'Everyday' Violence

[Bies]

This is a great topic, and one I was hoping there would be a thread on.

This is something I have often thought about in my personal life, as my occupation is a personal fitness trainer, and furthermore, a boxing instructor.
I competed when I was younger, and though it made sense then to spar all the time because you have to prepare properly to fight, I know often find myself having internal debates about whether sparring (I no longer fight and haven't since age 19) is something I still want to do.

I don't think I need to justify it, as I have attributed the doubt to a case of being overly critical, and I am sure many of you (less inhibited in your thinking than I by means of easier objectivity through disassociation) will reach the same conclusion I have; to hone, centralize, and control the violence in your life through the practice of sport is a healthy means of balancing something that in essence in a calmed down version of a behavioural pattern that prevents mankind from progress.

I do abhor unnecessary violence, but a thought struck me last night as I was taking off my headgear after a hard sparring session in help to prepare one of our fighters for his match next week. In essence we tame, conquer, and fight ourselves not others when we partake in combat sport.

Thoughts?

[Benemal]

There was a long period, when I was somehow sensitized to violence in games and movies and I felt sorry for the virtual victims. I felt anxiety, if i tried to play violent games, including mild sort of violence, like in a Japanese rpg. I think this was connected to the awakening of buddhi. I was afraid, that playing violent games implied a secret desire to destroy. Now that I'm aware that's true, I can enjoy blowing shit up again, without guilt and doubt. Also, the beastly rage inside must be balanced. If I giggle, when I blow up people into a bloody mess, what's that about? Because in a real situation, I would try to help victims of violence. A game is a pretty safe tool for self-reflection.

[Insanus]

I mean it on pretty much on all scales. What I say is of course hard to prove by any fast means, but here is one good article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 26723.html

I don't want to sound like a banal cynic, but I think that article really makes some big bluffs with the numbers, not to mention that it sort of freaks me out to see "growth of human soul by the numbers". It's been less than 100 years when our modern civilization managed to kill 1/40 of all people living on the planet in 6 or so years. 500/100.000 (in the article) would be 0.2/40, right? I don't understand why that 0.8 won't count only because they're not "battlefield deaths"; they're deaths because of human violence anyway. The death of 40-50 million civilians in the WW2 proves that there's less violence? Also, "the rate of genocide deaths per world population was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008.", please! -.- Wow, that's a great sign! No more violence!
And while it's probably true that people accept rape & torture less than before, the reason is not necessarily brave new human acting out of compassion, but also out of fear & alienation which won't be a lasting cure. /apocalyptic vision.

[Wyrmfang]

I mean it on pretty much on all scales. What I say is of course hard to prove by any fast means, but here is one good article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 26723.html

I don't want to sound like a banal cynic, but I think that article really makes some big bluffs with the numbers, not to mention that it sort of freaks me out to see "growth of human soul by the numbers". It's been less than 100 years when our modern civilization managed to kill 1/40 of all people living on the planet in 6 or so years. 500/100.000 (in the article) would be 0.2/40, right? I don't understand why that 0.8 won't count only because they're not "battlefield deaths"; they're deaths because of human violence anyway. The death of 40-50 million civilians in the WW2 proves that there's less violence? Also, "the rate of genocide deaths per world population was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008.", please! -.- Wow, that's a great sign! No more violence!

Of course that article is full of dubious passages, it is a very popular and not very scientific article. On the other hand, if I had posted some scientific articles on more precise themes with more precise arguments, someone convinced of the overall contrary view could say " Hey, this just a minimal improvement in one minimal field; overall the things are just the opposite!". I also understand that it provokes negative reactions because of the classical Dawkins-like atheist undertone.

And while it's probably true that people accept rape & torture less than before, the reason is not necessarily brave new human acting out of compassion, but also out of fear & alienation which won't be a lasting cure. /apocalyptic vision.

Actually this sounds a bit cynical. Humans have always been and will always be far from perfect, yet there is always also (especially hidden) perfection in all the impurity. Majority of people always act from impure if not from unequivocally bad motivations. If this leads to despair, there is always also (negative) pride operative.

It is impossible to prove in the strict sense what I´m claiming, even by an extensive scientific analysis (it is always about probabilities in the human level, not even to mention the societal level), but I think for an occultist there´s a practical necessity to believe in moral progress of mankind. At least if people won´t believe in it, then it certainly won´t happen.

