A REFLECTION ON VENGEANCE, VIOLENCE, NONVIOLENCE & RECONCILIATION
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
The Failure
•••
There are those who are not really failures in life, but anyway carry failure deep in their hearts; and there are those who are failures, but anyway feel successful down deep inside them. Of course, most successful people feel that they are indeed, well, successful.
We were born in a success oriented world; everything we were taught is about how to be successful. We were taught since our first growing years how to avoid failure. How then, can we start our humble search for truth, when we feel we do not even need it? It never even cross our minds; either we are trying hard to be successful or just too busy with our successes.
•••
I have this inner failure, this inner void;
and I feel trapped in its vast and endless nothingness.
But to get out, I have to admit that I am in here in this great trap.
And to get out, I have to recognize how empty I am inside.
Only then, can I really start with the humble search for inner truth.
•••
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
The Total Revolution
• A revolution that doesn't have the human being as its main focus and concern, and is not totalizing in scope is just another lost opportunity. All these so-called revolutions are merely historical anecdotes, and are just postponing the real one.
• They are good - in and of themselves - but, we cannot believe that they will transform the world.
• It is like donating money or volunteering to feed the hungry, which is a worthy cause. The hungry gets to eat, and people feel good for doing their part. But, it does not, and will not end poverty and hunger in the world.
• I'm not saying that people should stop doing these things, and I'm not saying that these actions are bad; in reality, they are good and worthwhile endeavors. But, in the end, they do not transform anything.
• It is the same with politics. You can support this candidate, or that party - because, they are less evil, or because you like their slogans; but, in the end, the results are the same, and the system is again given a life extension of another thousand years.
• Every time we participate in the games of the system, we postpone the real change, the real transformation. If we play their game, they win - and by extension - we lose.
• So, when will the system fall?
• It will fall and collapse from within - only if and when we stop participating and playing their game.
•••
• What the world needs now are not baby steps, but one big giant leap.
• What the world needs is a totalizing revolution, a revolution that is social, cultural, and psychic. It needs real transformation, not reformation. It means not only external transformation, but also, as important, internal transformation.
• External transformation means a total collapse of the system and its concomitant transformation.
• Internal transformation means that each of us have rid ourselves of our internal frustrations, contradiction, revenge and violence; it means that we are reconciled with our past, and have active nonviolence integrated as our daily mode of action.
• A world transformed means a new civilization where nonviolence and compassion prevails.
•••
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Definition of Violence
•••
What is Violence?
Depending on where in the political spectrum one is, it’s either it’s Hamas or Israel’s fault that the Gaza Strip is once again flaring up. But, it’s clear that the majority of people agree that Israel’s reaction - the target bombing of Gaza - is disproportionate to the rockets from the Hamas.
I’m not going to play the blaming game here, but it seems clear to me that the root of this conflict just cannot be found anymore - it is just too way deep for anyone to see anything. What people are seeing are just the fruits of those thousands of years old conflict in the Middle East.
Definition of Violence
What is really clear to me is that people just do not know the real definition of violence. The headlines say “Death Toll of Children Rise to 34 as Israel Plummets Gaza”. And the whole world is suddenly awake and angry. 34 children dead from an all-out bombing campaign from Israel. This is the wake up call. I’m not saying that Israel should continue this assault on innocents; but at this very moment, there are 85,000 children dying from hunger every single day and no one is angry.
Children killed by bombs is violence, while children dying of hunger is natural? So, therefore it’s not violence?
There are many forms of violence; and these are physical, racial, religious, sexual, psychological, and economic violence. When 34 children are killed from bombing campaigns, this is physical violence. When 85,000 children die of hunger every single day, this is economic violence. When a mother is fearful of the next bomb killing her only child, that’s psychological violence. When a mother is fearful of her child dying from lack of nutrition, that’s psychological violence.
We should condemn Israel for its disproportionate bombing of Gaza; but we should also condemn Hamas from firing rockets to Israel. These are examples of physical violence. But, we should not forget the other forms of violence that are prevalent in the whole world, and in all levels of society.
