What is violence and aggression?

[Guest Gee]

Protip, how would we know if some state X is preferable to some state Y?

[junglecat]

It seems you're not understanding I am attempting to make a distinction between when something begins and what the origins of something are. For example, the origins of the initiation of physical violence aren't punching and kicking. The origins are feelings of wanting what another has or mis-perceiving a non-existent aggression or threat of violence. Physical violence begins when the punch is thrown or the leg is kicked, or whatever other physical action takes place which acts upon the desire.

 

That makes no sense at all. What one person does (or even does not do) might be misperceived by another as aggression. It is the misperception of non-existent aggression or coveting what another has which leads to aggression.

 

You (and Girard) are wrong about that. There are many such desires that are not mimetic in origin.  Supposing that all desire is mimetic in origin is just as much an error as supposing that no desires are mimetic in origin. If something I see, hear, smell, taste or feel brings me pleasure, it is not because I see, hear, smell, taste, or feel someone else enjoying it. Once I experience the pleasure, I will want to experience it again... such is the nature of the experience of pleasure. I will naturally desire that which I find brings me pleasure, regardless of whether anyone else appears to desire it or enjoy it.

 

This is not to suggest that imitation isn't a very powerful, or even a dominant influence on our desires. It's simply not the only one, and it may not be the dominant influence for all. Furthermore, recognition of and rejection of the imitation of desires of others short-circuits the tendency toward covetous and allows other, internally sourced mechanisms to play a greater role in one's desires... (I enjoy _____ music because it appeals to me, not because it appeals to those who are powerful or influential, or wealthy, or whomever I might admire for their abilities or accomplishments.  I desire _______ sort of house because of how I feel in such a place.  I enjoy ______ food because it appeals to my particular tastes, not because such an such a person say I ought to. I enjoy doing and desire to do _______ not because ______ does it, but because I enjoy how it feels to do it and the results of having done it.  etc. ) Such desires do not generally originate conflict because there is no rivalry or competition.

Sure, there are a lot of mimetic desires which will hardly get you into a conflict. This has to do with internal as opposed to external mediation. I love Mozart but as a model he is too far from me to get in a rivalry with him. Plus, mimetic desire is different than plain imitation. A mimesis could very well be doing the opposite of what your rival does, or rejection of what he does. 

 

You may feel you desire a kind of food simply because of how it makes you feel. This is learned. The pathway that got you there may be very convoluted but you can be sure it's mimetic. If it isn't, it's animal instinct. Desiring water because you're thirsty is animal instinct. Buying an aquifer is mimetic desire. 

 

Do you know Don Quixote? There are great examples of external and internal mediation in that novel. 'El curioso impertinente' is a perfect example of internal mediation. Don Quixote and Amadis of Gaul a perfect example of external mediation. 

It seems you're not understanding I am attempting to make a distinction between when something begins and what the origins of something are. For example, the origins of the initiation of physical violence aren't punching and kicking. The origins are feelings of wanting what another has or mis-perceiving a non-existent aggression or threat of violence. Physical violence begins when the punch is thrown or the leg is kicked, or whatever other physical action takes place which acts upon the desire.

 

That makes no sense at all. What one person does (or even does not do) might be misperceived by another as aggression. It is the misperception of non-existent aggression or coveting what another has which leads to aggression.

 

You (and Girard) are wrong about that. There are many such desires that are not mimetic in origin.  Supposing that all desire is mimetic in origin is just as much an error as supposing that no desires are mimetic in origin. If something I see, hear, smell, taste or feel brings me pleasure, it is not because I see, hear, smell, taste, or feel someone else enjoying it. Once I experience the pleasure, I will want to experience it again... such is the nature of the experience of pleasure. I will naturally desire that which I find brings me pleasure, regardless of whether anyone else appears to desire it or enjoy it.

 

This is not to suggest that imitation isn't a very powerful, or even a dominant influence on our desires. It's simply not the only one, and it may not be the dominant influence for all. Furthermore, recognition of and rejection of the imitation of desires of others short-circuits the tendency toward covetous and allows other, internally sourced mechanisms to play a greater role in one's desires... (I enjoy _____ music because it appeals to me, not because it appeals to those who are powerful or influential, or wealthy, or whomever I might admire for their abilities or accomplishments.  I desire _______ sort of house because of how I feel in such a place.  I enjoy ______ food because it appeals to my particular tastes, not because such an such a person say I ought to. I enjoy doing and desire to do _______ not because ______ does it, but because I enjoy how it feels to do it and the results of having done it.  etc. ) Such desires do not generally originate conflict because there is no rivalry or competition.

Could you give an example, hypothetical or from history, of 'misperceived' aggression?

[dsayers]

you're saying if there is a reasonable expectation of an action transitioning a person to a preferable state then it is not violence or force?

Strawman.

[Guest Gee]

Strawman.

 

lol

[junglecat]

lol

He is funny, isn't he? What is it they say- 'Don't feed the trolls'?

[EclecticIdealist]

Sure, there are a lot of mimetic desires which will hardly get you into a conflict. This has to do with internal as opposed to external mediation. I love Mozart but as a model he is too far from me to get in a rivalry with him. Plus, mimetic desire is different than plain imitation. A mimesis could very well be doing the opposite of what your rival does, or rejection of what he does.

