Bill St. Clair very kindly emailed me this morning, bringing my attention to an addition to one of his web sites that he thought I would particularly appreciate. Even though we’ve not yet met in person, he knows me well.
The message is joy and happiness; he expands upon it a bit in a blog post, too. The first three lines spoke to me especially deeply:
Eat joy. Speak happiness.
If sad or angry, don't talk or eat. Drink water, but nothing else.
If someone else is speaking anger or sadness, love them, or, if you can't love them, speak happiness or be quiet.
This is the direction I have been trying to take for some time, albeit I doubt I could have elucidated that as clearly as Bill has. The negative energy that sometimes (or often; or, in the case of a few individuals, always) suffuses some pro-freedom folks’ words typically acts as an instant drain on my energy. In such situations, I have had a very hard time trying to speak happiness and continuing to feel warm feelings toward the person—and no small part of the former is my concern that my efforts to share positive energy will be rebuffed as Pollyannaish, or scoffed at. From there it’s a short trip into the brambles ... and my way of being has tended, once there, to lean toward being quiet rather than trying to spread happiness—especially, again, where I think it will be actively rejected. That was part of my departure from a couple of my former haunts.
More recently, other sources have encouraged pursuing the course Bill identifies; and frankly, it frequently seems to me even more quixotish than Quixote’s own quest. Like anyone who’s lived a fair number of days, I have people I care about, yet who wear on me, sometimes steadily and regularly. Am I doing anything good by continuing to speak happiness to such individuals?
Also, it has me wondering about a point Bill mentions at the end of his blog post, and which Gandhi addressed several times—one is currently atop the right sidebar (or can be found here if the quotation has since been changed there). Where self defense appears to necessitate violence, what will I do? For now, I hope never to confront that issue in my remaining days.
nonviolence
During civil wars in feudal Japan, an invading army would quickly sweep into a town and take control. In one particular village, everyone fled just before the army arrived - everyone except the Zen master. Curious about this old fellow, the general went to the temple to see for himself what kind of man this master was. When he wasn’t treated with the deference and submissiveness to which he was accustomed, the general burst into anger. “You fool,” he shouted as he reached for his sword, “don’t you realize you are standing before a man who could run you through without blinking an eye!” But despite the threat, the master seemed unmoved. “And do you realize,” the master replied calmly, “that you are standing before a man who can be run through without blinking an eye?”
In order to commit to 100% non-violence, to be a pacifist, you have to not fear death. You have to accept the possibility that someday, someone may threaten your life and you will choose to lose your life rather than defend it with force.
Personally, I split violence into aggression and self-defense. I have no problem with the latter although, like you, I hope I never will have to use it.
I believe all human beings have equal rights at all times. When someone aggresses against me, he automatically relinquishes his right to not have violence done to him by me in order that we both maintain equal rights at that moment (estoppel).
I think pacifism is detrimental to human survival, and so in my opinion it is not such a great idea. I value my life (and my wife's, and my daughter's) enough to fight for it (them). But I also think that decision lies within the realm of morality, which makes it a personal decision, and so it is neither inherently right or wrong.
Choosing not to continue your life when you can defend it seems a little bit like suicide to me. You are making a choice that leads to death while there is another choice that leads to life.
If you were to find yourself falling off a cliff, wouldn't you grab a branch if you could?
It took me a while
... to think on some of your remarks; and I am probably still answering prematurely. Thank you for the intellectual exercise.
I see them as concepts that occupy different levels. Aggression can be found in many actions, including some acts of self-defense. And therefore, some self-defense choices can be violent acts.
How so? And is it necessarily so? My perspective is that violence is, necessarily, detrimental to human survival. Doesn’t mean I would stay pure to that principle under all circumstances, however.
Sure, I would likely try under those conditions—but the analogy rapidly falls apart in my mind. (Guess I’m a speciesist after all, if I look upon plant life as inherently less valuable than human life ...)
As to your first remarks quoted above, I am on record as not being universally opposed to suicide—although I once was. I can imagine scenarios where I would choose not to defend my life, the idea being that by doing so my actions would achieve some other good—such as helping my children to survive.
The Good, The Bad, and The Violent...
Non-aggression (not initiating violence against non-aggressors) is ethical because the universal application of the idea across time and space leads to the success of the human race. Universal aggression does not, and so is unethical. We humans need to cooperate by interacting in an ethical manner in order to survive.
If humans were universally non-aggressors, then humans would be universally pacifist, and the concept of self-defense would not even exist. But this utopian model does not fit reality. It appears that there will always be human aggressors, at least in our lifetimes.
Accepting this, violence becomes too general a term. To condemn violence against human beings as being universally unethical does not take into account the inevitable human aggressors.
If humans did not defend themselves against human aggressors, then eventually all the pacifists would be dead or be slaves of the aggressors. What would the aggressors have to fear? What would stop them?
And since the aggressors are good at taking, and not necessarily producing, it becomes difficult to be see how long-term human survival would be possible.
And so if being pacifist in the face of human aggression is harmful to human survival, then the case can be made that pacifism is in fact unethical.
Violence can be aggression or self defense.