•••
Sunday, July 14, 2013
El Instinto de Conservación de la Especie Humana
•••
El Instinto de conservación de la especie humana
¿Qué significan todas las manifestaciones, protestas, y sucesos que están ocurriendo en todo el mundo en los últimos 2 años?
La gente que observa pasivamente al margen, o en sus televisores en casa preguntan: ¿qué es lo que quieren todos esos manifestantes? ¿Sobre qué protestan? ¿Realmente saben qué es lo que quieren? Aquí en Brasil, las manifestaciones empezaron cuando los pasajes del bus y el metro subieron 10 centavos, pero incluso después de que los gobiernos locales los bajaron a sus niveles originales, las protestas no amainaron.
Durante las manifestaciones en algunos países en el Medio Oriente, de la “Primavera árabe”, la gente exigía un cambio de régimen. En otras manifestaciones la gente pide mejoras en la educación. En Europa y Chile piden educación, servicios de salud sin costo, etc. En algunas manifestaciones las exigencias de los partícipes son tan diversas como los derechos de los gay, temas ambientales, derechos animales, transparencia en el gobierno, una prensa verdaderamente libre, servicios de salud universales, verdadera democracia, justicia social, etc. Algunos se quejan de los GMO, de funcionarios públicos corruptos, de la brutalidad policíaca, el sistema bancario en quiebre, los regímenes autoritarios, etc.
En algunos países las masas pueden conseguir lo que querían. Pudieron deshacerse de tiranos, dictadores, juntas militares; pudieron lograr el cambio de régimen. Pero ¿por qué siguen protestando? ¿Por qué siguen en las calles, en las plazas y los parques?
¿Qué está sucediendo de verdad?
Lo que sucede es que la gente empieza a sentir un malestar generalizado. De alguna manera se sienten agitados internamente. Solo saben que algo anda mal, que de alguna manera hay algo que no está funcionando.
Los dos instintos primordiales son: el instinto de la autoconservación, y el instinto de la conservación de la especie.
Hemos de comprender que, si nosotros como individuos tenemos una consciencia individual, también debemos entender que la especie como un todo es también una entidad; que la especie como entidad, tiene su propia consciencia. Estén conscientes de que, en este mismo momento, es esa consciencia que opera ahora en esos movimientos. Y es la especia humana como un todo, es esa consciencia humana la que percibe la amenaza que la enfrenta. Y sabe que a sus espaldas yace el gran abismo. Sabe que el sistema ya se encuentra en una situación límite y que está a punto de llevarse todo consigo. Esa consciencia colectiva ha despertado y quiere superar aquel abismo.
Ya no se trata de qué es lo que quiere la gente. Ya no se trata de lo que tú y yo queramos. No se trata de lo que queramos como individuos. Ahora, se trata de lo que la especie como totalidad necesita. Y necesita una respuesta totalizadora a las crisis globales que enfrenta: necesita el cambio total. Necesita transformación. Sabe que para sobrevivir, debe dar un salto gigantesco, hacer la revolución total, la transformación total: del individuo, del sistema, de la especie.
•••
Monday, June 24, 2013
The Instinct of Conservation of the Species -
•••
What does it mean, all these demonstrations, protests, and manifestations that is now happening around the world this past two years?
People watching on the sidelines, or on their televisions at home are asking: what do these demonstrators want? What are they protesting about? Do they really know what they want? Here in Brazil, the manifestations begun with the raising of bus and subway fares by 10 cents; but, even after the city governments lowered the fares back, the protests continue, anyway.
During the "Arab Spring" demonstrations in some countries in the Middle East, people were demanding regime change. In some, the people want better education. In Europe and Chile, they want free education, free health services, etc. In some demonstrations, the participants' demands are diverse as rights of gays, environmental issues, animal rights, government transparency, truly free press; universal health care; real democracy; social justice, etc. Some people complain about, GMOs, corrupt officials, police brutality, the bankrupt banking system, authoritarian regimes, etc.
In some countries, the masses are able to get what they wanted. They were able to get rid of tyrants, dictators, military juntas - they were able to achieved regime change. But, why are they still protesting? Why are they still out on the streets? out in the plazas and squares?
