– Mahatma Gandhi

Modern psychology generally employs the term, ‘’integrated violence.’’

Without going into very much detail, this broadly refers to the ABILITY someone has to become violent, justifiably, should the need arise (Defending one’s own self, or another, from potentially lethal harm), but never ever engaging in violence otherwise. In other words, self-control, maturity, (moral) education, socialisation, etc… Yours truly does not necessarily agree with words such as ‘’taming’’ especially in today’s attempts at feminising men and boys, and demonising masculinity; we see how in times of crisis, the world returns to praising men and traditional masculinity (COVID-19 style). It therefore is always to be maintained and celebrated. However, that is a separate issue.

Therefore, being ABLE to become violent should the need arise, but otherwise NOT engaging in it, is the hallmark of every mature soul, especially, but NOT limited to, masculine archetypes. Many modern works use Mufasa, from the Lion King, as the epitome and symbol of this integrated violence within one’s character-particularly the scene where he stands on Pride Rock at the beginning of the film, as Zazu flies towards him. The stern look on his face, is immediately contrasted with his smile at Zazu.

Or when he tells Simba he is only brave and fights when he must, before playing with his son, after he has given the hyenas a sound thrashing.

Violence, and the ability to fight, are not in themselves evil or dirty. Like all else, context is key. Food in a plate is nourishment and even artwork. But on your shirt, is simply dirt. Greed is horrible and the cause of many ills, but greed in the acquisition of knowledge, arts and sciences, is salutary and worth striving towards. Anger is a chimera, but being angry at injustice, especially when directed at others and the disenfranchised, can be a fuel for betterment and change. Context! Context! Context!

Same with violence/fighting. Even Gandhi, clearly opposed to it, basically divided it into three, as a cursory look at his works would show- same with Mandela.

It is basically what religion, in its unadulterated form has been saying for 10 thousand years, and is very linked to the emotional state of the individual, intention, purpose, and so forth;

-The non-violence of the strong.

This is a situation where the principal actor is CAPABLE of using violence but unwilling to do so. It is driven by his strong desire for the pursuit of the right ends, using the right means. This is what we are to aim for.

-Violence in suspension

This is a scenario where the principal actor INTENDS and WANTS to use violence but is constrained by external factors, such as witnesses, or fear of prison. Though common, and practically keeps some degree of order in society, this is not truly and ultimately virtuous, since Gandhi shared Aristotle’s conception of the exercise of virtue, as contingent on the act being done VOLUNTARILY, no matter what.

 Like Socrates saying, an unexamined life is not worth living. Similar to Robinson Crusoe, the protagonist in Daniel Defoe’s classic, musing within himself, that, was not committing anything untoward after being stranded on a desert island for over 25 years, because he was moral and disciplined; or simply because there was nobody to test him, tempt him, try his patience, his virtue, etc… So, this is suboptimal, since it is not truly INTEGRATED, but rather driven by external factors, which are subject to change. Many such practitioners of this category should civilization break down due to war/civil unrest, resort to their baser tendencies.

-Non-violence of the coward

This is the form of non-violence where the principal actor is both INCAPABLE of and is UNWILLING to challenge his opponent, due to fear/cowardice. This type of non-violence is but a shield to hide one’s own impotence; a farce if you will. Even misdirected courage, as opposed to cowardice, is preferable, since virtue, in its purest form, is the pursuit of the Good, which leaves no room for the cowardly.

And that is what the opening quote refers to; it is ultimately best to be able to become violent and dangerous should the NEED arise (against the forces of evil, so to speak) than to be a coward, unable and unwilling and fearful to fight when need be, and yet PRETEND to be peaceful. Better to be violent when you feel it, if it really is what you want, since that at least would be more honest, and less cowardly, than to pretend and fake peaceful vibes. Do not hide behind lofty terms to mask your inadequacies.

And many are like this today. Many choose friends and even partners for relationships because they seem ‘’decent’’ or ‘’nice’’ when in fact they are harmless, and there is no virtue in being harmless, like a hamster, or lemming.

Such a person is useless in times of crisis, and those around him when they realise what they thought was ‘’nice’’ was actually ‘’harmless’’ (the third category previously discussed) it is often too late. Repeated disappointment has transpired, and mistrust has developed in the relationship. And they (the harmless ones, masquerading as ‘’nice and decent’’) build up resentment for themselves and those around them. This process, at best, leads to ugliness amongst relations between people, as well as long-term lack of trust; and at worst, actual societal harm (Some researchers have put not all, but a number of mass-shooters, and sympathisers of totalitarian regimes in this category actually; also for several additional reasons), in an attempt to ‘’compensate’’ for these feelings of inadequacy and impotence.

