Q – Is violence always inherent in us?
Violence is the manifestation of a character trait of the embodied individual, as those particular genes are activated in his DNA which can more easily lead to a violent reaction. From this perspective, the question asked can only be affirmative.
This, however, does not mean that the individual must necessarily manifest himself in a violent manner in response to every adversity: the violent manifestation can be unleashed only following particular stimuli, just as it may not manifest itself at all in the absence of adequate stimuli, or the demonstration can be repressed by external conditioning (archetypes social), not canceling it but often ending up turning it towards sé themselves rather than outside themselves.
Finally, but this happens quite late in theevolution of individuality, can be transformed in its manifestation in a way that can hardly be recognized in its connection with violence. To give an example, the “turn the other cheek” is a transformation of that type, in that the violent reaction that could follow what the person was subjected to is manifested in a completely different way and made, in some positive way. It was, as they said some time ago, transformed into a gift.
- Readings for the interior: every day a short spiritual reading of the Cerchio Ifior and the Cerchio Firenze 77, up Whatsapp and Telegram.
- Summary of the philosophical teaching of the Ifior Circle: HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES PERSONAL REALITY, you can order here the book. If you're reading this and want support, write.
Q – Can it be managed through growth, the evolutionary path, understanding?
I really believe that it can only be like this, as on the other hand happens for all the elements that contribute to determining the personality of the embodied individual.
Q – Among the various mechanisms that lead to violence, how does murder fit in?
Io I imagine it as the terminal part of an emotional peak beyond all control. But this, in my opinion, does not mean that it is always easily attributable to real violence as it is commonly understood; just think of the cases in which the murderer pre-orders the murder, or the apparent emotional coldness that seems to be displayed by certain murderers.
In these cases many of the characteristics that accompany violence do not seem to be found (for example physiological alterations within the individual). This may mean that the emotional peak holds within the individual the turbulent energies that lead him to commit the murder (and this makes that individual extremely dangerous, as the emotional peak is not vented so that he can easily repeat the homicidal behavior ), or that the murder is the terminal, only apparently with a violent genesis, of an emotional peak which in reality has predominant characteristics different from pure and simple violence (for example an emotional peak connected mainly to resentment, or hatred and so via) which has its outlet in homicidal action.
D- Psychological violence Is it always negative?
Here we should make several distinctions. First of all, it should be clarified that it is negative for whom: for those who do it or for those who suffer it? For those who make it, the attribution of negativity or positivity must refer to the intention with which it is implemented: the connotation of the violence with which the mother reacts in seeing her child in danger is certainly not comparable to that of someone who stabs out of jealousy another person.
For those who suffer it, it is often difficult to understand from the outside how negative it really was: it is not uncommon for even the most brutal violence to lead, in the long run, to positive effects for the understanding of the person who suffered it, for example for the having personally learned how much pain and suffering can be caused to others, predisposing her not to commit the same actions.
I believe that to this question I should have simply answered that it is not possible to provide a general answer, but that the answer varies from situation to situation and from person to person. But sometimes I like to complicate things for myself!
Q – When is there real psychological violence?
When, consciously, you force another person to submit to what you want at that moment without worrying about what the other person's needs and requirements really are. That is, when one's own selfishness manages to subdue the selfishness of others by exploiting their weaknesses and fragilities.
Q – Is violence against oneself always positive?
Even in this case it is difficult to generalize the answer: sometimes violence against oneself is positive because, for example, it indicates taking into account the effects of one's own violent reaction on the people who could suffer it; other times it becomes negative when it is the consequence of a repression on oneself implemented to hide and try, perhaps, to appear very different from what one is internally.
Q – Is it right to say that, like aggression, violence is also a tool and therefore can be used positively or negatively?
There's no doubt about this, and this is the reason that made me state in previous answers that, in reality, it is difficult to be able to give a generalized answer to this type of question. Georgei
Interesting, thanks.
Bed. Every manifestation is subject to the law of ambivalence. This makes us understand once again how little moral systems based on dualism are able to grasp the existential relevance of such attitudes.