservation? Or both?

• If the human being is finally free from want, if all his basic needs are met, will he cease from being violent? Will he finally stop from fighting for his survival?

• Although, all resources are now more than enough for each and every individual need to be met, it seems that man will not share unless he has finally evolved. So, which comes first? The external or the internal change? Or is it simultaneous?

• So, here then is the initial challenge – to come up with the right questions.

•••

Action-reaction

2008-08-27T17:33:00.004-03:00

• Vengeance is not just a mechanical action-reaction phenomena.

• Vengeance is more than this. It is actually at the base of all violence.

• Vengeance can be seen as a compensation to a lack; the balancing act to a given imbalance; as the equilibrium to a disequilibrium; as the relief to a frustration; as a panacea to a given pain; as a catharsis to a suffering.

• If one looks at vengeance not just as violence expressed outside, externally -- but also as internal violence registered within oneself, then one can see that 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.

Realize that all "acts" requires an "object" to "act" upon. So, a "victim" or a "recipient" is required to have someone receive the "act" -- in this case the violence.

I have to express my frustration, my anger, my internal violence. Sorry, my dear, but I do not have anyone except you to give it to.

"How revenge is born in the social group and in the human mind. Which is the belief at the bottom of our minds; wouldn’t it be the belief that making the other suffer compensates that cosmic imbalance that has taken place due to the injustice he/she did?" --Silo in Grotte, Italy, 06/05/2008, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-in-grotte.html

•••

Violence is Never Personal

2008-08-26T19:13:00.019-03:00

• Every time someone gets violent with us and does us harm, we tend to believe that that someone is actually angry with us, personally; that they really meant to harm us. Of course, that someone also believe that they are angry with us – for whatever reason – and that they were violent to us.

• The fact is, more often than not, violence is NEVER personal! You might get the slap on your face; or a blow to your stomach; threatened with getting fired from your job; getting a parking ticket from your neighborhood meter-maid, etc. But, even if all these violent acts are indeed registered, either on your face, stomach, your psyche, or your pocketbook -- still, all these violence, either, physical, psychological, generational, or economical -- are not personal. It is never personal.

• I know this statement is a little radical. So, let me try to illustrate this with two examples.

You had a very rough day in the office. Every single thing that could go wrong, went wrong. It is one of those rare days that nothing went right. On top of that, your assistant was promoted ahead of you, and to make matters worse, your boss threatened to fire you. So, you took the subway home with this feeling of great injustice gnawing at your gut. Although, you feel a very strong emotion brewing deep within you, you just can not release your pent-up anger, your inner violence on the old smelly homeless woman sitting next to you, even if you are irritated by her never ending stories – about how her husband left her and took all her savings some 40 odd years ago – with her saliva flying all over your face.

So you got home and are greeted happily by your ever-loving wife. You ask yourself, why is she so happy? Here I am so miserable and she is ecstatic. So, instead of seeing your wife as ever happy and loving that she is, you start to remember all the not-so-nice things she has done to you in the past and all the nice things she did not do for you. You begin to justify the anger and trashing you are about to give her. "Where's my dinner?" "You know how I hate broccoli." "And this chicken soup is cold!" "You're good for nothing!" "Go back to your mother's house!"

"Ah, dear... this IS my mother's house."

Try to remember the anger and violence you have inflicted on others. Now put them on a scale or chart. You will clearly see that the closer your relationship with a person, the greater the violence you have done to them.

It is not because they did you greater wrong, but rather because, they are there, conveniently there for you to express your accumulated frustrations on – conveniently there, close to you.

• Your accumulated frustrations, both recent and old, are also your internal violence, just waiting for an excuse to be expressed externally.

• Upon realizing this – that violence done to me is not personal, I have completely changed the way I look at violence forever. Now, I have comprehended that those loved ones that harmed me in the past did not really meant to do me harm. I also now understand that I really did not mean to harm those that I did wrong in the past. In this sense, I do not forgive, nor do I forget – I comprehend. Now, I am reconciled with my past, I am reconciled with myself.

"Then one has the theme of revenge immediately in front of us. If we speak of reconciliation it is necessary to speak of overcoming revenge." --Silo, Grotte, Italy, 06/05/2008, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-in-grotte.html

•••

The Other Example

2008-08-25T19:59:00.011-03:00

9/11. The end of communism as enemy number one and the beginning of "terrorism" as the "free" world's new and improved enemy number one. As you know, they have to have enemies. They have to have reasons to vent their frustrations and their internal violence. The greater their frustrations, the greater their violence. The greater their violence, the greater their wars. Meaning, greater destruction and death. [Click on image to enlarge and be able to read the text.]

It's the same mechanism working. In the same manner that you have to remember all the not-so-nice things your wife did to you before unleashing your anger and violence on her – Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons with the aid of their propaganda machine, the American media, had to demonize the Taliban and later, Saddam.

The Taliban has to go. Look at how they force their women to wear those horrible face mask! Never mind that those burqas are a big part of the culture in that part of the world.

And that Saddam; he gassed his own people* (never mind that the chemical weapons Saddam used was actually supplied by the CIA when Saddam was still their ally during the Iraq-Iran war). Saddam is a dictator! Saddam is on the verge of producing the bomb! Saddam is producing chemical weapons! "We cannot wait for the smoking gun!" The US has to have a reason to get a resolution passed in the UN, they have to fabricate so called "proofs". They have to lie to the whole world so that they will be justified in bombing Saddam and killing some 100,000 Iraqi people.

It is not because Saddam is evil. It is not because Saddam is a threat to the American people. Certainly, it is not because those 100,000 Iraqi innocents were their enemies. Of course, not! The only reason for them going to war is that these violent US officials have to express their great internal violence – not to mention the need to avenge 9/11 (never mind that Saddam or the Iraqis has nothing to do with 9/11 or the Al Qaeda). It just so happens that a militarily weak Saddam and those 100,000 Iraqi people were conveniently there. Sorry, Saddam -- it was nothing personal.

I am just now realizing how -- while writing this -- just how violent these people are!

SEE: Bill Moyer's "Buying the War". http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_btw1-1.html?playertype=quicktime;speed=480;helptemplate=%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fwatch%2Fpop_help.html;mediatype=video;media=%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fbtw%2FBTW_part1_320.mov%2C%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fbtw%2FBTW_part1_480.mov%2C%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fbtw%2FBTW_part1_320.wmv%2C%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fbtw%2FBTW_part1_480.wmv;version=1.0;playertemplate=%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fwatch%2Fpop_video.html;basepath=%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fvideo_popups%2Fpop_vid_btw1-1.html;prefchange=1

• As an aside, here, we can see that certainly laws (edicts, resolutions, etc.) are made to justify the violence of the-powers-that-be. We will elaborate on this in a later blog.

"Violence will continue to color all social activity as long as the human being does not fully realize a human society." --Silo, The Human Landscape, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-human-landscape.html

•••

Great Internal Violence

2008-08-23T22:00:00.029-03:00

• War mongers says going to war is necessary to protect the nation from 'whatever' or 'whoever'.

• War critiques, on the other hand, are saying that it is all about money – that it is all about sustaining a hungry and greedy military-industrial complex.

• Well, both are wrong.

• It is all about a few men with great internal violence that has to be expressed -- and where else? if not in the human world of innocents. National interest, defense, terrorism, communism, external threat, religion, democracy, business interests, profit... these are reasons, rationalizations, excuses, to justify their violent and vindictive tendencies, their inhuman acts.

"Should your influence, then, reach an entire people, take great care to overcome your own contradiction so as not to poison with it the air that all others must breathe." --Silo, The Internal Landscape,

http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-internal-landscape.html

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how I hate all this, how despicable and ignorable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

“I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” -- Albert Einstein

http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2529

WAR (from OHG. werra, quarrel). Open, armed conflict between tribes, clans, states, large social, religious, or ethnic groups; the strongest form of violence. There have been more than 2,500 wars recorded in world history, among them two world wars. In the First World War, more than 20 million people died; in the Second World War, more than 50 million. Wars are conducted to redistribute social goods by means of armed violence, seizing them from some human beings and delivering them to others. --Dictionary of New Humanism,

http://www.silo.net/referenceMaterials/Diccionario_en.rtf

Note: Click here to view the award-winning BBC documentary, "Why We Fight?".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682

•••

The Framework

2008-08-22T22:18:00.011-03:00

Framework of the mechanisms that work with regards the theme of vengeance and its correlate, violence.

Click image to enlarge

Species
Instinct of preservation of the species
Cultural background
Cultural History
Traditions, Beliefs, Illusions
Cultural reverie nucleus
Cultural mental form

Individual
Instinct of preservation of oneself
Formative landscape
Biographical history
Traditions, Beliefs, Illusions
Reverie nucleus
Mental form

Process
Climate
Frustrations
Fears
Suffering
Repeated Frustrations
Compensations
Internal violence
Dehumanization
External violence
Suffering
Cycle repeats

The above list are seen in the context of the structure, act-object.

Click image to enlarge.

It seems clear to me then, 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). The only problem here is that in most cases the "threat" is more often than not, illusory -- if not made up.

