Go back to "Christianity" | Contents | Continue to "Laughter"
"Imitation has no natural brakes in a being without an innate pattern of behavior."
"The ancient Greeks discovered the true source of aggression."
In spite of many writers dedicating pages to the subject of aggression, there is still confusion about the origin and nature of aggression. In his book On Aggression, Konrad Lorenz wrote: "Summing up what has been said in this chapter, we find that aggression, far from being the diabolical, destructive principle that classical psychoanalysis makes it out to be, is really an essential part of the life preserving organisation of instincts." This contradicts another idea of Lorenz's, stressed in the same book, that humans are "specialists in non-specialisation," opportunists. By definition, opportunists cannot have an instinct of aggression.
Freud, after having based all his specific works on instincts at the end of his life wrote the following: "The theory of instincts is, so to speak, our mythology. Instincts are mythical entities, magnificent in their indefinitiveness. In our work we cannot for a moment disregard them, yet we are never sure that we are seeing them clearly."
But what is even more confusing, is that most books that supposedly deal with human aggression, deal in fact, with animal aggression. They conclude syllogistically that as animals have instincts of aggression, and as humans are animals, humans therefore also possess the instinct of aggression. Some authors go so far as to claim that aggression is beneficial because it ensures peace and order in the human community and because it succeeds in ensuring peace and order in the community of "hens and ducks in Norway."
Even if these writers could establish some similarity between human and animal aggression, they still have no explanation for gang aggressions, for human social and international conflicts. In the animal world the fight is usually between individuals.
Here I must stress again that in the animal world, particularly in intra-specific conflicts, there is more of a ritualized game, or even an elegant dance, than a real fight, the game being composed of the threat, the display of strength, the submission, or the flight of one of the antagonists. Flight is the general rule in nature, with fight as the exception, occurring only when flight is impossible. Lethal intra-specific fight is an accident, even between carnivorous predators.
In Man and Aggression, Ashley Montagu was right when he stressed the following: "It seems rather hard on animals to project the failings of mankind upon them, and to blame them for having bequeathed those failings to us."
I must add, however, that there is some similarity in behavior between domestic animals and humans. They are both dependent and insufficient beings. Like humans, domestic animals must have originated from the omega individuals of their species. With domestication an animal enters an artificial environment, created by humans. In artificially created environments domesticated animals become opportunists. Pavlov's theory of conditioned reflexes could have never been valid with a wild dog or a self-sufficient wolf. Pavlov's dogs, in their nonself-sufficiency, have no choice but to adapt themselves, to accept the game of conditioned reflexes imposed on them by those upon whom they depend for survival.
The same game of conditioned reflexes is valid with humans when they are reduced to the level of Pavlov's dogs, when humans find themselves completely dependent on an authority for their survival. The game is over, however, as soon as humans, or dogs, are no longer dependent for survival on the authority who plays the game, or when life is in immediate danger. Pavlov's dogs lost their acquired conditioned reflexes after their lives were threatened with the sudden flood of the river Neva. Conditioned or indoctrinated humans will do likewise when faced with a catastrophe.
To behaviorists, the aggression of a human being, as any other human behavior, "is controlled by genetic and environmental histories," we read in About Behaviorism by B. F. Skinner. This is a very useful theory for man who likes to blame external circumstances for his capricious behavior.
The extreme difference between the biological and sociological, or the ethological and psychological approach to human aggression is due, in my view, to an aggressive approach to the problem of aggression. One has the impression that aggression is one of those subjects with the power to inspire extreme attitudes in those who decide to study it. One of the most curious of these extreme attitudes has been achieved by a school of writers who explain that there is no intra-specific aggression in the human species because the aggressor does not usually consider his victims as human beings. By this theory, the Nazi's extermination of the Jews and Slavs cannot be considered an intra-specific aggression. Nazis did not consider their victims as human beings.
The confusion in the field of human aggression is also caused by the fact that most scientists do not deal with man and woman separately, and above all they do not separate Homo sapiens from man in the woodlands or man in the savannah. According to the majority of writers; the human species in the savannah was aggressive simply because modern man is aggressive.
In my view, there are two different aggressions: natural or rational aggression, and supernatural or irrational aggression. The former can be offensive and defensive. Offensive aggression is found in male animals in their intra-specific fights for sexual selection, and in their inter-specific fights, their protection of the species. Defensive aggression is found in all animals, and in human females. Natural aggression is based on instinct. Supernatural aggression is caused by the mind and its creations, beliefs, self-infatuation, and arrogance. This typically man-made aggression started with the discovery of the mind. This aggression is unique in nature. It has no limits or rules. It is unpredictable.
Man is not aggressive by nature, he has no instinct of aggression; man is aggressive by supernature; supernature puts man in conflict with reality. Any actualization of the mind, individual or collective, produces aggression.