I have familiarized myself with and understand the difference between internal and external mediation (bad terminology on Girard's part, in my opinion). You say you love Mozart, but is it Mozart you love or the music he wrote? Would you love to write music as well as he did to the point that you're actually attempting to do so? If not, then I question the validity of the assertion that Mozart is providing a mimetic model for you. The point is, a mimetic model is directing your actions whether to imitate or exceed, or to the exact opposite (as some are wont to do in the case of parenting they are seeking to rebel from). It's not unlike the non-conformist who dresses exactly the opposite of societal dictates, just like everyone else who is "non-conforming".

 

You may feel you desire a kind of food simply because of how it makes you feel. This is learned. The pathway that got you there may be very convoluted but you can be sure it's mimetic. If it isn't, it's animal instinct. Desiring water because you're thirsty is animal instinct. Buying an aquifer is mimetic desire.

The desire for a particular kind of food can be mimetic, and may be early on; however, as a person individuates from their parents and siblings, their food choices will be less mimetic and more in line with the physical senations and subconscious nutritional prompting, and largely the content of pleasure inducing substances (such as carbs, salt and fat triggered by the body's evolutionary process of identifying calorie rich foods and rewarding their acquisition and intake). Yes, some are particularly susceptible and subject to mimetic modeling for food that is advertised to them (especially young children), and some are particularly resistant to imitation (still subject to mimetic modeling, but in a contrarian way). My point is, not all behavior, not even a majority necessarily (though it may be a majority for some) is mimetic in origin as Girard suggests.

 

Could you give an example, hypothetical or from history, of 'misperceived' aggression?

I am referring to misperceived non-aggression... such as when a driver reaches for their wallet and a police officer misperceives the action as reaching for a weapon. I am referring to a child playing with a toy in a manner to recreate a scene viewed from a TV program while taking care not to damage the toy and a parent misperceives the action as an intent to destroy a sibling's toy. I am talking about recreational hikers who accidentally (or intentionally, but without malice) cross an international border and are perceived by the local military to be Western spies. I am talking about someone who makes an inept and innocent attempt at humor and it is interpreted as an insult. In short, any time one person's actions are mistakenly perceived to be aggressive when such intent (whether conscious or unconscious) never existed.

[junglecat]

I have familiarized myself with and understand the difference between internal and external mediation (bad terminology on Girard's part, in my opinion). You say you love Mozart, but is it Mozart you love or the music he wrote? Would you love to write music as well as he did to the point that you're actually attempting to do so? If not, then I question the validity of the assertion that Mozart is providing a mimetic model for you. The point is, a mimetic model is directing your actions whether to imitate or exceed, or to the exact opposite (as some are wont to do in the case of parenting they are seeking to rebel from). It's not unlike the non-conformist who dresses exactly the opposite of societal dictates, just like everyone else who is "non-conforming".

 

The desire for a particular kind of food can be mimetic, and may be early on; however, as a person individuates from their parents and siblings, their food choices will be less mimetic and more in line with the physical senations and subconscious nutritional prompting, and largely the content of pleasure inducing substances (such as carbs, salt and fat triggered by the body's evolutionary process of identifying calorie rich foods and rewarding their acquisition and intake). Yes, some are particularly susceptible and subject to mimetic modeling for food that is advertised to them (especially young children), and some are particularly resistant to imitation (still subject to mimetic modeling, but in a contrarian way). My point is, not all behavior, not even a majority necessarily (though it may be a majority for some) is mimetic in origin as Girard suggests.

 

I am referring to misperceived non-aggression... such as when a driver reaches for their wallet and a police officer misperceives the action as reaching for a weapon. I am referring to a child playing with a toy in a manner to recreate a scene viewed from a TV program while taking care not to damage the toy and a parent misperceives the action as an intent to destroy a sibling's toy. I am talking about recreational hikers who accidentally (or intentionally, but without malice) cross an international border and are perceived by the local military to be Western spies. I am talking about someone who makes an inept and innocent attempt at humor and it is interpreted as an insult. In short, any time one person's actions are mistakenly perceived to be aggressive when such intent (whether conscious or unconscious) never existed.

I love Mozart the man, and his music. I read biographies, critical analyses, musicologists. Ironically, I am fascinated with the imitative aspect of his music as well. I think a large part of his success was his fantastic capacity to imitate. He is a model for me. A musical and cultural hero.  It's not necessary for me to have a drive to write better music than Mozart to see that it's mimetic. And he was a very funny and good natured fellow!  Current favorites: concerto for two pianos in Eb K365 and the Coronation mass in C.  And all his operas are very telling. Although he was not a librettist he had a lot more to do with them than you might think.

 

Sure, there are basic biological reactions to food, but this falls under the category of instinct. You can call it whatever you want but it's a drive that is more or less homogeneous to the species and not particular to the individual. Instinct is important, no doubt, but it is mimetic desire that drives all culture, politics, religion, and yes, even philosophy. I know I would probably get a lot of kick back from some here to suggest there are fashions in philosophy- but there are!

Christianity is based on the fundamental revelation of the innocence of the victim. Christ set off a chain of imitations that is changing the entire world. We are at the point in history where many can't even recognize how ingrained this change has become.

[Guest Gee]

He is funny, isn't he? What is it they say- 'Don't feed the trolls'?

 

Virtue signaling I think. Sorry for the thread spagetti, short version is I agree with OP, to call the (libertarian) definition of force/violence muddy is an insult to mud.