"But it would be good to have a description of the basic element of the structure of vengeance, the element at the root of all that comes derived from it." --Silo, Grotte, Italy, 06/05/2008, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-in-grotte.html

•••

Illusory Equilibrium

2008-08-21T23:27:00.012-03:00

Click image to enlarge.

Threat • Violence • Imbalance • Reaction • Vengeance • Illusory Balance • Counter Reaction • Imbalance • Cycle Repeats

The first drawing on the top (see image below) shows a relationship in perfect equilibrium. The second drawing shows one party in the relationship receiving a violent act -- creating an imbalance on the structure of the relationship. The third drawing shows the first party reacting with an equal violence on the other party. The fourth drawing shows that it does not really matter if the "revenge" is equal or greater violence than what was received, because anyway, more often than not, this violent reaction will be perceived as greater than it actually is. And so the cycle of violence continues, as is shown on the fifth drawing.

Click image to enlarge.

With the above, I am trying to illustrate that violence can never be resolved by reacting with another violence (an eye for an eye), because what will happen is that one would only creating a vicious cycle of violence.

With violent reaction (vengeance), a sort of catharsis is affected -- a kind of "releasing some steam". Of course, it does not give resolution to the situation at hand, nor does it solve the problem, because, anyway, the water continues to boil.

On the other hand, and this is very important, sometimes an over-reaction happens and we feel guilty, especially, if the other does not retaliate. The more disproportionate our reaction, the worst our feeling of guilt.

"You will make your conflicts disappear when you understand them in their ultimate root, not when you want to resolve them." –Silo, The Inner Look, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-inner-look_14.html

•••

Violence and Nonviolence

2008-08-20T12:10:00.005-03:00

But what is violence, really?

We received a comment regarding the "survival of the fittest" -- as some people wanted us to believe. But, it is not like that at all. Sure, sometimes, it is like a "jungle" out there, but people are not the same as the animals in the jungle. No, because people have freedom of choice – people have intentions. That is the main difference between humans and the rest of the other living beings on this planet. Humans have intentionality; they have the freedom to choose. Each individual, each human group have intentionality. And oftentimes, this is exactly where conflicts arise -- when people choose to impose their intentionality on others.

When I impose something on another; I am actually choosing for the other. I am therefore negating his fundamental freedom -- his freedom to choose. It could be as simple and as innocent as a censure -- like stopping someone from saying their mind or voicing their opinion; or as extreme as choosing someone's death for him (murder) -- the extreme case of stopping the other one's intentionality (which is to preserve oneself and to continue living).

Violence then, is the appropriation of the other's choice or intentionality. Put in another way, violence is the imposition of one's intentionality on the intentionality of the other.

I can say then, that as long as one does not impose one's beliefs, one's faith, one's god, one's choice, one's intentionality, especially, one's stupidity, on another, one can freely do whatever one wants.

What about nonviolence -- what is it exactly?

It is simple enough. If we know what violence is, then, nonviolence is non-tolerance of violence. In reality, tolerance of violence is violence.

If the human being is intentionality, then, contributing to the enhancement of that intentionality is nonviolence. In other words, if his transformation is hindered by suffering and his basic project is the overcoming of pain and suffering -- then, helping him to alleviate that pain, that suffering is nonviolence.

It is life's project par excellence.

•••

The Basic Element

2008-08-20T00:05:00.006-03:00

"But it would be good to have a description of the basic element of the structure of vengeance, the element at the root of all that comes derived from it." --Silo, Grotte, Italy, 06/05/2008, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-in-grotte.html

I believe that the basic element of the structure of vengeance (and therefore also of violence) lies in the basic instinct of individual survival -- as compensating elements to man's inadequacy, his lackings, his fears, his frustrations. This mechanism that has helped the survival not just of the individual but has helped the survival of the species itself is now at a crossroad. It has helped man survive nature's catastrophic elements. It has helped man advance in his quest for a better life, a better future. It has helped man advance his knowledge, his science, his technology.

But this same mechanical instinct to preserve himself is now becoming its own liability -- almost its own enemy. It is clear that all his concerns and fears of his ancient past are now all mere illusions. He should realize by now, that he does not have to worry about where and how to get his dinner, neither does he have to worry that he will be the next dinner. There is actually more than enough food for every single person in the world -- if only the one's who have more start sharing with those who have less. The fact is, there is more than enough of everything for everyone if these are shared equitably. This is the real equilibrium -- the real justice. This is the only way to get out of this disequilibrium. Not by acting in compensating violence.

Man should cease trying to protect his body alone. He should also start protecting his soul – by concerning himself with his spirit. He should stop acting mechanically. He should start acting intentionally.

This natural mechanicity to survive should be replaced by his intentionality to surpass even his own nature.

This is true for the individual. This is true for the entire species.

"If you impel your being in a luminous direction, you will find resistance and fatigue at every step. There are things to blame for this fatigue in the ascent. Your life weighs; your memories weigh; your previous actions impede the ascent. The climb is made difficult by the action of your body, which tends to dominate." –Silo, The Inner Look, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-inner-look_14.html

•••

Systems and Laws

2008-08-20T00:01:00.007-03:00

• Laws are made by people to protect the same people that made these laws.

• But more than this, laws are formulated, legislated, implemented, and enforced to justify the violence of the people that benefit from these laws.

• Worse than these laws are systems designed to justify covert violence done against the general population by the powers-that-be, people that initiated and established these systems -- economic, educational, social, etc.

• A good example of this is the creation of the corporation whose rights are rights not even given to individuals, like the right to declaring bankruptcy -- that corporations still benefit from -- which was taken away from the individual recently in the US. This corporate monster has now its own life, and it inherited the mental form from whence it was created, along with its tendency towards greed, violence and vengeance.

Interview with Noam Chomsky about rights of corporations, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJjWC1FlA20&eurl=http://violenceandvengeance.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html&feature=player_embedded

• The present economic system itself is designed with this background; that is why it is violent. The system is designed in a manner that the only way for a company to survive is by giving its workers a bare minimum subsistence income. If the stocks of a corporation is losing its value, the first thing that its management does is to lay-off thousands of its employees.

• Not to worry, though, because this system is like a chicken with its head cut off, but still running -- without knowing that it is already dead.

Click here to view "Believe it or Not" feature on "Mike, the Headless Chicken. http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/mike_on_youtube.php

As an aside, just today, in the news, a high school student could be sentenced the maximum sentence of up to 38 years in jail for hacking. If this is not harsh punishment, I do not know what is. What is even worse is that this young student is going to be punished under a law that he does not have the right to vote for. And what for? To make him an example. To show other young people hacking will not be tolerated.

"It would appear that it is a preexisting situation of power that establishes any given law, and that law in turn legitimates power. So it is power, as the imposition of an intention, whether accepted or not, that is our central theme. It is said that “might does not make right,” but this nonsense can be accepted only if one thinks of “might” simply as brute physical force. In reality, however, force (economic, political, and so on) does not need to be expressed perceptually in order to make its presence felt and to command respect. Moreover, the naked threat of physical force (the force of arms, for example) is used to impose situations that the law is used to justify. Nor should we overlook the fact that the use of arms in a given direction depends on human intention and not on laws." --Silo, The Human Landscape, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-human-landscape.html

•••

The System and the Abyss

2008-08-19T23:30:00.002-03:00

The recent entries reminds me of an article I wrote some 24 years ago in that beautiful city by the bay, San Francisco.

•••

The system is going to the abyss and it wants to drag the rest of humanity with it.

But who or what exactly is the system? Perhaps to make it easier to understand and unmask this sort of abstract entity, we need to ask a different question. Instead of asking who or what is the system, maybe we should ask: who or what represent the system? Then, maybe this abstraction can become a little less hazy.

Who or what then represents the System? The state, the institutions, the corporations, the banks, the multinationals, the transnationals, the para-states, and finally, the organizations, governments, politicians, bureaucrats and individuals who not only accept the ideology of the system, but advocate, defend and utilize its principles and methodology that promote the continued negation of what are fundamental to the human being: his freedom and intentionality.

But where is this ideology originating? Its principles, its methodology – where are all these based on, where are all these coming from? The way I see it, these are all based on and coming from an archaic point of view, a point of view regarding "nature", the "natural" and the "nature" of the human being. That bastardly notion that considers the human being as part of the animal kingdom and therefore, part of "nature". The bad news is that this concept of "human nature" is universally accepted.

On this basis, their ideology, principles, laws and methodology – all that institutionalized injustice throughout the world – is therefore only practical, common sensical, logical, rational, pragmatic, natural, and therefore justified. Why not? Isn't it all natural? Aren't all these according to nature?

On top of all of these – and what makes matters even worse – is that they believe that this "nature" of things was granted; it has been given by the highest authority; it was granted by the divinity itself.

And since their gods are capable of unbridled violence, doesn't that justify their own violence -- at least in their own miniscule heads?

From this background, from this starting point, from this point of view, it is then only reasonable that the fittest survive, the most aggressive succeed, the most competitive win, the rich becomes richer, and corporate CEOs become demigods. Of course, not to forget, they shall all inherit the earth!

Or so, they think.

Everything is logical, everything is reasonable, everything is justified -- and why not? it's all "natural"!