How and why did man's mind become the source of his aggression?
In order to understand the origin of man's aggression more clearly, I must go back to my definition of abstract thought. I repeat that the ancient Egyptians rightly placed the source of abstract thought in man's heart, and the ancient Romans in pectore, in the chest. In the New Testament (Luke) it is written: "Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." Abstract thought is, in fact, a wishful thought. Here we must ask ourselves again that important question: what inspires wishful thinking in man?
Man is an incomplete being. Being incomplete, man is vulnerable. In his variety of incomplete organs man always has one organ which is the most vulnerable, locus minoris resistentiae, which, when it breaks, kills life. This locus of least resistance, varies from man to man. An incomplete being is permanently aware of his most vulnerable spot. This spot dominates the rhythm of the entire life of an individual.
This vulnerable spot in man is the source of his wishful thinking. Somewhere in man's brain his weakest spot is registered. This registration in man's brain inspires and shapes abstract thoughts, ideals, ideologies, and political or religious attitudes.
How does this registration in man's brain of his locus of least resistance inspire and shape his abstract thoughts?
The only way a weak organ can: in the selfish way, the protective way. Man's abstract world of ideas is nothing but the protective shield for his weak spot, for his vulnerability, his chief weakness. This protective abstract world, being a wishful thought, is built to impress, thus creating an attitude of superiority, a superiority which leans on arrogance, the source of man's aggression. Whenever man's personal world is in contrast with the official ideologies, beliefs, or customs of society, he is in danger of facing breakdowns, depressions, or mental disorders.
The collective ideas of a gang, the source of the collective aggression, are of the same nature as the ideas of an individual; they are constructed around the weakest spot that the members of the gang have in common.
The mind's aggression could only have been discovered by an incomplete animal whose weakness and vulnerability meant more to him than the preservation of the species, and whose self-preservation, after the discovery of the mind, became a question of the mind.
Given the fact that abstract ideas have been constructed around the weakest biological spot, and given the fact that these spots vary from man to man, we have a variety of abstract protective ideas, a variety of ideologies, therefore a variety of aggressions in male humanity. This variety of aggression is evidence that the human male has no instinct of aggression; with an instinct of aggression there would be uniformity in the aggression.
When confronted by danger, man is a most unpredictable animal. With an instinct of aggression the behavior of an animal is predictable when in danger.
The main evidence that man has no instinct of aggression is that he has no innate technique of fighting. He has to learn how to fight or flee by imitating other animals. If he has not learned a technique to face it, man either panics or faints when confronted with danger, or enters into a state of stupor.
An animal has natural signals of aggression, which he displays when confronted with danger, trying to appear bigger and more impressive. A man shrinks when confronted by danger, trying to reduce his vulnerability. Man's signals of aggression and their display are his cultural achievements.
Another proof of man's lack of the instinct of aggression is that he has no naturally built-in safeguards to prevent him killing his own species. Any natural instinct of aggression is accompanied by a natural brake in killing its own species. Animals have "appeasement gestures," signals of submission which they respect. Men have no natural appeasement gestures, and even those agreed upon by signing international conventions are not respected by either the stronger or the weaker.
All scientists agree that the main object of the instinct of aggression in nature is the defense of the young. As far as the human species is concerned, this applies to woman but not to man. During air raids mothers protect their young while the men either panic or remain in an abulic or indecisive state. Darwin should have noticed that man has no instinctive aggression, or instincts for the preservation of the species, when he described in his notes of 4-7 September, 1833, how the Indians of Argentina, confronted by Spanish invaders, escaped in a panic "neglecting even their wives and children." Besides, throughout history, man has sent his sons to war to fight for an abstract idea.
Another instance showing that man's aggression is not part of his nature, but of his mind, is that an animal is never aggressive when safe and satiated, while man is often the reverse. The more satiated he feels, the more aggressive he becomes. His aggression can be influenced also by alcohol and drugs. Man is also the only animal who fights out of boredom.
Man can even turn aggression into a virtue. In some places it is a compliment to call someone aggressive.
The metaphysical origin of aggression can be deduced by its synonyms: militant, self-asserting, pushing, etc.; all products of individual or collective wishful thinking.
Man possesses another peculiarity created by his own mind: he is the only animal to gamble, to gamble his own and other people's lives. No other animal gambles; it is contrary to the logic of nature. Gambling is the attitude of an incomplete being who has nothing to lose and nothing to defend but his self-infatuation.
In the woodlands man separated from the apes because he was not aggressive. In the savannah man was in a state of neoteny, an exploratory phase guided by curiosity, which excluded aggression. If man had been aggressive in the savannah he could not have developed that exceptional increase of his brain.
