Do You Think That All Human Aggression Is In Self-Defense?

Nor I, but I'm sure we both follow the allusion.

 

Which isn't to say I doubt your capacity to produce a whole in one.

 

In an allusion or an integer?

 

The former.

 

You know... When you two guys start your back and forth stuff I just scroll right by.

 

Well, we know now anyway. lol Thanks for sharing.... But wait! Do you think all human aggression's in self-defence?! :-D

 

Scroll.... Scroll... Scroll...



No, actually there are many levels of aggression, and self-defense is not aggression. It is defending oneself.


Most aggression is out of fear.

 

The above people may have used self defence as a bad excuse.

On the other hand I don't even know where you're getting your information.

 

It's okay. To read and write brings things to mind however. Scrolling right by leaves a blank.

 

We can say all we do is for self preservation/extension. I think the word aggression has emotional connotations for some as though it were an act out of place. i think we would do well to give up the idea we are a special case energetically. As a state of matter we move by virtue of three things, absorption, reflection, and polarity.

Posited levels, i.e. there are many levels of aggression, raise a level of difficulty in apprehending the world. The world is not so hard to understand when you use your powers of distinction
To tell one thing from another and answer the question what a thing is for.

 

See, the theme of the thread over here is that of human aggression, violence and how to end it. It was in that context that I wrote what I wrote.

With respect to your above statement, let me state that wars and battles are also fought with egoistic fortitude too.

As Marshal Foch stated, " The will to conquer is the first condition of victory. "

In this fragile age of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and growing terrorism, thus egoistic fortitude as a state of mind, is not an option at all for those who are interested in keeping peace and prosperity in the world. Thus one should explore other superior states of mind and consciousness to operate upon, rather than the earlier reactionary mindset which can topple the present world down like a pack of cards.

Does accumulation of knowlege need an egoistic self to do so ! One memorises much, much better without an egoistic self and the mental faculties are in a better state of health too. Probably such a one would have to do much lesser work , and lead a well-balanced multi-dimensional life too.

Again, I would like to state here that the theme of the thread deals with human aggression, violence and the state of mind or consciousness that can eliminate this.

Ensuring the survival of the human race in this age through higher states of consciousness, is
what I am suggesting here.

I am aware of the chemist who intuitively discovered the structure of benzene in a daydream. His whole conscious mind was focussed on this issue to the point of exhaustive work, that he received this idea in a daydream , probably filtered from his heightened consciousness.

However to state that the dreaming state is not illusory but real, would be as absurd as stating that sleeping and daydreaming air traffic controllers are in a fit state to function properly in airports.

 

The present alone exists, but it is the human mind that is trapped in time by incessant uncontrolled thought due to desires and cravings. And this creates the ego with its subsequent conflict-prone nature.

 

You said the same thing again.. The mind is not trapped, choose again.

 

Choice itself implies judgement,and judgement means the thinking process is active.

 

Yes there are no idle thoughts. The kind of detrimental judgement you allude to evaluates worthiness. Don't be mistaken we always choose with a guide. The kind of distinction that is helpful is telling one thing from another and determining what a thing is for.

 

It would be equally absurd to state an air traffic controller in a deeply meditative state is fit to function properly at airports. The demands of the job description necessitate an egoistic separation of self from the enviornment, to respond to the external information around them, namely the incoming planes and radio calls.

 

You were framing thought as a culprit which belies pure awareness, yet in regards to the nature of aggression, another theme we have discussed is that there are unconscious factors of aggression at work, which reside below the level of conscious thought. This is demonstrated in Shivaya's post.

This suggests that children act out aggressively prior to much thought and hence ego, are even developed. What are these children acting out of if we cannot attribute their behaviors to conscious thought? We would have to attribute such behavior to "pure awareness" if we are to accept the dichotomy between ego and pure awareness that we have posited thus far. Therefore, I don't see living by such awareness any more beneficial to apply to the circumstances of the age we are in.

 

I would tend to want to replace the word ''pure awareness'' to ''pure instinct.'' I guess in a sense they are the same, but a child will not think about the other child's feeling, the consequences, have empathy for him, or question if weather what he is doing is right or wrong. He will simply find the easiest way to get what he wants, even if that means smashing another child in the face with a etch-a-sketch, for instance.

Just like the snake doesn't feel sorry for the rat.

 

it is the more primitive, less evolved part of the brain responsible for such behavior. i've always thought that fear is a quite useless and destructive emotion. i suppose it has it's purpose to keep us away from harm but the fight or flight response according to scientists served a much greater purpose in more primitive times, and is not so much necessary today. during such a response mental performance is actually quite impaired.

 

I beg to differ here....all children do not act out aggressively...only some do.