Aggression is unethical and self defense is ethical. The converse: Non-aggression is ethical and non-self defense is unethical.
Not all human lives are worth the same. Mine is worth more to me than yours, and yours is worth more to you than mine. That is a good thing. Embrace it. Defend it. We are not bees, ants, or communists.
I am just making this up as I go, so I don't mean to sound like I think I have all the answers, I am just stating what makes the most sense to me with what little I know right now. Have at it!
Yes... A LOT of wisdom
1) Re “Read joy. Watch joy.”:
I’ve just finished reading “Calculated Chaos” http://www.amazon.com/Calculated-Chaos-Butler-D-Shaffer/dp/1595263497 and, oddly enough, it brought me joy. I felt it had so much positive-ness for myself or for any individual to pursue, and joy in the learning as well. And I’ll be re-reading it for clarification on some points.
(Sunni, did you ever have that interview with Butler Shaffer?)
2) I’m not sure I understand the question of self-defense. We recognize violence/evil/aggression when we see it and respond accordingly. Then it is over. It doesn’t become a habit, it is a last resort; like Destry in ”Destry Rides Again,” we use responsive violence (self-defense) only when pushed to extreme. I, too, hope never to confront that issue, but... IF necessary, no guilt and no hesitation.
3) “Curiosity and wonder are the same as joy”.
Amen! Nothing is so [humanly] life-affirming as seeing or feeling something about to be discovered. Knowing you are on the brink of a physical, intellectual or emotional experience heretofore unknown is a high beyond endurance, and can only be described as unadulterated JOY. Humans alone have the knowledge to appreciate that sensation -- but too often don't recognize it as joy, only as success, or even ego.
Recognition and appropriate response
Alas, Pat, no, I’ve not interviewed Butler yet. My last email to him went unanswered. Despite that hurdle, I keep telling myself to try to remember to contact him well in advance to schedule a chat for sometime in summer, but I get busy and the grey matter doesn’t retain all I’d like it to these days ... I will attempt to re-establish contact with him again after the holidays.
To me, the devilish details lurk in that “respond accordingly”. If we want peace, is a violent response to violence “accordingly”? Sure, being shot to death for walking across a corner of another’s lawn is an inappropriate response; but reasonable individuals can disagree as a situation gets more complicated, e.g., whether shooting to kill is warranted when someone is caught attempting to steal one’s property.
That said, it doesn’t seem to me to be a worthwhile enterprise to try to limn a hard line here: reasonable individuals will have differing values and opinions, and most people may not act in such a situation as they think they might. It’s one of many subjects where heat rapidly outpaces light amongst us.
I appreciate your observations on curiosity, wonder, joy, and success. Yet again the ego can wade in and muddy things.
Two things here..
Out of dozens of potential responses, this one struck me as important first:
In the first place, the only proper self defense response is to "STOP THE ATTACK." If the attacker dies as a result, that is their own fault and responsibility. No ethical person "shoots to kill" - even when presented with a real threat to their own life. One must be in fear of death or serious bodily harm to shoot at all.
But realize that "stop the attack" also means that one must make the most effective, hard hitting strike possible to avert the death or harm the attacker intends. I train long and hard to deliver the most effective, center of body mass hits I can manage - to do the most damage possible... but it is to stop the attack on me or others, not specifically to kill. Some folks have a hard time seeing the difference.
Second, without the threat of death or serious bodily harm, how does anyone steal your property? Does the thief say, "Give me your wallet or I'll be VERY unhappy?" And if they invade your property to steal, can you assume that they are not ready and willing to do you great harm or kill you if you object? I think not.
The invader, attacker, thief and robber has abdicated their right to either life or comfort by the very act of aggression! Whatever happens to them as a result is their own responsibility. They had the choice to mind their own business and leave others alone.
I am NOT a victim!
Positive energy
Sunni, although I have not fully mastered the art of "eating joy and speaking happiness", I learned long ago to avoid and ignore those who are wrapped up in anger. Life is simply too short to waste my positive energy trying to counteract people whose major form of energy is negative. Life is also too short for me to fall into the temptation of succumbing to anger in myself (and, yes, I know how good it feels). This is not being a Pollyanna, it is staying focused, creating value, building happiness, keeping true what you find most important in life. I think there's also a connection here to the key concept of span of control: those who wallow in anger usually are focused on things outside their control ("the government", "the culture") instead of things inside their span of control (starting a business, writing a book, making music, raising children, strengthening networks, learning new skills, and the like). Or so it seems to me. :)
Thank you, Saint.
You have framed this beautifully for me; thank you very much. And, in so doing you’ve highlighted the flaw I’d missed in the Pollyanna label—trying to walk that path can be anything but simple and easy. Also, span of control is a vital element that often gets overlooked (particularly when one succumbs to anger).
Fantastic
This is such a great reminder, and comes at such a great time. Thank you, Sunni.
I know that once I get into a funk, EVERYTHING is wrong, nothing is positive, and there isn't anything anybody can do (except me, and my little brain) to make it better. I think this is an excellent opportunity to try to initiate a good sort of change in my life.
Much love, hon.
-The Wolf