Evidence that aggression stems from beliefs and self-infatuation is that there is no aggression in the mental illness known as "mania in circular psychosis," where the mind is incapable of fixing itself on a belief or of building something lasting around an idea.
Further proof that the source of man's aggression is in his mind is that aggression can be aroused by provoking the mind with propaganda, demagogy, suggestions, or hypnosis, or even with music. Psychological warfare plays an important part in an war. Primitive tribes who, being nearer to nature, therefore nearer to an instinct of aggression if it existed. need to perform war dances in order to acquire an aggressive spirit.
That man's aggression is in his mind can be determined by the fact that it can also be influenced positively or negatively by appropriate decorations or uniforms.
History offers evidence that the worst acts of aggression were acts of madness or folly. In his Questions sur les miracles, Vo1taire stressed: "La fureur de dominer est de toutes les maladies de l'esprit humain la plus terrible."
Much aggression is caused by man's so-called "spirit of adventure," Man is the only adventurous animal, the only animal capable of being guided by illusions. An adventurous instinct would be contrary to the logic of nature.
The main instigator of aggression in history is the motto of human male beliefs: "Who is not with me is against me." This motto comes from the mind. It is the mind which established who is the enemy.
The worst type of aggression, such as wars and revolutions, are always fought for an idea or a belief.
Further evidence that aggression is dictated by man's abstract beliefs is that aggression increases with any change in beliefs.
The main sources of human aggression are racial, religious, and political prejudices. These are all created in the mind.
Jealousy, envy, moodiness, maliciousness, spitefulness, enmity, resentment, revengefulness are all states of mind, and are all sources of aggression.
Torture is another characteristic of the human species, and further evidence that aggression originates in the mind. Throughout history the torture of man by man has been committed in the name of an idea. Increase in the creativity of the human mind increased the perversion of torture, which is proved by the many torturers who possessed artistic minds.
Self-torture is another peculiarity of the human species, a product of the mind.
Major evidence that human aggression is a creation of man's mind, is the fact that it can be arrested or controlled by stronger aggression. Faced with admonishment, man changes his mind. Lenin was right when he said: "Terror is a method of persuasion."
The fact that aggression increases in societies where it pays to be aggressive, and vice-versa, is proof that it originates in man's mind, the mind of an opportunist.
Many writers insist that man was, and is, a hunter and a killer by nature because of his "killing imperative." In Spengler's Man and Techniques, we read the following: "The beast of prey is the highest form of active life. . . ." "The human race ranks highly because it belongs to the class of the beast of prey. . . ." "The life of a man is the life of a brave and splendid, cruel and cunning beast of prey. He lives by catching, killing, and consuming. Since he exists he must be master."
In Bertrand Russell's Authority and the Individual we read: "The old instincts that have come down to us from our tribal ancestors - all kinds of aggressive impulses inherited from generations of savages. . . ."
If man were a killer and hunter by nature he would never have become omnivorous.
If it is true that man is a beast of prey he would never have started agriculture or the domestication of animals.
The human species is the only species in nature to have mercenaries-professional killers. These killings are not dictated by any instinct of aggression but by calculated interest.
Depression, also, can induce aggressiveness and aggression. Depression is the state of mind of a pretentious adolescent whose conceit is far superior to his abilities. It is the state of mind of a narcissist in front of a crooked mirror.
Man considers a moral offense a reason for aggression. But man has no instinct of offense which triggers off the instinct of aggression. Offense stems from self-esteem. A Corsican kills his sister if he finds her in bed with a lover in her own native village, but he is able to live "with dignity" on her immoral earnings in Paris. In Sicily most killings are dictated by the idea of honor.
Honor has nothing to do with instinct. One source of human aggression is fairness, a sense of justice. But these are the human mind's creations and vary throughout peoples and history.
Many books have been written, trying to prove that one of the main sources of aggression is frustration, frustration caused by crowds.
What is frustration?
Frustration is nothing but self-infatuation in front of a mirror of reality. Man is frustrated in a crowd because his idea of himself is offended by reality. He is not frustrated, however, by being part of an even bigger crowd at a reception at Buckingham Palace or the White House. Man is frustrated when working in a crowded shop or factory, but seldom when he is dancing in an even more crowded night club. Man is never frustrated by the crowd that is applauding him, carrying him on their shoulders, or running after him in search of his autograph. He only hates crowds that do not flatter his self-infatuation. The human species is by nature a gregarious species.
Some people attribute the crime and aggression in big cities to overcrowding. But what about overcrowding in Moscow where often one room is shared by several people? This crowding does not breed crime and aggression. The people know that aggression will send them to the savannah of Siberia.
Some writers claim that density of population leads to increased aggression. Overpopulated areas such as Holland, Belgium, and Israel boast less crime than underpopulated areas such as Corsica or Sardinia.