The two main instincts are the instinct of preservation of oneself; and the instinct of the conservation of the Species -
We have to understand that if we as individuals have individual consciousness, we also to understand that the species as a whole is also an entity in itself; that the species as a entity has its very own consciousness. Be aware that at this very moment, it is this consciousness that is now operating in these movements. And it is the human species as a whole, this human consciousness that senses the threat it is presently faced with; and it knows that behind its back lies the great abyss. It knows that the system is already at its limit situation, and that it is about to bring everything to the abyss with it. This collective consciousness has awaken, and it wants to overcome this abyss.
It's not anymore about what people want. It's not anymore about what you and I want. It is not about what we as individuals want. Now, it is about what the species as a whole needs. And it needs a totalizing answer to the global crises at hand; it needs a total change; it needs transformation. It knows that to survive it has to make this giant leap, a totalizing revolution, a total transformation - of the individual, of the system, of the species.
•••
What does it mean, all these demonstrations, protests, and manifestations that is now happening around the world this past two years?
People watching on the sidelines, or on their televisions at home are asking: what do these demonstrators want? What are they protesting about? Do they really know what they want? Here in Brazil, the manifestations begun with the raising of bus and subway fares by 10 cents; but, even after the city governments lowered the fares back, the protests continue, anyway.
During the "Arab Spring" demonstrations in some countries in the Middle East, people were demanding regime change. In some, the people want better education. In Europe and Chile, they want free education, free health services, etc. In some demonstrations, the participants' demands are diverse as rights of gays, environmental issues, animal rights, government transparency, truly free press; universal health care; real democracy; social justice, etc. Some people complain about, GMOs, corrupt officials, police brutality, the bankrupt banking system, authoritarian regimes, etc.
In some countries, the masses are able to get what they wanted. They were able to get rid of tyrants, dictators, military juntas - they were able to achieved regime change. But, why are they still protesting? Why are they still out on the streets? out in the plazas and squares?
The two main instincts are the instinct of preservation of oneself; and the instinct of the conservation of the Species -
We have to understand that if we as individuals have individual consciousness, we also to understand that the species as a whole is also an entity in itself; that the species as a entity has its very own consciousness. Be aware that at this very moment, it is this consciousness that is now operating in these movements. And it is the human species as a whole, this human consciousness that senses the threat it is presently faced with; and it knows that behind its back lies the great abyss. It knows that the system is already at its limit situation, and that it is about to bring everything to the abyss with it. This collective consciousness has awaken, and it wants to overcome this abyss.
It's not anymore about what people want. It's not anymore about what you and I want. It is not about what we as individuals want. Now, it is about what the species as a whole needs. And it needs a totalizing answer to the global crises at hand; it needs a total change; it needs transformation. It knows that to survive it has to make this giant leap, a totalizing revolution, a total transformation - of the individual, of the system, of the species.
•••
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
One's Placement
•••
I had a very nice experience just a few days ago while riding my bus home. I realized that everything in one's past or even in one's present - every thing, every situation, every experience could be changed from negative to positive (or vice-versa) by just changing one's point of view - by just changing one's placement in front of the situation. I realized that in every thing, in every situation, in every experience, comes with it the negative and the positive - so depending on where one place oneself, the experience could be a bad experience or a good experience.
I want to add that, by changing your point of view and your placement towards your past and your present, and thereby, changing them to positive, you are actually also changing your life towards a positive future.
•••
I had a very nice experience just a few days ago while riding my bus home. I realized that everything in one's past or even in one's present - every thing, every situation, every experience could be changed from negative to positive (or vice-versa) by just changing one's point of view - by just changing one's placement in front of the situation. I realized that in every thing, in every situation, in every experience, comes with it the negative and the positive - so depending on where one place oneself, the experience could be a bad experience or a good experience.
I want to add that, by changing your point of view and your placement towards your past and your present, and thereby, changing them to positive, you are actually also changing your life towards a positive future.
•••
Monday, December 15, 2008
BOOK II, First Word
•••
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.
•••
•••
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
•••
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
•••
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
•••
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.
•••
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
•••
• 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.
•••
• 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
•••
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.
•••
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.
•••
Real Estate, Is it Real?
•••
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?
•••
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
•••
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?
•••
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
•••
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!
•••
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
•••
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.