[Sebomai]

but I think for an occultist there´s a practical necessity to believe in moral progress of mankind. At least if people won´t believe in it, then it certainly won´t happen.

This subject is not outside the purview of my interests, I have been following the discussion. But it is very far out of the purview of my expertise. I've no knowledge of the subject or the studies at all. While i do believe there are people who know this kind of sociological material quite well, and also the philosophical aspects it entails, I am not one of them. If I were to speak on the levels of violence in modern society compared to centuries or even decades ago, even years ago that I remember very clearly, it would all be meaningless conjecture on my part. But fra. Wyrmfang brings up the above quoted point I'd like to comment on.

I try very hard to be as rational as an occult-oriented spiritual person and Satanist can be. I feel that many people would find the word "rational" incompatible with every single descriptor following it. There are a few areas, however, where I do not follow strict logical rationality, but I feel my refusal to do so is also rational. This is not a comment directed towards anyone else here. This is purely for me and how I feel and live my life and what the best way for me to do that is. And basically, even if all the evidence presented to me suggests that I be cynical about things, people, the world, life, what have you, I attempt to force myself to reject the evidence or at least the conclusion that cynicism is the proper response for me. Fra. Wyrmfang points out an excellent rational reason for this in that quote. We need to believe in improvement or evolution or we're just spinning our wheels and spewing empty air. And for me, personally, not only am I a much less effective and happy human being when I am engulfed in cynicism (again, this is all my feelings about my own life, not anyone else, whether cynical or so optimistic it is naive) I am actually a significantly less GOOD human being. If there is no point for me to be good because no one else is and, let's face it, it's all going to turn to (pardon my language) utter shit anyway, why bother? And that leads to why be an occultist, or why even be decent and sacrifice myself for the good of others? "They wouldn't do the same for me, screw 'em." And then, if I followed that now, like I have in my past, I'd be a selfish materialistic nihilist. That's how it goes for me. So if there is a mountain of evidence suggesting it is perfectly rational for me to be cynical and untrusting of all, I reject it for the, to me very rational, reason that it undermines my personal life and goals to be cynical and untrusting. I don't want to live that life, so I make myself aware of the reasons for being that way, the evidence, so to speak, and then move on without letting that evidence dictate my emotional state or behavior. I can still remember those facts that say watch out for this and watch out for that, and if a situation seems fishy, I can call upon that knowledge and use utmost caution. But if my internal warning bells are silent, I will proceed on a basis of trust and the optimistic belief that humanity as a whole and as individuals is heading somewhere, somewhere better, somewhere slowly and staggeringly but surely away from all this discussed in this thread that breaks hearts and makes so many wish to just give up.

[Insanus]

Actually this sounds a bit cynical. Humans have always been and will always be far from perfect, yet there is always also (especially hidden) perfection in all the impurity. Majority of people always act from impure if not from unequivocally bad motivations. If this leads to despair, there is always also (negative) pride operative.

It is impossible to prove in the strict sense what I´m claiming, even by an extensive scientific analysis (it is always about probabilities in the human level, not even to mention the societal level), but I think for an occultist there´s a practical necessity to believe in moral progress of mankind. At least if people won´t believe in it, then it certainly won´t happen.

You're right. It's also more or less completely useless to prove it in the strict sense & that's probably what aggravated me to post such an answer. That people believe it's possible & want to work to make it possible is far more important than whether or not things will "really" get better ever. It's about the choice we're willing to make because we are willing to make it & not because the analysis has shown so.

If there is no point for me to be good because no one else is and, let's face it, it's all going to turn to (pardon my language) utter shit anyway, why bother?

Amen & just because. There's no use for an answer. If there's one thing that matters when nothing matters it's this one.

The choice between despair & love is of course not something in which a correct answer can be clinically proven. It's always possible to ask whether claims about fear & alienation are just a projection of one's own fear & alienation which it of course is, on one level or another, but on the other hand the individual is also a reflection of the whole generation/civilization as a whole.
I've felt like it's better to despair than to be optimistic in a sense of just believing that it's all going to get better. Perhaps because cynical despairing has a beauty of it's own in that there is no other answer to it's endless whine & angst except Love & so, like hatred, despair has it's own purifying katharsis in it's dishonest honesty.

I think things are "worse than before" in many ways, but in all things negative there are seeds of new progress. Or better even; the new negative signs are actual proof there has been development. There would be no alienation & fear if people wouldn't be alone & if they're not alone there's no individual strife & responsibility. But now I'm drifting away from the original topic.

