This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Spread a viral thought of peace.
I believe one way to create peace in a society is to evolve retaliation in a society into something else.
In other words, teach a (wo)man to teach how to fish - or rather, teach how to stop retaliation - and teach how to teach different kinds of people to stop retaliation.
If we can evolve retaliation into a learning experience for everyone involved in the matter at hand, instead of a violent or otherwise harmful act, I believe this will solve more problems than it creates; But there are some problems:
What preventative measures can we take to stop the retaliatee from taking advantage of the non-retaliation?
How do we prevent society from becoming weak, physically and mentally?
What other potential issues does removing retaliation from society cause?
Is removing retaliation from society even necessary? Why? / Why not?
Frans Kellner 100+
Things differ for instance whether it's a personal or a common affair to be solved by society.
As I understand it any victim that is subject to crime is part of it also.
Best thing to do in any case is to look at oneself or for the community to investigate what in its organization needs to be adjusted or tuned to prevent negative behavior.
Crime is born out of fear for survival. This can take many forms and have many faces.
With so called primitive tribes it could happen that a woman was stolen or a few animals or a man was killed by another tribe. This had to be settled with enough gifts to satisfy the aggrieved party to avoid aggression and the risk of war.
This for instance is a model for retaliation in that any perpetrator has to compensate for any damage that was done and has to be forgiven after that.
A school kid that bullies his classmate is a different story but based on the same principle. It is trying to survive in the best way it is able to. The boy or girl feels threatened and insecure which can be alleviated by putting this feeling on someone else. The feeling of power from it compensates for the overall confusion. Here is certainly something wrong in the way responsible adults have set up and organize institutes and society.
To look at oneself and learn from bad things is prime but second is to correct things that already went wrong. Exclusion in any way isn’t the answer, inclusion is. Love and attention are mostly the hardest needed and the least given to any perpetrator. That’s why things escalate and hardens at both sides, the good and the bad. Labels are used to make this clear as this makes it easy for both parties to play their roles.
To conclude I will add: crime isn’t normal, it is symptomatic for a sick society.
Michelle Rosenthal
Michelle Rosenthal
griffin tucker 10+
i did a few google searches trying to find a study of anti-vilification on an individual's level and couldn't really find anything that wasn't to do with law - in other words, there's so much saying what shouldn't be done, or one will get punished for it. this is basically delaying reconciliation and as a result furthering vilification and causing other problems on the way.
Vivienne Eggers
I make the ancient references as 'law' as we know it stems from 'Natural Law' and this essentially the assertion of human rights. These are intrinsic anthropologically for the ordering of societies - agreed rules and norms that respect individual rights asserted so we may live together. Tribally organized matriarchal societies had also - including Aboriginal Australians - and these were very sustainable and advanced - understanding multi-direction impact and relationship with environment and others as a collective part of Earth. This understanding was retained and diluted in post flood scriptures but subverted for political control.
Sanket Gupta
Thomas Jones 100+
Thomas Jones 100+
Amirpouya Ghaemiyan 50+
in one of the TED talks -a music was played by Raul Midon- with the name "peace on earth" - there is a sentence that I love it : ..... a peace that worth the cost of war.
Peace should be a holly thing and lovely one - and we should start by ourselves !
if we love peace and have a respect for it - we`ll make an invisible wave that influence others.
parents` behavior to children is not enough. especially when they pretend and they don`t believe in it.
I think it`s the most think we can.
and in politician i think we can do this not by censoring the media as usual -!- but by introducing the heros , the peaceful ones.........
griffin tucker 10+
dave meslin also mentions that there is no one single hero, but a real hero is a group of people: http://www.ted.com/talks/dave_meslin_the_antidote_to_apathy.html
Debra Smith 200+
griffin tucker 10+
how would you teach the mothers to teach their children this?
is it even the responsibility of the mother?
what if the child has not been taught any other choice except for violence or harmful acts to be a means of passing time or even survival?
i don't know the answer to any of these questions myself, and i don't expect any one person to have all the answers either. with a collaborative effort, perhaps the answers can be found.