•••
•••
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
•••
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?
•••
•••
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
•••
Sinopse
•••
I just got this Portuguese translation from Sabine, our friend here in Rio de Janeiro. This is the synopsis from Book One. I am including it here for our Portuguese speaking friends.
•••
• No início deste blog, explicamos que nosso interesse ao criá-lo era começar um estudo e uma busca pela raiz da vingança e da violência no contexto da cultura ocidental. Porém, desde o princípio, eu já intuia que o escopo de pesquisa e estudo para o tema teria de, necessariamente, englobar a ampla gama de elementos que não estão relacionados somente ao tema da vingança e da violência, mas requerem também um mergulho no tema da não violência. E se quiséssemos ir mais fundo no estudo da vingança e da violência, seria fundamental falar também sobre o compreender e reconciliar com os demais. Também estava claro que o estudo dentro do contexto da Cultura Ocidental não seria suficiente: a Cultura Oriental teria que ser parte disso, necessariamente.
• Então, começamos propondo questões em relação à vingança e à violência. Em seguida, propusemos mais questões. Mais tarde, propusemos ainda mais perguntas. Ficou claro para mim que estou escrevendo esse blog porque eu quero encontrar por mim mesmo as respostas para essas perguntas. E que, talvez, através de tal pesquisa e estudo, eu possa esbarrar em algumas das respostas. Ou poderia estar esperando que as respostas se apresentassem enquanto seguimos esta trilha.
• As perguntas fundamentais, dessa forma, eram o que as palavras vingança e violência significavam e se esses estados eram intrinsecos ao ser humano.
• Dissemos que a vingança não é um fenômeno mecânico de ação-reação. Dissemos que, na verdade, é a base de toda violência. Que a vingança é o ato de equilíbrio diante de um desequilíbrio dado: o equilíbrio do desequilíbrio. Dissemos que o ato de vingança está sempre presente, ainda que sutilmente, sempre trabalhando no pano de fundo. Está sempre presente no trabalho de uma estrutura ato-objeto tentando compensar a inadequação de cada um, o que falta, o que teme, suas frustrações; tentando compensar o núcleo de devaneios de cada um - seu núcleo cultural.
• Fica claro que essa interpreação da vingança poderia parecer um tanto radical para o leitor, mas terei que deixá-la assim.
• Depois, apresentamos outra idéia não tão usual: a noção de que a violência nunca é pessoal. Dissemos que, mais frequentemente do que imaginamos, nossa raiva está direcionada às pessoas mais próximas a nós e que as razões não têm nada a ver com aquilo que nossos seres queridos fizeram ou deixaram de fazer conosco, mas que, ao invés disso, tinham mais a ver com nossas próprias frustrações - aquelas experiências negativas que se acumularam em nós. Estamos somente esperando uma justificativa para soltar nossa raiva, a violência que temos dentro de nós.
• Acontece o mesmo com líderes governamentais: eles precisam de uma razão, uma justificativa para ir a guerra. Eles sempre precisam de uma razão para expressar sua violência interna - expressar sua violência em outros, em sua maioria, pessoas inocentes.
• Depois, falamos sobre a base da maioria das leis, especialmente no Ocidente. Existe um edito muito antigo e arcaico do Código Hammurabi que diz "olho por olho". Dissemos que isso foi formulado para fazer com que as pessoas parassem com punições desproporcionadas. Dissemos que foi um bom conceito em seu momento. Porém, também dissemos que atualizações melhoradas e mais avançadas deste velho conceito foram lançadas ao longo dos séculos por diferentes mensageiros e pessoas iluminadas.
• Propusemos que quando a integridade de um indivíduo, um povo, ou mesmo uma cultura inteira, é ameaçada, uma espécie de sinal de alerta é registrado pela estrutura ameaçada - uma espécie de desequilíbro é registrada - e, instintivamente, uma reação (reequilíbrio) é posta em marcha ( dar o troco, vingança, justiça, ir a guerra, etc)
• Alguns dos leitores do blog nos perguntaram sobre a definição de não violência e dissemos que se o ser humano é intencionalidade e a violência é ir contra a intencionalidade, então, contribuir para o aperfeiçoamento de tal intencionalidade é não violência. Em outras palavras, se sua transformação está prejudicada pelo sofrimento e seu projeto básico é a superação desta dor, deste sofrimento - então, ajudar alguém a aliviar sua dor, seu sofrimento é o maior ato de não violência que uma pessoa pode fazer pela outra - a mais válida de todas as ações! É um projeto de vida por excelência! Resumindo, humanizar a Terra é agir de maneira não violenta. Humanizar é dar em atos unitivos.
