Of Cruelty

This is of particular interest to me because it is my #1 demon. As a child I realised that there is no problem more fundamental in the world than cruelty. People can be ignorant and careless, but when they see what they have done they regret it. The problem it seems with cruetly is that it is done in the full knowedge that it is wrong, and the wrongness is even the attractive feature. Realising that such a possibility existed, a genuine motivation to do evil (rather than it being a superficial matter of mistake) radicalised my childhood morality.

Radio 4's "Leading Edge" last night carried a section on a new book 'Cruelty' by neuroscientist Kathleen Taylor. I despair even more of neuroscience after what was said. Cruelty was analysed as a function of group memberships - it seems that the analytic tool I've been using to discuss the motivation behind progress, wealth and happiness is alive and well in the professional analytic world to. Well after that analysis I know even less about it than I did before. Does this mean that Abu Graid was a good thing or a bad thing? Because the prisoners were from an "out-group" the American soldiers were stimulated to behave like this... so will human's always behave like this to "out-groups"? or do we have a choice? And if we have a choice then why did the American soldiers not use it when faced with "out-group" instincts? Yup we've learned nothing.

I admit it has been a difficult analysis for myself also. But let me express what I realised many years ago and probably needs updating.

A situation of cruelty is one where someone (a perpetrator) inflicts suffering on another (the victim). Objectively the victim suffers. From their point of view the suffering should stop. An objective person will be sensitive to this and want to stop the suffering. The perpetrator then realises that they have the power to stop the suffering and objectively they would.

In doing this however the perpetrator realises that they have the power to start the suffering also. Thus what was initially a stop contains in it a start. What was from the position of the victim an imperative to stop the suffering, becomes from the position of the perpetrator a definition of power.

What I have described as "objective" - the Law which states that suffering is bad and should stop - becomes perverted by the Ego when it separates itself from the victim. For the perpetrator it is no longer a Law which states that the suffering should stop - but a Law in Your (the victim's)world. "I" the perpetrator am free from your world now and am a Law unto myself. I prove this in having the power to start or stop my punishment of you, and in my rejection of the Law of your world which tells me to stop.

Thus the action of cruelty involves an absolute movement of Ego to cut oneself off from the Other. It is an act of Alterity. If you have ever experienced this it is frightening because you realise that there are no rules anymore - you genuinely can do what you want. Thus perverted Kingships have "enjoyed" unchasened violence in the past - people of the likes of Vladimir the Impaler and others.

So what encourages the Ego to absolutely cut itself off from the world around and in so doing divorce itself from responsibility to others, and in so doing open up the possibility of glorification in violence and suffering in others? It is the possibility of a Real Self.

In our hearts we know that our existence is at best mediocre. We have to compromise and take "shit" from other people every day of our lives. It comes to a crunch in which there are 3 possibilities.
(1) The most primative solution is to form an army and fight back. Ultimately this means to inflict suffering on those who have woed us. There is one word for this solution: America. It involves picking up a gun and blowing people away, or tying them up in dungeons and torturing them. This way is death of others: we are free of them.
(1) The more advanced solution is the internalisation of (1): just roll over and die. Suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or end them. For Hamlet both options were personal death: we are free of them.
(3) The most advanced solution achieves freedom but no-one dies. Inflicting death is stupid anyway because eventually it will happen by itself. Its a bit like taking revenge on someone by scratching their car only to see that it was on a conveyor belt towards crushers anyway. The advanced way is to realise that the "self" is the victim of a thousand ininquities during life, and that it is going to die anyway oneday, and that it will get old, and really its clapped out. If we can divorce ourselves from ourself - not in an act of violence but simply gently forgetting - then all of the above is no longer a problem...

Once the self no longer craves control and power over the world around it. Once the self no longer accumulates the sufferings imposed on it by others. Once the self no longer calculates the actions of others as violations of itself. Once the self no longer seeks to correct these iniquities by inflicting them on others. Once the self no longer glorifies its power over others. Once all these things have come and gone: then we are neither wronged against and we neither seek to wrong others.

I see the children of today and realise that since my day as a child the world has worsened a lot. Kids openly talk about Revenge these days; I doubt I will ever hear of forgiveness. Kids openly demand Respect these days: but I doubt I will ever see them freely give respect. Kids openly talk about Revenue these days: but I doubt anyone will ever see a penny from them.

Each of these belongs to a person who has bought himself. Little does such a person know that this self he has bought is due to die soon of its own natural causes. This self looks nice in its packaging, but stripped naked it is a fragile and ugly creature. Stripped further it is full of worries and insecurities and weaknesses. Stripped further there is nothing there. Yet given the quality of the product the fool still buys himself - choses the prison of this one small person rather than the palace of the world outside.

So firmly prisoned up inside ourselves we start to accumulate the slings and arrows of the passing fortunes that really we have almost no control over. Some are lucky, some not - it is pure luck. If we are walled up in an unlucky prison then woe on woe! We seek to protect the prison, we seek some power with which to enforce our own emprisonment. How dare the world try to turn me out of my prison. Eventually I may find a situation where I can attack the people in other prisons. See in their eyes the suffering that I have been feeling. For a moment the suffering seems to be outside me and I am as long as they are suffering free from pain. I have control and power over them, I am no-longer victim, I glorify the freedom from Others and the suffering that has brought.

But it is lonely in space. And, in space living things die. This illusion of freedom is onec again death.

The only true freedom is to escape the prison. And this reminds me of teh first thing I ever gave my muse to read. Sitting in that cafe in Piccadilly staring at her pretty face as she scanned the words she smiled and nodded and looking starry eyes at me she said 'I know what you mean'. I thought she really did. I'll dig it out. Maybe it'll make more sense to me now.