Debra Smith 200+
The best way to teach the parents is through social input like movies where stars demonstrate the actions in a moving emotionally impacting way.
griffin tucker 10+
Michelle Rosenthal
griffin tucker 10+
i think you're right about offering more opportunities to help others.
sometimes people take advantage of those who wish to help - which often deters those from helping in legitimate circumstances. sometimes the opportunities are there, and people are just blind to it. sometimes helping someone isn't viewed as being socially acceptable - even in cases where it actually is deemed socially acceptable.
these issues need to be addressed.
i think a documentary movie on how to spread and apply the idea in practice would be great!
perhaps it doesn't actually have to be a movie but instead a short youtube video?
Thomas Jones 100+
I don't think "anti-vilification" is necessary. I think remembering what the "villain" represents would be a better approach. [The villain is not an external enemy but an internal psychological propensity.]
griffin tucker 10+
i don't think everyone interprets that the villain in movies to be an internal psychological propensity, but instead some people may interpret vilification as a reflection of real people in their life. i don't think this is healthy. i could be wrong, though.
i would prefer to see a study that explores the affects of anti-vilification in practice through a means of already-existing evidence - if existent - if not, then i think a study should be undertaken.
Thomas Jones 100+
Yes, that is, more or less, my point; we have lost the "symbolic" meaning of the villain.
Have you read, "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell?
If not, I recommend it.
griffin tucker 10+
from what i've gathered about it, Joseph Campbell has influenced many people who are themselves a great influence on people - including Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, George Lucas and Janelle Monáe.
i'm not sure of the relevancy in today's or future society, though - with the advent of the internet in it's current form and instant communication developing our (human's) minds in a different way. then again these monomyths have survived for thousands of years, if not longer.
what i want to find out is if a change is developing in society, and to me it seems to be, where upon some traditional norms - implied from the past or otherwise - are being replaced by something different - especially when it comes to attention spans:
my and next generations below me seem to have much shorter attention spans - in a world where there is vast amounts of information, compression of information is often preferred, where loss of information can and does occur.
one way to 'fix' this loss of information would be to 'fix' the attention span, but to me it seems to be necessary to adjust the quality/compression of information to suit the attention span - for instance, a 15 minute TED talk.
although there are exceptions, i am not an exception to the attention span rule, and i honestly don't mean to offend you, but i don't quite have the mind-set to read books - i have probably read at most 5 books in the last 5 years from start to finish - and i most certainly didn't enjoy the format.
any relatively extremely large amount of text to be read seems quite daunting to me, probably due to reasons of fear of waste of time - however irrational it is or may seem - so i prefer the use of popular internet services that not only promote direct-relevancy and compression, but in many cases require it.
again, please don't take offence - this is simply my honest mind-set on the matter.
Thomas Jones 100+
I take no offence from your comments. Most people do not read books. And most people have not read books.
If you learn what you need through the internet or 15 minute lectures that's what you should do.
Personally, I find I need to read and write about something before I actually understand it. I also draw pictures of some of the material I find significant. That's what works for me.
It is hard work (in no small measure because I am dyslexic) but I like to learn and that's what it takes for me to learn.
So if you can learn what you need to learn to "spread a viral thought of peace" by reading a synopsis of Campbell's work, that's great (and a time saver!) But if you find you "need more" to get your message across, I do recommend reading a book or two (maybe more.)
Three I would recommend (should you decide you need them) are:
- The afore mentioned The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
- Anything on "memes" (Like: Virus of the Mind by Richard Brodie.)
[Avoid books by Gardner]
- Anything on influencing people (Like: Influence The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini.)
---
Another option is to do what Gandhi did: Be the change you want to see in the world and see what happens. It worked for him.
Michelle Rosenthal
Michelle Rosenthal
Vivienne Eggers
Your comments on retaliation take the position of 'turn the other cheek'. It is a complex situation that comes back to two areas - the threat to life you speak of (fight or flight) and this basic instinct is actually a worthy reaction - so it would not serve personal balance to remove the instinctual response (or retaliation) because a human makes response to return their being into a stress balance model through fight or flight - whichever is appropriate.
It is ideal to work on preventative diplomacy and take the holistic route - attempt to identify the 'risk' and take remedial action/s for resilience survival.