• Falamos sobre a ética da reciprocidade e, em seguida, enumeramos algumas passagens famosas do texto de várias crenças religiosas e seculares. Tais crenças foram expressadas de diferentes maneiras, mas basicamente, dizendo o mesmo, que é: trata aos demais como gostaríamos de ser tratados".
• Nós teorizamos que o Ocidente estava interessado em promover justiça para o resto do mundo e que o não-ocidental (o Oriente) estava mais interessado em divulgar o conceito de ahimsa ou não violência.
• Nós falamos, então, sobre livre interpretação. Nós dissemos que a livre interpretação, basicamente, significa que cada um tem direito de interpretar qualquer e todas as coisas de acordo com a experiência de cada um, de acordo com o nível de compreensão de cada um, a cultura de cada um, a história pessoal de cada um. A "verdade" de cada um é uma interpretação. Nesse sentido, do ponto de vista desse conceito de livre interpretação, ou compreendo a ação do outro ou, minimamente, estou entendendo a ação do outro. Porque, a partir deste ponto de vista, nenhuma interpretação está errada - apenas diferente. Eu não estou dizendo que nós toleremos ou aceitemos a violência deles. Estou dizendo que é melhor que nós compreendamos a ação deles, porque ao fazermos isso, diminuimos nosso sofrimento.
• Alguém me pediu para elaborar acerca de um sentimento desagradável chamado culpa. Nós dissemos que toda vez que a consciência recebe um estímulo externo que a coloca em desequilíbrio, a tendência natural da consciência é reagir e tentar conseguir de volta sua integridade "perdida" colocando-se de novo em equilíbrio. Ela tem que "dar o troco" (vingança) no que no momento está em dívida. Porém, a reação é, normalmente, uma reação exagerada (ou é percebida como reação exagerada) e, por conta disso, uma contra ação ainda maior é recebida em troca ou, caso não haja nenhuma, registramos o sentimento de culpa, porque ele satisfaz o vácuo criado pela ausência de uma contra ação. Em outras palavras, sentir-se culpado, de alguma maneira, dá à consciência a ilusão de equilíbrio. É um sentimento similar à auto punição. Portanto, se não recebermos a esperada "vingança", criamos a "reparação" nós mesmos nos sentindo culpados.
• Nós também falamos sobre o conceito de um deus "inteiramente justo" - sobre como a psique de toda uma cultura está tão obcecada com vingança e reparação que eles não somente perseguiriam os infratores até os confins da terra, mas também até o fim da vida e até mesmo no pós vida! O problema com essa noção é que ela dá as pessoas a justificativa para seguirem com sua vingança própria em relação a outros com o pano de fundo na consciência de que estão somente fazendo o trabalho de deus. E também dissemos que tal obssessão com a justiça e a vingança tem raízes tão profundas na cultura Ocidental que é, na verdade, quase um mecanismo.
• Posteriormente, nós aprofundamos nosso desenvolvimento da definição de não violência. Dissemos que não violência não é somente ir contra os horrores da guerra, não é somente estar contra todas as formas de discriminação, não é somente ir contra todas as formas de violência. Está mais relacionada a trabalhar a favor da paz e fazer algo pela paz. Está mais relacionada a trazer a paz dentro de si mesmo e levar a paz a outros. Está mais relacionada a se reconciliar consigo mesmo e se reconciliar com outros. É sentir o humano em você e sentir o humano em outros. É humanizar a si mesmo. É humanizar o outro. É por esta razão que preferimos não chamá-la somente de não violência, mas de não violência ativa.
• Finalmente, dissemos que a não violência está relacionada a liberar-se quando você trata aos demais como gostaria de ser tratado.