In my view, humans are frustrated and irritated, therefore aggressive, if they think that they deserve a better position than that in which they find themselves. Essential conditions for this aggression is that someone else is in a better position. "Indigestion is never caused by what you eat, but by what other people eat." This old Spanish proverb describes a source of aggression in the human species.
Starting with J. J. Rousseau, many writers claim that civilization has increased aggression. But there is no connection between civilization and aggression. Civilization gave us the Rolls Royce to travel in, but we were not prepared to accept it merely as an instrument of transport. The mind discovered that it was a status symbol which became the source of two aggressions, the aggression of those who owned it and the aggression of those who did not.
Any physical pain causes hurt and rage, therefore reaction. Any animal will react spontaneously to physical pain.
But what about man? Does physical pain trigger off his innate reaction?
Man's reaction to physical pain is dictated by his mind. Fanatics of ideas or beliefs will stand any amount of torture or pain. Man will even put up with pain without reacting, if his mind is satisfied that the pain is for his good, but he will not forgive a slight push if it destroys his self-infatuation. A man's reaction is far more aggressive if his beliefs are hurt rather than his skin.
That the source of man's aggression is in his mind can be determined by the following syllogistic reasoning: There is evidence that animals only kill their own species when they are forced to live in an unnatural environment.
There is also evidence that mankind kill each other.
This must mean then, that the human species lives in an unnatural environment. In fact the human species lives in a supernatural world, an abstract world governed by abstract thoughts.
Man populated his world with all manners of art in order to feel less isolated in the universe, and to embellish his abstract world. He has even gone so far in his self-infatuation as to prefer abstract beauties to natural ones.
Filling his world with statues, portraits, and artificial creations of his mind, man has convinced himself that he is superior to nature. It is in this conviction that we find another source of aggression. Art is the instigator of aggression.
Man also populated his world with pets. By reducing animals to his dependence, man was able to assume a feeling of importance, a man-made feeling. In nature there are no preferences, everything is equally important. The human search for importance is another source of aggression. Politicians must know this better than anyone. Their ultimate aim is to reduce the people to being their pets.
Perversion, too, is a source of aggression.
What is perversion and why is it peculiar to humans? Perversion is excess.
What creature can reach excess? Only an incomplete being in search of completion.
In what activities can excess occur? Excess can only occur in imitation, the activity of a being whose aim is to be like another. With Homo sapiens, with the development of the mind and its imagination, the step from being the same, to being better than other beings was short. Man forced the imitation beyond the imitated. This brought him to perversion. Imitation has no natural brakes in a being without an innate pattern of behavior.
The ancient Greeks discovered the true source of aggression. They describe it in their myth of the birth of Athena, their goddess of war. "Zeus himself," explained Hesiod in his The Theogony, "gave birth from his own head to owl-eyed Tritogeneia, the awful, the strife-stirring, the host-leader . . . who delights in tumults and wars and battles." . . . "The master of craft Zeus alone bore her out of his holy head," explained Homer in one of his hymns. In Pindar's verses we see the consequence to the harmony of the cosmos, caused by her birth, in the following lines: "At the stroke of the bronze-heeled axe Athena sprung from the height of her father's head with a strong cry. The sky shivered before her and earth our mother too."
In Homer's Iliad we see how the idea of war came only from the head of Zeus. "The Sir of gods and men. . . said to Athena, 'go at once into the Trojan and Achaean hosts, and contrive that the Trojans shall be the first to break their oaths and set upon the Achaeans.' This was what Athena was already eager to do, so down she darted from the topmost summits of Olympus."
Plato in his Cratylus said that Athena is "mind and thought."
In Homer's "Hymn to Aphrodite," the power of Athena is evident. "All creatures in heaven and on earth pay homage to Aphrodite, but with Athena her power disappears."
In Aeschylus' Eumenides we read Athena's own words: "No mother bore me, in all things my heart turns to the male, save only for wedlock, and I incline wholly to the father." Athena, the goddess of men's aggression, is therefore the daughter of a father. She had no mother.
The Jews, too, knew the real source of aggression.
"The Lord is a man of war," we read in Exodus.
Who is the Lord?
"Thou shalt not kill," the Lord commanded, this omnipotent Lord who was a creation of the human mind, and therefore knew the human mind. Would the Lord have commanded humans not to kill if it was in their instinct? He knew that the source of killing was in people's minds, and He knew that He could manipulate the human mind. To give evidence of His power, He ordered Abraham to kill his son Isaac for His sake. By his behavior Abraham not only showed that killing is dictated by the mind, but that the mind and its abstract beliefs are superior to any instinct, including the instinct to preserve the species.
Go back to "Christianity" | Contents | Continue to "Laughter"
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com