Assuming this has not happened - then we are back to retaliation or not (and then of course what action). This is where we go into that bully bystander and victim analogy. On societal level - if the 'victim' does not retaliate - the bully tends to continue, prolong and increase the abuse. Those apathetic - bystanders often become complicit - join in (packing) or do nothing - and even in the school yards, victims have lost their lives. Consider the Buddhist monks outside their temples in Tibet and in Cambodia - being shot in cold blood. Is it peace building to ignore the plight of others who are weak and vulnerable? Retaliation needed in some way. So we have laws for enforcement - responsibility to protect. Retaliation. But what type of retaliation is a matter that can be explored - and alternative 'softer' solutions may be effective.
To choose 'not' to retaliate is often the position of people (including myself) desiring middle path reason. But abuse perpetuates.
South African 'Reconcilation' is another scenario of 'retaliation' that is peace bringing. In many cases victims of heinous crimes turn the other cheek.
griffin tucker 10+
i don't actually wish to take the position of 'turn the other cheek' - although i don't actually have a solution as yet, so perhaps this solution of 'turn the other cheek' could simply evolve further. as well as practicing non-harmful communication, i'm looking for a way to 'infect' the aggressor's mind with not only an idea of stopping further harmful acts, but to further spread the idea to other potential aggressor's minds from the once-aggressor. if it can be done in a few sentences, it would be ideal.
in terms of the fight or flight model - with the advent of technology and requirements of higher brain functions, fighting or fleeing, although would seem like a good idea at the time, could actually end up doing more harm than good, especially in the long term. as for the stress balance model - technology has already created different real and artificial stressors in our life, i'm not saying this is good or bad, but it has definitely had an affect on the stress balance model already.
in the bully, victim, and bystanders analogy - if one of the bystanders knows of the hypothetical (at the moment unknown) idea, but the victim doesn't, how is it possible to not only stop the process of bullying and/or retaliation, but spread the hypothetical idea to all parties involved from the position of the bystander?
if abuse still perpetuates, then there has to be a better idea than simply turning the other cheek, it's this idea that i wish to find.
Vivienne Eggers
I was actually referring to basic human behavioural attributes. Fight or Flight is the term given to the most inherent Instinctual reaction that is hard coded into human dna. The human is confronted or impacted by a threat. Immediately the instinctual behavioural response is to evaluate the situation, assess the risk for severity and then quickly make the decision which of the two actions is best to take - evasion or confrontation - both are neural adrenal reactions and do not involve a lot of intellectual evaluation or assessment other than summation of the situational facts. Regardless of how evolved, intellectually sophisticate and how much technology has changed the facade of society - humans always revert to core bahaviours and this is as said before at the crux of mortal life in our species.
So it is not a model I am suggesting - it was a statement I made that by definition retaliation is a 'confront' behavioural attribute - that makes it a 'fight' response. How and why that person chooses to 'fight' has a lot to do with their personal make up, their conditioning and their perceptions on the world - which equate to adaptive and resilience traits - nurtured for quality of life and survival.
One of the key considerations for 'fight' and how that person chooses to 'fight' is cultural and childhood conditioning. For example, if a child's environment is a crime infested ghetto in a large city - their 'learned' responses will be quite different to a child who has grown up in a Buddhist monastery.
Turning the other cheek is the 'flight' side of the equation. It may mean reciting the bible or singing a song but the response is to not retaliate (fight). People may choose not to fight because energy expended outweighs benefit gained from fight
Adriaan Braam 20+
Could this be a read that might give some insights? It is a book about our spiritual side (the real us). In this chapter it talks about the Law of Retaliation.
http://www.swedenborgstudy.com/books/H.Lj.Odhner_Spiritual-World/sw20.htm
Vivienne Eggers
"The same law rules in hell: whatever an evil spirit has of peace, decency, order, or comfort, he has by an external compromise with others, by letting them alone if they let him alone, by cooperating with them so far as they cooperate with him. But each devil maneuvers to turn this law to his special advantage. He does not really recognize the "rights" of others, only his own. He wants more from others than he gives them. He twists the moral law out of balance. So he does evil to others, accusing them of doing evil to him. And he claims the right to visit on them revenge for what they do to him. The heavenly law is thus turned into the infernal law of retaliation, which demands evil for evil, stripe for stripe, a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. This is the law of hell, and also to some extent the law of civic society on earth.
And this is permitted in hell. An evil spirit is not punished for retaliating to the exact extent of the evil another did to him. The trouble is that the evil spirit does not feel satisfied with any law. He wants to go his enemy one better. He wants to exact two stripes for a stripe, two teeth for a tooth! And the law of infernal justice is renounced for an endless chain of growing provocations.