But where do all these lead us?

Where else but to more concentration of power, concentration of information, of resources, of goods, etc. In short, the appropriation of the whole by a small part of the whole, whose consequence is pain, suffering, hunger, vengeance, war, violence at home, violence in the streets, massive unemployment, discrimination, intolerance, destruction of the environment, the abyss -- and of course, without realizing it, the slow death of the human spirit!

•••

Some Keywords

2008-08-19T23:00:00.006-03:00

Free interpretation, freedom of choice, intentionality, tolerance, reconciliation, humanize, etc. on the one hand; imposition, human nature, intolerance, punishment, censure, vengeance, dehumanize, etc. on the other. Terms we plan to elaborate on future blogs.

In the meantime, let's try to deal with the first term, free interpretation.

Free interpretation, now that is one great and unique concept. It is the antithesis of imposition. It is the grandfather of all freedoms, especially, the most basic of all freedoms, the freedom to choose. Free interpretation; is it as simple as it sounds? Like, so "okay, interpret it as you want". Or is this concept at the root of all freedoms? Is it just about the freedom to interpret a particular phrase, a particular passage, a book or even an event? Or is it an encompassing doctrine -- a doctrine about interpreting a written piece, an event, an action, a gesture, a look, a life, a world, a meaning? It seems to me, free interpretation are all these and much more.

It basically means that one has the right to interpret anything and everything according to one's experience, according to one's history, one's level of understanding, one's level of belief, one's level of logic, one's level of comprehension.

In this sense, from this concept of free interpretation, I understand that my thoughts, feeling and actions are all coming from my interpretation of the world around me. From this point of view, it is now easier for me to comprehend the other's action, or at the very least, understand the other's action, and therefore more tolerant of the other. In this sense, no interpretation is wrong or incorrect -- only different.

And what does free interpretation have to do with violence or vengeance?

It's clear, at least to me. How can there be violence or even vengeance when I understand the other – or at the very least, tolerant of the other? How can I judge the other if I know I am not in a position to judge anyone?

Only by being certain of our uncertainties can we start to understand and accept the other's interpretation, his opinions, his actions.

It seems to me, that it is even possible that this concept of free interpretation could be one of the ingredients for experiencing peace within ourselves; one of the ingredients for the practice of nonviolence.

With free interpretation, we begin to learn how to tolerate the other, understand the other, comprehend the other, and finally, feel the human in the other. The first step towards humanizing the other.

We know that others proclaimed the free interpretation, but then in the practice, they imposed their own interpretation. We want to make it seriously. --Silo

•••

Free Interpretation

2008-08-18T22:40:00.002-03:00

Imposition, it seems to me, is always present at the outset of violence. And if the opposite of imposition is free interpretation, I believe then, that free interpretation is the seed of nonviolence.

"If the human being is 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 pain and suffering -- then, helping him to alleviate his pain, his suffering, is nonviolence." --from the post, Violence and Nonviolence

In other words, letting the other express his intentionality is the basis of that enhancement -- by giving him his freedom of interpretation and the understanding of the action that is the consequence of that interpretation.

Still, isn't this stretching it?

I do not think so. And to prove it -- to prove it for yourself, that is, try this: the next time you have an argument, especially with someone whose opinion directly opposes your own -- try giving him the benefit of his free interpretation, try accepting his position as it is, just another position; not wrong, not necessarily right either. Just a position. Try understanding his opinion. Try comprehending where he is coming from.

To make this easier, try to see that your position is, also, on the other hand, just another position -- even if it is exactly the opposite of his. This is the only way you can reconcile two opposing views.

Remember, this is also just my interpretation of free interpretation. It may coincide with your own interpretation, or not. Either way, it doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it wrong either.
•••

Even More Questions

2008-08-18T21:27:00.004-03:00

At the beginning of this blog, we asked: "How do we go deep with regards the question of violence and vengeance? How do we get to the root of the theme? When did all this begin?"

And we said: "These are the questions that we hope to answer, not with answers but with more questions."

So, in response to the above questions, here below, are more questions.

When exactly did this took place? When did it all begin? And how? And we'll add, where?

Did it happened when nature stop providing people of the Natufian culture in the Mediterranean region of the Levant with enough resource to sustain them? Or was it the people of this culture who decided that they did not have to rely on nature to provide for them; when they decided that they can or must already provide for themselves? When they started tending their own flocks and herds, plant and learn to store their food? When they decided to establish more permanent settlements? When they begun to show cultural creativity?

Did it begin when they started to depend on agriculture for subsistence? When they begun to cultivate wheat and barley? When they started to grow food on farms that resulted in a surplus of food? When they started to use intensive agricultural techniques such as irrigation and crop rotation? When they discovered that grain can be stored for a long time, resulting in food surplus permitting some people (artisans, priests and priestesses, and other people with specialized careers) to do things besides produce food for a living?

Did it all begun when civilization started forming in this region -- and from this initial cradle, spreading its influence to Egypt, Mesopotamia, Sumer, and beyond? Did it all begun when it was institutionalized in the Hammorabi code? Later on, this influence reaching the entire Middle East, and much later, Europe when the Roman Empire included Egypt, the Middle East, the whole Mediterranean region?

Is this when the concept of property started? When the word "mine" is given a more salient meaning? When the "I" begin to assert itself more? When the mechanism of the preservation of oneself begin to have more preeminence? When "you" begun to separate from "me"? When fear from nature took less importance -- and the fear of the other became predominant? Did it occur when the people of these areas became "civilized"?**

Or did it begun much later? when different families and clans formed common communities that became cities and later on, city states? Did it begun when the state became the administrator, law making body, law enforcer, and provider of its citizens' security from external and internal threat? its tax collector?

But it did not stop there. Fear begins to dominate his inner soul.

He began to be more aware of the future, preoccupied with the future. He began to imagine what could happen in the future. He began to discover new ways of doing things. He began to invent. He began to advance science and technology. He began to produce tools and machines to compensate for what was not available to him. But also, he began to be insecure about the same future he had worked long and hard for, to cultivate and manage. He began to fear the future. He began to be fearful. He began to suffer.

"If life is but pursuit of security for those who fear the future, self-affirmation for the disoriented, the desire for revenge for those frustrated with the past—what liberty, what responsibility, what commitment can be held aloft as an unvanquished banner?" –Silo, The Internal Landscape, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-internal-landscape.html

**"Economically, civilizations display more complex patterns of ownership and exchange than less organized societies. Living in one place allows people to accumulate more personal possessions than nomadic people. Some people also acquire landed property, or private ownership of the land. Because many people in civilizations do not grow their own food, they must trade their goods and services for food in a market system. Early civilizations developed money as a universal medium of exchange for these increasingly complex transactions." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

•••

An Eye for an Eye

2008-08-18T20:33:00.005-03:00

Prologue, Hammurabi Code, The Louvre, Paris

Why is it that there are people who still adhere to a very archaic code (an eye for an eye) carved on two tablets more than 4,000 years ago, when a much later prophet was given an upgrade by God, no less – also in two tablets (in the form of "commandments") which said among other things, "Thou shalt not kill." Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The same could be said to the other religion that derived from this one, who up to now, still adhere to the concept of "retribution" masquerading as "justice", when their messiah's main teachings were more advanced, more evolved than this old edict.

Ask the followers of this religion what their founder's main teachings are and most will reply the "Ten Commandments", although their founder's main teachings were the "Eight Beatitudes". Also known as "The Sermon of the Mount". Which, by the way, was prefaced by the ethic of reciprocity that says, "Do unto others what you want others do unto you."

It is clear then, that these great historical teachers shared their experience and wisdom according to the level of language, level of logic, and level of comprehension of the people of those regions and its historical moment.

Let's see. Why was the concept "an eye for an eye" formulated if not to stop people from meting out disproportional punishment. Which, by the way, is also saying, "a life for a life". Why? Because, prior to this edict or law, it was "the whole tribe for one life". Meaning, if you kill a member of my tribe, my tribe will kill every single member of your tribe.*

So every tribe was killing every tribe, until a wise man came along and said, "Hey, if we continue along this path, we all die!" So, the wise man convinced Hammurabi, the king of Babylonia, to include an item in his "How to Live in My Kingdom" user manual that said, among other things, "an eye for an eye". Meaning, if you kill a member of our tribe, we kill you – just you.

So, it went. An eye for an eye. A life for a life. It was much better. It was more just, more equitable. Perfect. At least for that time.

But, of course, we know about the upgrade version, which was even more improved -- that said, "Thou shall not kill". No ifs, ands, or buts. Meaning, no more killing whatsoever. Period. Still, we know of some so-called advanced secular societies where the death penalty is still very much alive. Not to forget, those countries ran as theocracies by religious leaders.

"When you harm others you remain enchained, but if you do not harm anyone you can freely do whatever you want." –Silo, The Inner Look, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-inner-look_14.html

•••

The West

2008-08-18T20:32:00.001-03:00

We have been talking about how do we study the question of violence and vengeance; how to get to its root, and when did it all begin. All these in the context of the Western culture.

So, what exactly is Western Culture? Where is the West? Or the Western world? Or the Occident?