-

My interest in watching violence has more or less disappeared: I have become too bored to enjoy it, which I think is a positive sign. Violent video games &/or sports are sort of different thing from violent TV-shows & movies, because the former exercises some sort of skill & therefore the actual violence is not the center of the attention. I believe there are lots of people who enjoy hunting, but don't want to kill animals. Modern violence probably has a lot to do with being too bored and a little to do with actually wanting to hurt others.

[Wyrmfang]

Although the practical perspective is always the primal, as both of you, Insanus and Sebomai, have insisted with me, I think the theoretical perspective cannot yet be dismissed either. Yes, the unconditional duty remains, whatever are the states of facts, but if the facts stubbornly point to an opposite direction with what we hope, then a human being with his limited capacities would become practically unable to act morally. Therefore I think it is far from meaningless to look also to facts, but it should be remembered that the facts are shaped, and in many cases even created by our practical use of will.

[Sebomai]

No argument at all from me, fra. Wyrmfang. My entire point was on the subject of cynicism. In that instance, I feel taking facts into consideration to be aware of them is wise, but not to let the facts determine your behavior or mental or emotional state. Whatever the facts say, we can elect to behave as heartless or guided by heart, selfish and shallow, or loving, wise, and deep. All I was saying is basically agreeing that as occultists if we get too caught up in cynicism, we might as well forget our own goals, because if humanity can't evolve, what makes us think any one of us can will that change upon ourselves? And yet, we see it all the time. In the tiny microcosm of a human compared to the macrocosm of humanity, the changes are easier to detect. I'm not sure just how big a sampling of data would be needed to determine and chart inner self evolutionary changes over all of humanity but I suspect it would stagger most computers. But I do find this discussion fascinating. Whether we are more or less violent is one of those subjects I feel free to hold back forming an opinion, as my insight is more into an individual's relationship to him or herself, to others, to the cosmos, and to the divine. Psychology leading up to a sort of Spiritualized Psychology, as opposed to determining the masses of humanity's relationships to those types of things, which I'd imagine are more Sociology leading up to a kind of Spiritualized Sociology? And there is a healthy dose of philosophy in either approach but obviously different methodologies and goals.

[Insanus]

Therefore I think it is far from meaningless to look also to facts, but it should be remembered that the facts are shaped, and in many cases even created by our practical use of will.

That's very beautifully & cleverly put, though I have to ask are there really other shaped facts than those we have created by our practical (though not necessarily hedonistic & opportunistic) use of will? It's not meaningless to look at facts or to acquire facts or to use facts, but it's irrational to submit to facts emotionally & let them replace something they cannot replace.
I'm not saying you are doing so But that's a new topic to discuss, because there obviously are rational ways to feel like there are emotional ways to think.

[Jiva]

This is something I have often thought about in my personal life, as my occupation is a personal fitness trainer, and furthermore, a boxing instructor.

Actually, half of the reason I started this thread was motivated by sparring for the first time in years; the other half was playing the latest Battlefield game like a zombie.

I don't know what this says about me, but I've always felt more moved by fiction events in books, films etc. than real life, although I suppose fictional events are typically more dramatic and/or serious and are designed to allow the reader/viewer to inset themselves into the situation. Games are another matter, as I often simply play a game such as Deus Ex based on what weapon I happen to find first – whether it's a knife or a rocket launcher – and ask questions of my in-game behaviour later. As Benemal said, perhaps the challenge comes first. However, some completely linear games have presented moral challenges when, after completing a level, I've realised that I've automatically massacred hundreds/thousands of civilians 'for the greater good' with absolutely no skill involved during the process.

Perhaps because of this I never felt the need to rationalise any of the martial arts I did. I just threw myself into it as it gave my life a reason, if that makes sense. Plus, it did have the benefit of presenting an acceptable outlet for a lot of aggression. Although, looking back and contemplating starting serious training again sometime in the next few months has basically made me arrive at something similar to Montesi's wonderfully succinct conclusion.


Regarding humans acting out of the 'impure motive' of fear and alienation, I actually think this is the basic cause for the evolution of human morality. We are basically pack animals through evolutionary necessity, so anything unacceptable to the majority could lead to ostracism and the extinction of the genes that motivated whatever the unacceptable behaviour was; cf. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. This is again primarily from the instinctual perspective, although I think it works well as a conscious, intellectual explanation for social and individual definitions of morality too.