But the law still stands. If a devil does evil towards another beyond what that one has done to him he is immediately open to punishment or persecution from all quarters, and those who punish him do so with impunity — and enjoy this to the full
Thomas Jones 100+
For example, we could simply practice (and remind one another to practice) the Golden Rule.
Or we could "be nice" to each other and those we interact with (whether or not they "measure up" to some ideal we hold to be virtuous.)
This is a good one: "Spread a viral thought of peace."
----
For the most part, research has demonstrated that fear-arousing communications usually stimulate the audience to take action to reduce the threat. However, this general rule has one important exception: When the fear-producing message describes danger but the audience is not told of clear, specific, effective means of reducing the danger, they may deal with the fear by “blocking out” the message or denying that it applies to them.
- Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin, and Robert B. Cialdini. [ From: “Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive”]
griffin tucker 10+
of course in almost any act of aggression, the aggressor is not usually inclined to want to talk about preventative measures, but instead the instincts of removing the possible threat altogether are in thought and often occur.
i don't have a perfect solution of how to stop the thought from becoming action in terms of retaliation - other than a preventative measure thought process that spreads from the victim to the aggressor, and then from the once-aggressor to other potential aggressors.
Thomas Jones 100+
One way thought processes spread is through verbal communication - although action and behaviour are more effective at sending a message.
---
"Our best evidence of what people truly feel and believe comes less from their words than from their deeds. Observers trying to decide what a man is like look closely at his actions. What the Chinese have discovered is that the man himself uses the same evidence to decide what he is like. His behaviour tells him about himself; it is a primary source of information about his beliefs and values and attitudes." – Robert B. Cialdini
---
But still, learning to communicate, using words, more effectively might help.
Marshall Rosenberg has a nice little book that offers some useful skills; it's called Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (9781892005038)
---
We could combine those two things: Act in a way that is consistent with conciliation; and speak in a way that promotes peace.
That might be something as simple as giving a small "symbolic" gift, instead of "retaliating" when there has been a real, or perceived, transgression of some kind.
griffin tucker 10+
the quote you mentioned by Robert B. Cialdini i would tend to agree with in more cases than not. it would seem that there is no universal rule for dealing with any particular situation because we're complex beings by nature.
i believe time is an important factor; how is it possible to condense the idea of non-harmful communication into a few sentences? perhaps it doesn't even have to be words - as you say, a simple symbolic gift could work wonders for peace - if understood correctly by everyone involved.
what would be an example of a universally recognised symbolic gift?
Thomas Jones 100+
Why would it not be morally acceptable?
But, more importantly, it (behaviour) is happening whether it is moral, intended, or even conscious: Unless we are dead, we are always engaged in action from, how quickly we respond on a public forum, to our facial expressions and body language when we communicate face-to-face; and from our awareness of cultural norms, to our business practices and our purchasing decisions.
These, and many more actions speak "louder than words."
QUOTE: "i believe time is an important factor; how is it possible to condense the idea of non-harmful communication into a few sentences?
There are many greetings, currently employed, that convey peaceful intentions in a single word: Namaste, Salam, Peace, and the like.
QUOTE: "what would be an example of a universally recognised symbolic gift?"
Symbols are agreed upon by those who embrace them so it could be anything: a flower, a piece of fruit, a cup, a photograph, a flute, anything. It only needs to be recognized by those giving and receiving it.
griffin tucker 10+
if action and behaviour are indeed much more effective at sending a message, then what kind of non-harmful action and/or behaviour can promote peaceful communication in a potentially volatile or already volatile situation?
i grew up in a culture where this very notion wasn't taught to me from my teachers at school; i'm not sure if it is today, but if it isn't, i believe it should be.
that being said, it has to be taught in a way that would be interesting and relevant - but perhaps this is off-topic.
John Locke
griffin tucker 10+
retaliation can work like a snow-ball, until wars develop. we're at the stage where if retaliation continues to happen on a larger scale, the end of the human race and possibly even earth itself would be at an end. not intending to sound alarmist, but i'm talking in terms of dust in space.
the idea here is to create an idea of how to solve a problem - any problem - without an act of aggression. acts of aggression still occur today, so if it's possible to talk someone into putting down their stick, even if it means after they've used their stick, this is a method of preventing the very possible eventual annihilation of earth.