Western World
"Some historians believe the West originated in the northern and eastern Mediterranean with ancient Greece and ancient Rome. While other historians such as Carroll Quigley's Evolution of Civilizations contend that Western Civilization was born around 400 AD, after the total collapse of the Western Roman Empire, leaving a vacuum for new ideas to flourish that were impossible in Classical societies. Over time, their associated empires grew first to the east and south conquering many older civilizations, and later to the north and west to include Central and Western Europe. Between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance, the West experienced a period of relative decline, known as the Middle ages, which included the Dark ages and the Crusades. The knowledge of the ancient Western world was preserved and survived during this period due to the concurrent ascendency of the Islamic Golden Age to the east and south. The term "first world" was also used, but not commonly.

Since the Renaissance, the West evolved beyond the influence of the ancient Greeks and Romans due to the growth of Western European empires, and particularly the globe-spanning British Empire of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Since the Age of Discovery and Columbus, the notion of the West expanded to include the Americas, though much of the Americas have considerable pre-Western cultural influence. Australia, New Zealand, and, sometimes, South Africa are considered part of Western culture due to their former status as settler colonies of Western nations. In addition, Israel and Lebanon may be considered part of the West due to their geographic location and late European colonial origins in the early twentieth century. Generally speaking, the current consensus would locate the West, at the very least, in the cultures and peoples of Europe, North America, Australia." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

Western Culture
"Western culture (sometimes equated with Western civilization) are terms which are used to refer to cultures of European origin, in contrast to "Eastern" or "Oriental" culture. This terminology originated as a way of describing what was different about the Graeco-Roman culture and its descendants, in contrast to the older civilizations of Western Asia, which in many ways continued to serve as a model of civilization in the "west".

The concept of Western culture is generally linked to the classical definition of the Western world. In this definition, Western culture is the set of literary, scientific, political, artistic and philosophical principles which set it apart from other civilizations. The term has come to apply to countries whose history is strongly marked by Western European immigration or settlement, and is not restricted to Western Europe. Much of this set of traditions and knowledge is collected in the Western canon."

From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are (directly derived from) European cultures, i.e. Europe, the Americas (North and South America), Australia and New Zealand. Together these countries constitute Western society. These are generally countries that share similar history, religions, languages, values and traditions. Culturally, many Latin Americans, particularly Argentines, Uruguayans, Chileans, Colombians, Cubans and Brazilians, firmly consider themselves Westerners, especially the ruling classes.

Some countries like Israel, Lebanon, the Philippines and Turkey may be considered Western because of the blend of Western and non-Western culture. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

•••

East and West

2008-08-18T19:58:00.004-03:00

In an earlier blog we posted the question -- did the western culture put more emphasis and adopted the instincts of individual preservation more than the preservation of the species -- even if just a tad more? Could it be that in the those early period of man's existence the west and the east went on their seperate ways, with the west becoming more individualistic?

Although, I was born and raised in the Far East, I would say that the western culture is very much ingrained in me; what with 400 years of colonization under Spain and 50 years of occupation under the United States. Not to mention that the country is still very much under its social, political, and economic influence. I am therefore blessed or confounded, or both, by having both western and eastern culture as the background of my mental form.

I spent the first 40 years of my life in Asia -- my place of birth; the next 20 years in North America; and now, I plan to live at least another 20 years in South America. So, one can say that I carry within me both what is "good" and what is "not so good" from both cultures.

Some Personal Observations
Here are just two obvious examples regarding what I consider the difference between these two worlds. Go to any restaurant in the west and you'll find people ordering individual dishes for each individual. In Asia, people will order dishes that will be shared by everyone on the table. Of course, this is not possible eating at McDonalds.

In the west, people will refer to their homes as "my house"; in Asia people will say, "our house". In the west, people will say, "my doctor", my lawyer", "my dentist", "my school", etc. In the east, people will say, "the doctor", "the lawyer", "the dentist", "our school", etc.

Communal Ancestry
But, it didn't start this way. Humans in the past, way past, were communal. They did everything together and shared everything. To survive, the family or the clan were given more importance. Hunting in groups were more efficient. Then, came the period when it was the individual who became more important. I am sure, that in the near future, both society and the individual will be equally important. More than that, I am certain that the human being will be given the highest value. And when that time comes, no human will be above another.

In one of the earlier blogs, we asked, did the eastern culture put more emphasis and adopt the preservation of the species ahead of preservation of the individual?

I guess the best people to answer this question are the Chinese and the Indians. These two countries' population alone adds up to about 2.5 billion -- comprising 40% of the world's total population.

But, when exactly did the separation occurred? Did it have anything to do with the separation of the farmers and the herders? Did the ancestors of the western culture opted to be herders, while the ancestors of the eastern culture became farmers? Or vice-versa? Did it begun the same period when the "West" became configured? Is this also the period when man started developing the concept of time in terms of productivity?

To be honest, I really do not know the answers to these questions -- but I have faith that the answers will reveal themselves as I go forward on this trip of rediscovering the root of revenge.
•••

Second Best

2008-08-18T18:00:00.000-03:00

When I started this blog, my idea was to do a study on the subject of vengeance and violence; how and when it became an important issue -- especially in the so-called "Western" culture, and nothing more. But, as I travel along this path, I am finding out that this topic is so encompassing that I am now compelled to go beyond the theme; and to do this, it is necessary that I elaborate on the details of this topic even more so than I originally planned.

I also said in the beginning that the resulting study will be compiled into a sort of monograph that I intend to write soon after. But now, I am not so sure about this. I am finding out that it is not so easy writing for this blog -- much more, writing a monograph.

Be as it may, this new experience of writing has been giving me insights as well as internal commotions that seemed to me not only cathartic, but more so, transferential. All in all, I can truly say that I am finding joy in doing this. So, I am going to write this monograph -- no matter what.

If it is true -- as it has been said -- that the best way to learn is by teaching; I am finding out that the second best way to learn is by writing.
•••

The Balance

2008-08-18T16:52:00.012-03:00

The images and sculptures of "Lady Justice" is very diverse and there have been many interpretations of "Justitia" of the Romans or "Themis" of the Greeks. Some are blindfolded, some are bare breasted, some with swords, some with scale, etc.

•••

The consciousness cannot be in perpetual disequilibrium -- every time it is out of balance, it has to balance itself; it has to go back to equilibrium.

Vengeance, isn't it the same as getting even. Isn't getting even the same as saying getting the balance back -- trying to even the uneven? Isn't it the same as getting back at someone who has done you harm? Or you think has done you harm? Am I suggesting here that revenge is built-in in man's psyche? Of course, not! Why not? Because one has the choice to act with violence or with nonviolence. Because, one can get back the equilibrium by doing the opposite of vengeance or violence -- by comprehending the other, by comprehending the situation, by reconciling with the other, by reconciling with the situation. One can get the balance by humanizing instead of dehumanizing the other.

Comprehension, this is the key to equilibrium, the key to getting the balance back.

The "balance", isn't this also the other word for "weight" or "scale" -- which is the symbol of justice itself?

•••

Someone asked wether the human being can ever even the uneven?

And we replied that yes, he can "even" the "uneven" by working for nonviolence; by humanizing the other – not by compensating his inadequacies and accumulated frustrations through vengeance and violence.

Balance - A weighing device, especially one consisting of a rigid beam horizontally suspended by a low-friction support at its center, with identical weighing pans hung at either end, one of which holds an unknown weight while the effective weight in the other is increased by known amounts until the beam is level and motionless. –http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/balance

Above Image: South Africa's Symbol of Justice

Side Note: Notice the sword "Lady Justice" is holding in her right hand while holding the "balance" in her other hand? Is she implying that she will use violence if necessary to administer justice? And in this particular statue, notice too, the dead snake on her feet -- is that the same snake that is in Mercury's caduceus -- the symbol for the tree of life -- later used as the symbol of the medical profession? Did Lady Justice used the sword to kill the snake? Did she used "justice" to extinguish "life"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice, http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/themis.html#Brief, http://members.tripod.com/mdean/justice.html
•••

Justice and Injustice

2008-08-18T16:00:00.011-03:00

•••

Let us go then, to the crux of the theme of vengeance and violence. I believe that the concept of "eye for eye" became standard in the Levant; later it was adopted in the Hammurabi code, in Mesopotamia, and later, it was adopted by the Hebrews, then, by the early Christians. Later, spreading throughout the Roman empire (that included the arab world). From there it was brought to the Western world through conquest and colonization by European colonizers; except that through the passing of time, the original idea behind it was lost.

The original idea was for people to stop from meting out disproportional punishment. But it became so ingrained in the culture that it is used to justify institutionalized violence. It is so ingrained in people it is used to justify individual violence.

It does seem to me that the reverie nucleus of the West has something to do with the climate of injustice. Is this the reason why they are very obsessed with the concept of justice, and of course, its "just" application? This does not mean that justice is necessarily bad. In reality, justice is a giant step in man's development. The only problem is when people use it to justify vengeance – when people use it to get "even" what was before "uneven".

For sure, this concept of vengeance is universal, but it was originally in the West where it was codified and institutionalized. It was in the West where it became part of the culture.