•••
I just got this Portuguese translation from Sabine, our friend here in Rio de Janeiro. This is the synopsis from Book One. I am including it here for our Portuguese speaking friends.
•••
• No início deste blog, explicamos que nosso interesse ao criá-lo era começar um estudo e uma busca pela raiz da vingança e da violência no contexto da cultura ocidental. Porém, desde o princípio, eu já intuia que o escopo de pesquisa e estudo para o tema teria de, necessariamente, englobar a ampla gama de elementos que não estão relacionados somente ao tema da vingança e da violência, mas requerem também um mergulho no tema da não violência. E se quiséssemos ir mais fundo no estudo da vingança e da violência, seria fundamental falar também sobre o compreender e reconciliar com os demais. Também estava claro que o estudo dentro do contexto da Cultura Ocidental não seria suficiente: a Cultura Oriental teria que ser parte disso, necessariamente.
• Então, começamos propondo questões em relação à vingança e à violência. Em seguida, propusemos mais questões. Mais tarde, propusemos ainda mais perguntas. Ficou claro para mim que estou escrevendo esse blog porque eu quero encontrar por mim mesmo as respostas para essas perguntas. E que, talvez, através de tal pesquisa e estudo, eu possa esbarrar em algumas das respostas. Ou poderia estar esperando que as respostas se apresentassem enquanto seguimos esta trilha.
• As perguntas fundamentais, dessa forma, eram o que as palavras vingança e violência significavam e se esses estados eram intrinsecos ao ser humano.
• Dissemos que a vingança não é um fenômeno mecânico de ação-reação. Dissemos que, na verdade, é a base de toda violência. Que a vingança é o ato de equilíbrio diante de um desequilíbrio dado: o equilíbrio do desequilíbrio. Dissemos que o ato de vingança está sempre presente, ainda que sutilmente, sempre trabalhando no pano de fundo. Está sempre presente no trabalho de uma estrutura ato-objeto tentando compensar a inadequação de cada um, o que falta, o que teme, suas frustrações; tentando compensar o núcleo de devaneios de cada um - seu núcleo cultural.
• Fica claro que essa interpreação da vingança poderia parecer um tanto radical para o leitor, mas terei que deixá-la assim.
• Depois, apresentamos outra idéia não tão usual: a noção de que a violência nunca é pessoal. Dissemos que, mais frequentemente do que imaginamos, nossa raiva está direcionada às pessoas mais próximas a nós e que as razões não têm nada a ver com aquilo que nossos seres queridos fizeram ou deixaram de fazer conosco, mas que, ao invés disso, tinham mais a ver com nossas próprias frustrações - aquelas experiências negativas que se acumularam em nós. Estamos somente esperando uma justificativa para soltar nossa raiva, a violência que temos dentro de nós.
• Acontece o mesmo com líderes governamentais: eles precisam de uma razão, uma justificativa para ir a guerra. Eles sempre precisam de uma razão para expressar sua violência interna - expressar sua violência em outros, em sua maioria, pessoas inocentes.
• Depois, falamos sobre a base da maioria das leis, especialmente no Ocidente. Existe um edito muito antigo e arcaico do Código Hammurabi que diz "olho por olho". Dissemos que isso foi formulado para fazer com que as pessoas parassem com punições desproporcionadas. Dissemos que foi um bom conceito em seu momento. Porém, também dissemos que atualizações melhoradas e mais avançadas deste velho conceito foram lançadas ao longo dos séculos por diferentes mensageiros e pessoas iluminadas.
• Propusemos que quando a integridade de um indivíduo, um povo, ou mesmo uma cultura inteira, é ameaçada, uma espécie de sinal de alerta é registrado pela estrutura ameaçada - uma espécie de desequilíbro é registrada - e, instintivamente, uma reação (reequilíbrio) é posta em marcha ( dar o troco, vingança, justiça, ir a guerra, etc)
• Alguns dos leitores do blog nos perguntaram sobre a definição de não violência e dissemos que se o ser humano é intencionalidade e a violência é ir contra a intencionalidade, então, contribuir para o aperfeiçoamento de tal intencionalidade é não violência. Em outras palavras, se sua transformação está prejudicada pelo sofrimento e seu projeto básico é a superação desta dor, deste sofrimento - então, ajudar alguém a aliviar sua dor, seu sofrimento é o maior ato de não violência que uma pessoa pode fazer pela outra - a mais válida de todas as ações! É um projeto de vida por excelência! Resumindo, humanizar a Terra é agir de maneira não violenta. Humanizar é dar em atos unitivos.
