Action-reaction

• 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

• 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

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

• 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

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

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

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

"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

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

•••