Do you know what is recited in all public schools in the US, and also before each congressional session? It is composed of just one sentence – that ends with the phrase, "and justice for all".

Yes, it is the Pledge of Allegiance, which reads as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Now, if the west wants to spread the concept of justice to the rest of the world, what about the "non-west"? What concept did it want to bring to the world? We will try to answer this in the coming blogs.

•••

Note: "Non-west" nations are those nations not considered part of the so called "west". I am not using the readily available term "East", because it connotes, "Orient" -- which is more associated with Asia.

•••

The Non-west

2008-08-18T15:59:00.000-03:00

In an earlier post, we asked, if the west wants to spread the concept of justice to the rest of the world, what about the "non-west"? What concept did it bring to the world? We also said that we will try to answer this in a later blog. Well, this is that blog.

So, what about the non-west, what does it wants to bring to the world? Could it be the concept of tolerance and nonviolence? Could it be the concept of "Ahimsa"? And what exactly is "Ahimsa"?

Ahimsa
Ahimsa (Sanskrit : means “non-violence”, “non-injury” or absence of desire to harm any life forms. Ahimsa is the fundamental principle of Jainism forming cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. Vegetarianism and other non-violent practices and rituals of Jains flow from the principle of Ahimsa. According to Adian Rankin, the concept of Ahimsa is so much intertwined with Jainism that it conjures up images of ascetics who cover their mouths and sweep the ground before them with small brushes to avoid injuring the most minuscule forms of life and Jain-owned animal sanctuaries where even the sickest, most deformed birds and beasts are protected and cherished. These overt manifestations of an ancient faith challenge the comfortable - and near-universal - assumption of human precedence over other creatures.

The Jain concept of Ahimsa is quite different from the concept of non-violence found in other philosophies. In other religious traditions, violence is usually associated with causing harm to others. On the other hand, in Jainism, violence refers primarily to injuring one's own self – behaviour which inhibits the souls own ability to attain mokṣa or liberation. At the same time it also means violence to others because it is this tendency to harm others that ultimately harms ones own soul. Furthermore, the Jains have extended the concept of Ahimsa not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everyone has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. The living beings do not have any fear from those who have taken the vow of Ahimsa. According to Jainism, protection of life, also known as abhayadānam, is the supreme charity that a person can make.

Ahimsa does not merely indicate absence of physical violence, but also indicates absence of desire to indulge in any sort of violence. This Jain ideal of Ahimsa profoundly influenced Mahatma Gandhi, through his friendship with the Jain scholar Shrimad Rajchandra that it formed a basis of his satyagraha (truth struggle) against colonial rule and caused him to rethink many aspects of contemporary Hindu practices. While Jainism is not a proselytizing religion and as such has no organised system of advocating its doctrine, Jains have been forefront in strongly advocating vegetarianism and non-violence through ages. Ahimsa being central to the Jain philosophy, Jain Ācāryas have produced, through ages, quite elaborate and detailed doctrinal materials concerning its various aspects.

The vow of non-violence
The hand with a wheel on the palm symbolizes the Jain Vow of Ahimsa. The word in the middle is "ahimsa". The wheel represents the dharmacakra which stands for the resolve to halt the cycle of reincarnation through relentless pursuit of truth and non-violence.

Ahimsa is formalized into Jain doctrine as the first major vow of the ascetics and first minor vow of the laity.

Anekantavada - The non-violence of mind
Anekantavada is the principle of relativity of truth or the doctrine of multiple aspects. Jains hold that truth is multifaceted and has multiple sides that cannot be completely comprehended by anyone. Anekantavada describes the world as a multifaceted, ever-changing reality with an infinity of viewpoints relative to the time, place, nature and state of one who is the viewer and that which is viewed. What is true from one point of view is open to question from another. Absolute truth cannot be grasped from any particular viewpoint alone, because absolute truth is the sum total of all different viewpoints that make up the universe. Because it is rooted in these doctrines, Jainism cannot exclusively uphold the views of any individual, community, nation, or species. It recognises inherently that other views are valid for other peoples, and for other life-forms. This perception leads to the doctrine of syadvada or sevenfold predication stating the truth from different viewpoints. Anekantvada is the doctrine and Syadvada is its expression. According to Jaina philosophers all important philosophical statements should be expressed in this sevenfold way in order to remove the danger of dogmatism (ekanta) in philosophy.

The concept of syadvada allows the Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their perspective and thus inculcating a tolerance for other viewpoints. Anekantvada is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that only Jainism is the right religious path. It is thus an intellectual Ahimsa or Ahimsa of mind. In Anekantvada, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or damage, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, “either with us or against us “ form of argument are increasingly apparent leading to political, religious and social conflicts. Even the mounting ecological crisis is linked to adversarialism, because it arises from a false division between humanity and "the rest" of nature.

Origins and evolution of Ahimsa
Ahimsa, an important tenet of all the religions originating in India, is now considered as an article of faith by the adherents of the Indian religions. However, not much is known about the historical origins of Ahimsa and as to how it became widespread and got deeply entrenched in the Indian philosophy. Scholars speculate that the doctrine of Ahimsa was probably first developed amongst the native non-Aryan people in around third millennium BCE and was adopted by the brahamanas during the later Upanishadic period under the influence of sramanas. The Vedas, the manusmriti, the Dharmasutra and Mahabharata contain many references on killing and slaughter of animals for sacrifices, oblations to dead ancestors, and as well as for various other occasions. However, as the doctrine of karma gained acceptance in the Hindu belief, the tenet of Ahimsa also gained prominence. Later Hindu scriptures condemn the slaughter of animals, upholding ahimsa as one of the highest ideal. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has credited Jainism with cessation of slaughter of animals in the brahamanical religion. Not surprisingly, some scholars have traced the origin of Ahimsa to Jainas and their precursor, the sramanas. According to Thomas McEvilley, a noted Indologist, certain seals of Indus Valley civilization depict a meditative figure surrounded by a multitude of wild animals, providing evidence of proto yoga tradition in India akin to Jainism. This particular image might suggest that all the animals depicted are sacred to this particular practioner. Consequently, these animals would be protected from harm. This might be the first historical evidence of the practice of Ahimsa.

For more information about Ahimsa and/or Jainism go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism

Injustice and Violence

2008-08-18T15:11:00.005-03:00

What could be a greater injustice than that of being born only to die? This is a good question, but a better question to ask is: What could be a greater rebellion if not the rebellion against death?

If man's biggest fear is his fear of death; then, his greatest suffering stems from this fear of death. If his biggest concern is the reality of his finiteness; then, his only recourse is to preoccupy himself with the other reality; to concern himself with the intangible reality if he wants to achieve infiniteness. The other reality that could not be sensed, but could be experienced – that anyway, could be registered. He has to follow his heart, his intuition that there must be something more, a meaning – to this life.

What about violence? Is this internal violence coming from this inherent universal climate of injustice? Is this internal violence coming from this inherent need to balance this injustice with compensating desire? This internal violence that is expressed as external violence in the world of relations – in the world of people?

"At the root of violence is desire. Desire appears in different degrees and forms, from the most unbridled ambition, to the simplest and most legitimate aspirations." --Silo

"...to vanquish mental suffering we need to surpass our primitive desires." --Silo

•••

What then, is nonviolence?

2008-08-18T14:40:00.005-03:00

We received a feedback, an inquiry - asking for the meaning of nonviolence.

What about nonviolence -- what is it exactly?

• It is simple enough. If we know what violence is, then, nonviolence is non-tolerance of violence. Actually, you can say that tolerance of violence is violence.

• If the human being is intentionality, and violence is going against that intentionality, then, nonviolence is to contribute 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 nonviolence act one can do for another – the most valid of all actions!

• In other words, to humanize is to act with nonviolence.

• The most important nonviolent act: to humanize the other.

• To humanize the other is to humanize the earth.

• To humanize the earth is to humanize yourself.

• Helping the other in his transformation is self-transformation.

• If you take this as your reality, as your mission, then nothing can detain you from your destiny, and you would have opened the other's future, his own destiny.

It is by virtue of the corporal expressions of the other, or by perceiving the situation in which the other appears, that I am able to comprehend the meanings of the other, the intention of the other. --SIlo, Letters to My Friends, Fourth Letter, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-letters-to-my-friends.html

When you treat others as you would have them treat you, you liberate yourself. –Silo, The Inner Look, http://siloswords.blogspot.com/2009/03/silo-inner-look_14.html

•••

Free Interpretation Redux

2008-08-17T23:11:00.006-03:00

Some Keywords

I have done quite a few alterations and additions on these two earlier entries that I decided that perhaps, it is worth posting them again -- this time as a single post. I also believe that the subject of free interpretation is of fundamental importance, because it is at the heart of the theme of vengeance, violence, and not to forget, nonviolence.

Free interpretation, freedom of choice, intentionality, comprehension, tolerance, reconciliation, humanize, etc. on the one hand; imposition, human nature, intolerance, fanaticism, censure, vengeance, punishment, objectification, dehumanize, etc. on the other. Terms we plan to elaborate on future blogs. In the meantime, let's try to deal with the first term, free interpretation.