• Falamos sobre a ética da reciprocidade e, em seguida, enumeramos algumas passagens famosas do texto de várias crenças religiosas e seculares. Tais crenças foram expressadas de diferentes maneiras, mas basicamente, dizendo o mesmo, que é: trata aos demais como gostaríamos de ser tratados".
• Nós teorizamos que o Ocidente estava interessado em promover justiça para o resto do mundo e que o não-ocidental (o Oriente) estava mais interessado em divulgar o conceito de ahimsa ou não violência.
• Nós falamos, então, sobre livre interpretação. Nós dissemos que a livre interpretação, basicamente, significa que cada um tem direito de interpretar qualquer e todas as coisas de acordo com a experiência de cada um, de acordo com o nível de compreensão de cada um, a cultura de cada um, a história pessoal de cada um. A "verdade" de cada um é uma interpretação. Nesse sentido, do ponto de vista desse conceito de livre interpretação, ou compreendo a ação do outro ou, minimamente, estou entendendo a ação do outro. Porque, a partir deste ponto de vista, nenhuma interpretação está errada - apenas diferente. Eu não estou dizendo que nós toleremos ou aceitemos a violência deles. Estou dizendo que é melhor que nós compreendamos a ação deles, porque ao fazermos isso, diminuimos nosso sofrimento.
• Alguém me pediu para elaborar acerca de um sentimento desagradável chamado culpa. Nós dissemos que toda vez que a consciência recebe um estímulo externo que a coloca em desequilíbrio, a tendência natural da consciência é reagir e tentar conseguir de volta sua integridade "perdida" colocando-se de novo em equilíbrio. Ela tem que "dar o troco" (vingança) no que no momento está em dívida. Porém, a reação é, normalmente, uma reação exagerada (ou é percebida como reação exagerada) e, por conta disso, uma contra ação ainda maior é recebida em troca ou, caso não haja nenhuma, registramos o sentimento de culpa, porque ele satisfaz o vácuo criado pela ausência de uma contra ação. Em outras palavras, sentir-se culpado, de alguma maneira, dá à consciência a ilusão de equilíbrio. É um sentimento similar à auto punição. Portanto, se não recebermos a esperada "vingança", criamos a "reparação" nós mesmos nos sentindo culpados.
• Nós também falamos sobre o conceito de um deus "inteiramente justo" - sobre como a psique de toda uma cultura está tão obcecada com vingança e reparação que eles não somente perseguiriam os infratores até os confins da terra, mas também até o fim da vida e até mesmo no pós vida! O problema com essa noção é que ela dá as pessoas a justificativa para seguirem com sua vingança própria em relação a outros com o pano de fundo na consciência de que estão somente fazendo o trabalho de deus. E também dissemos que tal obssessão com a justiça e a vingança tem raízes tão profundas na cultura Ocidental que é, na verdade, quase um mecanismo.
• Posteriormente, nós aprofundamos nosso desenvolvimento da definição de não violência. Dissemos que não violência não é somente ir contra os horrores da guerra, não é somente estar contra todas as formas de discriminação, não é somente ir contra todas as formas de violência. Está mais relacionada a trabalhar a favor da paz e fazer algo pela paz. Está mais relacionada a trazer a paz dentro de si mesmo e levar a paz a outros. Está mais relacionada a se reconciliar consigo mesmo e se reconciliar com outros. É sentir o humano em você e sentir o humano em outros. É humanizar a si mesmo. É humanizar o outro. É por esta razão que preferimos não chamá-la somente de não violência, mas de não violência ativa.
• Finalmente, dissemos que a não violência está relacionada a liberar-se quando você trata aos demais como gostaria de ser tratado.
•••
A Short Chat on Nonviolence
•••
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.
•••
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
•••
• 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.
•••
• 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.
•••
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)