Free interpretation, now that is one great and unique concept. It is the antithesis of imposition. It is the grandaddy of the freedom of choice. Free interpretation, is it as simple as it sounds? Like, so "okay, interpret it as you want". Or is this concept at the root of all freedoms? Is it just about the freedom to interpret a particular phrase, a particular passage, a book or even an event? Or is it an encompassing doctrine -- a doctrine about interpreting a written piece, an event, an action, a gesture, a feeling, a look, a world, a life, a meaning?

It seems to me, free interpretation are all these and much more.

It basically means that one has the right to interpret anything and everything according to one's experience, according to one's history, one's level of understanding, one's comprehension. Even my own "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 tolerant of the other's action. In short, no interpretation is wrong, only different. Because, my opinion that a particular interpretation is wrong is just that, an opinion – it is also just an interpretation.

And what does free interpretation have to do with violence or vengeance?

It's clear. How can there be violence or even vengeance when I understand the other -- or at least, tolerant of the other? It seems to me, that it is even possible that this concept of free interpretation could be one of the ingredients for experiencing the human in the other.

With free interpretation, we begin to learn how to tolerate the other, understand the other, comprehend the other, feel the human in the other, and perhaps, even experience love and compassion for the other, and finally, feel one with the other.

•••

Free Interpretation

Isn't this a bit stretching it? This interpretation of free interpretation?

In a later blog, we said, "Violence then, is the appropriation of the other's choice or intentionality. Put in another way, violence is the imposition of one's intentionality on the intentionality of the other". In another post, we said, "Free interpretation, now that is one great and unique concept. It is the antithesis of imposition." Further on, we continued, "It basically means that one has the right to interpret anything and everything according to one's experience, according to one's history, one's level of understanding, one's comprehension. 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 tolerant of the other's action. In this sense, no interpretation is wrong or bad -- only different."

Imposition, it seems to me, then, is always present at the outset of violence. And if the opposite of imposition is free interpretation, I believe then, that free interpretation is the seed of nonviolence.

"If the human being is 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 pain and suffering -- then, helping him to alleviate his pain, his suffering, is nonviolence." --from the post, "Violence and Nonviolence"

In other words, letting the other express his intentionality is the basis of that enhancement -- by giving him his freedom of interpretation and the understanding of the action that is the consequence of that interpretation.

Still, isn't this stretching it?

I do not think so. And if you feel you are up to it, try this little experiment and find out for yourself.

The next time you have an argument, especially with someone whose opinion directly opposes your own -- try giving the other the benefit of his free interpretation, try accepting his position as it is, just another position; not wrong, not necessarily right either. Just a position. Try understanding his opinion. Try comprehending where he is coming from. To make this easier, try to see that your position is, also, on the other hand, just another position -- even if it is exactly the opposite of his. This is the only way you can reconcile two opposing views.

It is the same when someone is angry at you. Try to understand that they are only acting according to how they interpret the situation. I am not saying that you tolerate or accept their violence; I am saying that it is better for you to understand and comprehend their action, because by doing so, you lessen your suffering.

This is a very important issue to clarify here, right now, regarding what I have been discussing up to this point; that when I said "with free interpretation, no interpretation is wrong or bad", I am not saying this from the philosophical point of view of Amorality, which is understood as saying that "nothing is good or bad; therefore, one is free to do as one wants." Remember, that we also said in an earlier post that "Tolerance of violence is violence". In short, what I am trying to say is to understand the other's interpretation and to respect the other's interpretation of things; but on the other hand, that does not necessarily mean tolerating or accepting the other's acts of violence.

Remember, this is also just my interpretation of free interpretation. It may coincide with your own interpretation, or it may not. Either way, it doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it wrong either.

We know that others proclaimed the free interpretation, but then in the practice, they imposed their own interpretation. We want to make it seriously. --Silo

•••

To Humanize the Earth

2008-08-17T22:11:00.000-03:00

In an earlier post, we said that to act with nonviolence is the same as to humanize the other; and to humanize the other is to humanize the earth. I would like to add here that to humanize the earth is to humanize yourself.

What is it then, to humanize the earth? We can understand what is to humanize -- if we know what it is to dehumanize. If we agree that the human being is inherently good -- then, to act with violence is to dehumanize; to act with nonviolence is to humanize; to act with vengeance is to dehumanize; to reconcile is to humanize; to objectify the other is to dehumanize; to see the other's potential to be human is to humanize. To act with intolerance is to dehumanize; to act with tolerance is to humanize. To impose one's intentionality on another is to dehumanize; to enhance the other's intentionality is to humanize.

Only by seeing the other as human, can we truly give; can we truly love. Only by treating the other as human can we truly humanize.

Namer of a thousand names, maker of meanings, transformer of the world, your parents and the parents of your parents continue in you. You are not a fallen star but a brilliant arrow flying toward the heavens. You are the meaning of the world, and when you clarify your meaning you illuminate the earth. When you lose your meaning, the earth becomes darkened and the abyss opens.

I will tell you the meaning of your life here: It is to humanize the earth. And what does it mean to humanize the earth? It is to surpass pain and suffering; it is to learn without limits; it is to love the reality you build.

I cannot ask you to go further, but neither should it offend if I declare, “Love the reality you build, and not even death will halt your flight!” --Silo

•••

Giving and Receiving

2008-08-17T21:14:00.001-03:00

Is being fair also being just? And being unfair is being unjust? Is to have fairness, also to have justice?

When I give and it is not reciprocated; when I love and it is not returned; is it only natural that I feel injustice? Is it only natural that I suffer?

Why can't I give, truly give? Why can't I love, truly love?

Why must my happiness depend on what the other can give me? Why must my joy depend on the love the other can offer me? Why can't I give, why can't I love without attachment, without possession, without expecting any return.

How joyful it must be to be able to truly give. How exquisite it must feel to be able to truly love.

•••

The Ethic of Reciprocity

2008-08-17T16:03:00.002-03:00

But, what about reciprocity? You might ask.

Throughout history, numerous wise men, masters, sages, prophets, messengers, philosophers have in one form or another stated their own interpretation of the ethic of reciprocity.

In the Book of the Community, published in 1980 by The Community for the Equilibrium and development of the Human Being, the ethic of reciprocity is called the Principle of Solidarity.

"When you treat others as you would have them treat you, you liberate yourself.

This principle has great consequences because it leads to an opening, to a positive communication with other human beings. We know that self-enclosure generates more or less serious problems. What is called "selfishness" can be reduced precisely to a problem of self-enclosure and lack of communication. This principle gives importance to the act of of going positively towards others, and it complements with the other principle that recommends, "Do not harm others." although there is a great difference between the two.

The teaching on action of solidarity is one of the most ancient teachings of humanity." --The Book of the Community

Characteristics of the Golden Rule

The golden rule has developed independendly in different regions and in different cultural contexts. That makes it a principle of universal ethics. Beside its universality, it is an essential aspect of the golden rule, that the reciprocity and the moral responsibility make it possible to build up a relationship with empathy and respect.

Further the golden rule covers two basic aspects of every theory in ethics: In the positive form („Treat others as you like them to treat you.“) contextual benevolence is addressed, in the negative form („Don’t treat others as you don’t like them to treat you.“) the contractually defined limits of intervention into the autonomic sphere of the individual are mentioned, led by the concept of justice. Justice and benevolence come together in the golden rule, meanwhile they where treated separatly in the traditional philosophical debate about deontological or teleological ethics: The claim that an action is right or wrong independent of the consequences (deontological ethics) favors justice as the central term, the claim that an action is right or wrong on the basis of the consequences (teleological ethics) does so with benevolence.

In addition to this important fact the golden rule manifests a valuable progress of civilisation, from the ius talionis to a principle of desirability. Neglecting the talionist principle of the Old Testament, as it is summed up in the famous verse „And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.“ (Deuteronomy 19, 21), covers the knowledge and the experience that continuing with the wrong does not heal any wounds. Only with the moral implications drawn by the golden rule, one can overcome hate and self-hate, installing a new form of relationship by appealing to the desirable – a relationship in tolerance and appreciation. So even in the challenges, fanaticism and extremism put on the open society, the golden rule proves to be a suitable principle, because the dialogue can only be successfull when it strengthens the progressive concept of tolerance and appreciation, which takes into account justice and benevolence.

In spite of all the advantages of the golden rule, the academic philosophical ethics indeed almost ignored it. So the golden rule is not mentioned in the german historical encyclopedia of philosophy. Since the 1960s the interest has been growing both in the continental (e.g. Hans Reiner and Hans-Ulrich Hoche) and the Anglo-Saxon philosophy (e.g. Marcus G. Singer and Richard M. Hare). But before, the most important representatives of academic philosophy had criticized the golden rule sharply. --The Golden Rule as a Global Ethos by Josef Bordat (Berlin) http://www.philosophia-online.de/mafo/heft2007-1/Bor_gol.htm

The ethic of reciprocity

The ethic of reciprocity or the Golden Rule is a fundamental moral value which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, though it is not without its critics.

Ethical teaching interprets the Golden Rule as mutual respect for one's neighbour (rather than as a deontological or consequentialist rule). A key element of the golden rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group with consideration. The golden rule, with roots in a wide range of world cultures, is well suited to be a standard to which different cultures could appeal in resolving conflicts. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#cite_note-5

On the next post, we will enumerate interpretations of the ethic of reciprocity by some of these philosophers and religious figures.

•••

The Golden Rule

2008-08-17T13:33:00.002-03:00

Some Golden Rule (Ethic of Reciprocity) passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:

Bahá'í Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself."

Brahmanism:
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
"Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill." Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism by Elizabeth J. Harris

Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

"The Good Samaritan" by Vincent Van Gogh

Confucianism:
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.' Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.

Hinduism:"This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517
"Listen to the essence of Dharma. Having listened, focus on it, and establish it in your mind. Do not do any thing to others which you do not want to be done to yourself" Vedas

Humanism:
"Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. "
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society.

Islam:
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th

Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated." Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15

Native American Spirituality:"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.

Roman Pagan Religion:
"The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."

Shinto:
"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga

Sikhism:
Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299

Sufism:
"The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

Taoism:
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

Unitarian:
"The inherent worth and dignity of every person;"
"Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.... "
"The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;"
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles. 7,8

Wicca: "A'in it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede.

Wicca stylized symbol

Yoruba: (Nigeria):
"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

Zoroastrianism:
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

Some philosophers' statements are:

Epictetus:
"What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)

Kant:
"Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

Plato:
"May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)

Socrates:
"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)

Seneca:"Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)

Bust of Seneca

Examples from moral/ethical systems:

Humanism:
"...critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled." Humanist Manifesto II; Ethics section.

Scientology:
"20: Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you." This is one of the 21 moral precepts that form the moral code explained in L. Ron Hubbard's booklet "The Way to Happiness."

Silo's Message:
"When you treat others as you would have them treat you, you liberate yourself." from the book, The Inner Look, by Silo

Silo's Message Hall, Punta de Vacas, Argentina

If you see the other, consider the other, and finally, treat the other as human, then, you can never do wrong. If you give the human being the highest value, then, you can never go wrong.

•••

What is to Humanize the Other?

2008-08-17T12:52:00.003-03:00

I received some comments from the past article titled, "What then, is nonviolence? So, I felt that it is timely to expound a little more on the theme.

We said then, "The most important nonviolent act is to humanize the other." I just wanted to add here that to "humanize the other", does not mean, that the other should strive to become more human. The 'act' here -- of 'humanizing' -- is not coming from the other; it is coming from me. In a sense, what I am saying is that when I look at the other, consider the other and treat the other as human, then, I am humanizing the other. If I am not humanizing him, then I am objectifying him. If it is looked at this way, then, I am either humanizing the other, or I am objectifying* the other.

*To objectify is to turn the other into an object, and like any object, something that could be owned, possessed, control and discard.

In short, to see, consider and treat the other as human -- to humanize the other, is the first step to achieving a nonviolent human society, a humanized earth. Only then, can establishing a unitary human nation be talked about.

•••

Future Blogs

2008-08-17T09:50:00.004-03:00

I started this blog to serve as outline for a monograph thesis -- on the theme of vengeance, violence and nonviolence -- that I planned to write at a later date; but now, it seems to me that I would rather write it in essay form and avoid the usual constraints of a formal academic thesis. In short, I am not anymore going to bother to include footnotes and/or bibliographies, because I am not writing this book to prove anything. I am writing this book based on what I have learned and experienced, from my immediate environment and from other people's experience -- and these are just my interpretation of these diverse elements that have shaped and that is still shaping my life.

In the coming entries, I will try to elaborate more on the concept -- that "violence is never personal", the concept of "free interpretation", and I am adding a new element to this blog, the notion that a "profound religious experience" does not necessarily go towards the good and the benefit of mankind.

This new element was suggested by a new found old friend, whom I had the privileged of meeting the other week in the city of Caucaia in Brazil. We had a very nice conversation about this study on violence and vengeance, and he posed a question about how, even a profound religious experience could actually be used as basis for committing violence on others.

Faith and Free Interpretation

2008-08-16T00:05:00.013-03:00

Below is a copy of my email to some friends in response to some inquiry about the subject of faith. I am posting this here because I feel that it compliments the entry on "free interpretation".

...............................

Dear Friends...

Indeed, most of us from the "west" like I am (the Philippines is considered part of the west because of its 400 years history under the Spanish rule and another 50 years after that, under the US (see: the entry, The West), was born, raised and educated as Christians -- many continued to be believers of the faith, while others became disillusioned and became non-believers; others were "born again" and still others became fanatics; but most continued to be Christians in name, but not in practice.

Anyway, it reminded me of an anecdote that happened in a public university in Rio de Janeiro back in 2002, and to give you a sort of "climate" of the experience, below is part of my letter to my wife, Emma relating the experience:

"RIght after the launching of Silo's Message in Santiago, we went to Sao Paulo and later to Rio to reproduce the experience of the events in Chile -- and we were distributing leaflets with text of The Path and the link to silo.net with Carlos, a friend from Rio. While we were leafletting, Carlos who was about 15 yards away from me was approached by an elderly man who had been given a copy of the leaflet just some minutes ago. I saw the man talking to Carlos very animatedly.

After some time, Carlos went to me and told me that the man read The Path and was bothered by some of the things he read. He said that he is a Christian and that he believes in Jesus Christ, in heaven, in God and all that. He said that he liked what was written in The Path, but somehow felt that some of the passages conflicts with his faith and beliefs. Carlos wanted to know what he can say to the man. I told Carlos that there is no conflict between The Message and the man's faith. I told him to tell the man whatever his beliefs are -- they are the truth and nobody or anything can deny that truth; to tell him that if he wants to be a good Christian, all he has to do is follow Christ's teachings -- and nothing can go wrong and that everything will be alright with him.

Carlos went back to talk to the man and I saw the man smile as he left Carlos; as if he has rediscovered and regained a renewed faith in his beliefs.

Carlos told me later that the man went away very happy and content; so joyful that his beliefs were somehow confirmed.

I realized that this "free interpretation" is a most unique concept in terms of the beliefs. It dawned on me that we are not saying this for some "tactical", or "neutrality" reasons. I realized that we are saying this "the right to believe or not to believe" because it is the "truth". In as much that there are different levels of consciousness, there are different levels of logic, different levels of language, and therefore different levels of truth! Whatever one believes in, for that one it is the truth. And no one, can deny that truth. I say, I believe in immortality; but most probably, I am saying this because of my biographical and societal background. But, in reality, I too, doesn't really know that for a fact. Yes, I may have the intuition of it, but still, it is a belief. How can I impose this belief on another? Even, if I do have the experience of the transcendence, how can I impose this on others? If I do, then I am just initiating and perpetuating another dogma. Mine is the ONLY truth! Therefore, everyone else's is wrong! "What a boring concept!", I could almost hear Carlos saying.

"Free interpretation", now, that is a most radical and liberating concept!"

I believed it then -- and I still believe it now: whatever what one's beliefs are, they are true and no one can deny that truth.

I have one caveat, though; having certainty of one's truth does not necessarily give one the right to impose that truth on others.

Hugs...

Godi

•••

Still More Questions

2008-08-15T11:00:00.007-03:00

I know. The ways things are going with this blog, there are more questions than answers. But, what can I do? I am realizing that the more I begin to discover things, the more I realize that I am ignorant. In short, the more I know, the more I know I do not know anything. It is also a nice little trick I play on myself every time I can't seem to know what to write. I just ask myself questions -- hoping that, maybe, the answers to these questions, sooner or later, will present themselves..

So, on with more questions.

• How does frustrations, especially, accumulated frustrations build up inner violence?

• What happens when these pent-up emotions reach intolerable levels?

• Are they expressed as violence? Remember that we are not just talking of physical violence. Violence can be expressed in so many forms; from the grossest form, like genocide; to the most hidden, like psychological black-mail; to the subtlest, like the simplest of censure.

• Are one's frustrations relative to how violence are expressed in the world of the other?

• Is Making the other feel guilty for some infractions -- a form of vengeance? Could it be considered a form of psychological violence?

• Are rules a form of censure? Are they also a form of imposition?

• Which is the better emotion -- the emotion one feels after getting revenge or the one after getting reconciled?

More questions tomorrow.

Guilty as Charged

2008-08-12T19:01:00.009-03:00

While writing this post, images from one of my favorite French films comes to mind. Amelie, the main character, is in the Metro station while the old 1931 classic song "Guilty" by Al Bowlly is being played on an old portable record player. She put some coins in the old beggar's tin can, but the old man refused the alms telling Amelie that he does not work on Sundays. Anyway, this post is about that nasty feeling when we feel we did something wrong (or for that matter, forgot to do something right) -- guilt!

•••

We think we are perfect. Is this the reason why we could never admit to a mistake or fault? But, on the other hand, why is it that we also almost always have this guilty feeling?

Is it because the consciousness think it is perfect? or is it the biographical "I" that has this illussion? Why is it that we are always looking for a "culprit" -- somebody else to blame for our misfortunes, even for our own mistakes? Especially, when something is wrong and we are angry, and we have to justify our anger. At times, even if there is nothing wrong with the situation at hand, but anyway, we are angry, we have to have someone convenient to blame, someone we can vent our frustrations on, our anger, our inner violence.

After venting our anger or revenge, a sort of temporary balance is restored in our inner world, because a sort of catharsis transpires and some of the excessively hot steam is released. But, almost always, as we mentioned in the entry, "Illusory Equilibrium", an over-reaction happens and we feel somewhat guilty, especially, if the other does not retaliate. The more disproportionate our reaction, the worst our feeling of guilt.

On the other hand, we sometimes also use guilt as our way of revenge. If overt retaliation is not possible, we usually resort to covert form of vengeance -- making the other feel guilty.

We will continue with this theme of guilt in the next post.

•••

And what about collective guilt? Is there such a thing? Do the people that used the atomic bomb and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last world war have a guilty feeling hidden below the surface? How do they reconcile with this fact? And even if the decision to use the atomic bomb was not theirs, but their (long dead) leaders' alone -- is it possible that they still carry this burden of guilt even after more than 60 years have passed?

How about collective reconciliation – is there such a thing?

To be continued...

•••

Pain and Suffering

2008-08-12T06:53:00.002-03:00

Pain is to the body -- suffering, on the other hand, pertains to the mind; but, what is suffering – really?

Pain is like a warning system that tell us when something is wrong with our body and what to avoid presently or in the future; like eating now, if we feel hunger pangs, or not playing with fire after getting burned by the flame of a candle.

So, what does it mean when we suffer? What is the purpose of suffering? Or, does it even have a purpose? With the classic candle example, the little boy gets burned and he instinctively retreat his hand from the flame, record the experience, and file it in his "bad experience" or "not to do again" mental drawer. But with suffering, we seem not to learn from our own or from other people's experience. Is our mental drawer for suffering full to capacity or is it just nowhere to be found?

Someone scratched your brand new Benz; why is it that you suffer? It was not your forehead that was scratched. Why does that fact make you suffer? Why does that fact make you so very angry? Is it because, it means that you have to have your car repainted; and that it will cost you a lot of money? But, even if you do not have it repainted and spend hundreds of dollars on it -- why is it that you still suffer? Does it have anything to do with the feeling of injustice?

On the other hand, if the vandal is caught and put in jail, why is it that your anger is somehow lessened -- your suffering diminished? Does it have anything to do with justice administered? So you got your justice and everything is now fine with the world, right? But, your car still has a big scratch on the driver side door. So, what's wrong with this picture?

When the vandal is punished, does that fact somehow tips the balance in your favor? Like experiencing relief after getting revenge? And why the relief? Are you happy someone is getting punished, and therefore, also made to suffer? An eye for an eye... is this how it works, is this a universal truth?

Since it was the justice system that punished the vandal who scratched your car, it is very clear that it was not you that meted the judgment and rendered the punishment. But still, I am calling this, "vengeance by proxy". If a state hanged a murderer, it is also committing murder -- it is also committing violence. On the other hand, remember that the state is only acting as an implementor/executioner of its citizens' laws. The state is actually, legally acting in its citizens' stead. And we know this.

When I seek vengeance masked as "justice" on the other; is it not my intention to make the other suffer -- physically and/or mentally?

•••

Nonviolence

2008-08-12T06:34:00.004-03:00

I just had a nice little chat with one of the bloggers following this blog. We were talking about free interpretation and its connection to nonviolence. And as is usual, when nonviolence is talked about, Hitler and the Nazis are almost always invoked. Even just for the sake of argument, they would always asked how nonviolence could have been used against Hitler and the Nazis. They say that nonviolence could have never won the war against the likes of Hitler. They would say that nonviolence could have never stop the Nazis.

I told him that nonviolence is not trying to stop Hitler or the likes of Hitler. Nonviolence is trying to stop violence. I continued that, sure, the Allied Forces won the war and stopped Hitler and the Nazis, but certainly, the Allies did not stop violence. You must agree with me that violence is clearly still with us.

I concluded by saying 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, nonviolence is about liberating yourself when you treat others as you want them to treat you.

•••

Guilty by Association

2008-08-12T06:33:00.005-03:00

We received a comment about the post, titled, "Guilty as Charged". So, let's go back and try to elaborate more on this theme.

When talking about that nasty feeling called, guilt; my tendency is to relate it still to the mechanism of equilibrium and disequilibrium; and its connection to vengeance.

As we said in the post, "Illusory Equilibrium", say, the consciousness receives an external stimulus that put 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.

It does seem to me that this mechanism of equilibrium and disequilibrium has a lot to do with the act-object structure. All acts made by the consciousness just cannot not have an object to complete its act. It also cannot receive an act without it reacting to to the said act. It could react externally or internally, or both. It could react instinctively, or it could react intentionally.

Say, as an example, we give our love to someone and it is not returned as deep as our love and/or as deeply as we expected it to be. Somehow, we feel a sort of injustice -- because our ACT (which is loving the other really deeply) is not returned. But, without realizing it, maybe, the "return" is already "present" within us. The "return", without knowing it, is actually the joy of feeling the really deep love we feel for the other. The expected "reward" was already awarded as soon as we felt the deep love for the other.

When one gives something -- anything, anytime, every time -- I say that one need not wait for it to be returned, because the "return" is automatic. The "return" is built-in in the giving. The "return" is in the joy of the giving. The equilibrium has been reestablished already as soon as we made the valid act. All valid acts are coherent acts, and therefore these acts are always balanced. Everything is in total agreement.

Anyway, if what you gave is indeed returned; then, you did not actually give anything, did you?

•••

Violence, In All Its Subtleties

2008-08-12T06:30:00.001-03:00

• The problem with violence is that the mere thought, the mere intention of violence, already harm ourselves.

• The mind needs to be still, to be quiet – but most of all, it has to be pure. "Pure" meaning, not having even a hint or intention of violence.

• We can be clearer about this when we realize, not only the meaning of violence, but violence in all its forms – in all its subtleties.

•••

Volunteers Wanted

2008-08-12T06:28:00.013-03:00

Dear Friends...

I am beginning the first steps in having the book, "Free Interpretation Redux, Excerpts from the blog, Vengeance, Violence and Nonviolence", published. It will be really great if the book could also be published in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French. But first, it has to be edited, to see how the grammar and syntax of the text could be improved. You see, English is not my first language and I was writing the blog just as how I would speak these words.

Anyway, I just want to inform you that I am looking for people who can help me in these tasks of editing and translating the book. I would also like to express my appreciation and to thank you for following the blog, and especially for the most valuable feedback and comments we have been receiving these past months.

Click image to enlarge.

The publishing of the book does not mean that the task at hand is finished; actually, we have barely touched the surface of the theme. In short, this blog will continue to expound on subject matters already discussed, and will include matters that has not even been considered yet.

Again thanks and please, receive a hug from this warm cidade maravilhosa...

Godi

•••

Still Guilty

2008-08-12T06:25:00.003-03:00

We said in the post "Guilty as Charged", that on many occasions we also use this feeling of guilt as our stealth weapon, especially, if overt vengeance is not possible or workable for a given situation. We tell people (usually, a loved one) what we have done for them. We show them the long list of things we have given or done for them and the almost blank list of things they have given or done for us (or we just make our accounting mentally).

Sometimes, we show how pitiable we are, and how miserable they have made our lives. (The problem here is that most times, we do become miserable, as a matter of fact.)

It seems clear to me that if one lost one's self-esteem, and start to feel self-pity; it is the same mechanism of the consciousness working, trying to bring itself back to equilibrium -- by feeling guilty ourselves or by making the other feel guilty.

There are times when we employ our vindication through inaction or through silence.

Of course, one could think of a hundred more examples and a hundred more ways of feeling guilty and how we make others feel guilty. But I am not ashamed to say that I am too lazy to enumerate more. I have no excuse; but nevertheless, I do not feel guilty.

•••

Synopsis

2008-08-12T06:24:00.005-03:00

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.

•••

Second to the Last Word

2008-08-05T05:53:00.001-03:00

It is quite obvious; this work is not even halfway done. The theme of vengeance, violence and nonviolence is so ample that I have to break up the book in two or even three installments. I told a good friend about this dilemma and he told me that the only way I can finish this book is by putting a limit to this particular work and just do another one if necessary – if not, I will surely not finish it. So I am finishing it, but it sure is not finish.

Actually, I have started writing the next one, which will be about -- among other things -- reconciliation, possession, meaning, and -- for some reason -- I would like to include the theme of aesthetics.

I just want to reiterate something about our interpretation of free interpretation. If free interpretation is the antithesis of imposition, and if imposition is for us the beginning of violence – then, free interpretation is the first step towards nonviolence.

•••

Last Word

2008-08-05T05:37:00.005-03:00

If you realize and begin to accept that your vision of the world is but an interpretation of reality -- an interpretation that is permanently filtered through the tinted lenses of your own individual history and collective culture -- you will start to respect the other's interpretation of the same reality and perhaps begin to understand the consequential acts derived from that interpretation.

Then, you will be one step closer to tolerating, comprehending, humanizing the other -- and on your way to humanizing the earth.

•••