Thus, HAVE the capacity for violence, but BE NOT violent, unless and until absolutely necessary; hence, one embodies the very epitome of self-control, strength, calmness, and reliability-like Mufasa 😊.

Those who mistake this for harshness, are as blind as those who mistake being harmless for being nice/decent-and their views are flawed and do not count. They too must seek to re-evaluate their criteria for interacting with humans, as well as take an introspective look at themselves.

Such individual human maturity, shall lead to a greater societal maturity, as previously discussed in several posts.

“The inauguration of a world civilization such as no mortal eye hath ever beheld or human mind conceived…Who is it that can imagine the lofty standard which such a civilization, as it unfolds itself, is destined to attain? Who can measure the heights to which human intelligence, liberated from its shackles, will soar? Who can visualize the realms which the human spirit, vitalized by the outpouring light of Bahá’u’lláh, shining in the plenitude of its glory, will discover?” – Shoghi Effendi

“Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy —the joy of being Salvador Dalí— and I ask myself in rapture: What wonderful things is this Salvador Dalí going to accomplish today?” – Salvador Dalí

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

― Albert Einstein

Science and Religion and Art, and all fields of knowledge and human pursuits of excellence are laudable and to be respected, as are those who engage in them. They have always been and shall always be in harmony with one another, despite what certain individuals say.

So this modest monograph if you will, is not about disputing that; rather it is about addressing what seems to be going around more ubiquitously today (due to the prevalence of among other things, social media) than before; why does it FEEL worse when an artist commits an atrocity, than when a scientist does?

Clearly it is possible to enjoy the work of an artist, despite atrocities committed. Countless actors, and singers have been found guilty of essentially paedophilia, manslaughter, murder, death by misadventure/negligence (Even Mathew Broderick, Don King, etc…), and others suspected of atrocities such as Michael Jackson, and others who have been KNOWN to indulge in horrid acts for decades with impunity (Bill Cosby, Weinstein, Jimmy Saville who was awarded honours by sports outlets, the Papacy, medical institutions, etc…for his work with sick kids, within radio, TV and sports, it turned out had raped over 400 people, from as young as 6 years old to people in their sixties and even corpses. Remember his catchphrase? ‘’Jimmy will fix it!’’…or something of the sort) Roman Polanski is a convicted paedophile who still wins awards and produces films. The list is endless, no need to continue, lest this becomes voluminous.

The point is, why do people feel MORE betrayed when an artist commits an atrocity, than when a scientist does. Most likely because of several reasons.

As the quotes headlining this suggest (There are SEVERAL quotes from both scientists and artists that are amazing and others that are abysmal. That is not the point. Those two were chosen, partly because in the image are Dali and Einstein), within the attitude of the artist, the starting point is often HIMSELF, whilst with the scientist, the starting point is often the TASK. This is highlighted in their respective quotes.

Still, they both produce truths, and joys, and knowledge, and works that touch people’s souls and minds and enable us to soar towards heights and experience sensations we never knew we could.

‘’Arts, crafts and sciences uplift the world of being, and are conducive to its exaltation.’’ -Bahá’u’lláh

 Again, not a knock on either one or exalting one over the other. Just seeking to understand why people feel more betrayed when an artist is guilty, or even simply accused, than when a scientist is, even though we can and often do, separate the artist form the work (many have no problem consuming Cosby’s works until forever, and that is their prerogative).

So, as aforementioned, one reason is the fact that the artist is very ‘’present’’. Therefore, the consumer feels a closer connection to them. Everyone knows who sang ‘’Thriller,’’ but how many know who invented the Television Set? (Many contributed, but Philo Farnsworth started it) Or the computer which we all use daily? (Charles Babbage pioneered that) Scientists tend to be more distanced from the public, for many reasons, not only because they focus on the topic/task, but the process usually takes longer and seems more ‘’boring’’ and distant/unemotional and uninvolving.

And if the guy who discovered gravity ends up being a rapist, we are still subject to gravity. But if the guy whose song you sang to your kid, or played at your wedding, turns out to be a paedophile, you do feel more ‘’betrayed’’.

Science appeals to everything, but also is more objective, and is in some ways less malleable. Art is more subjective and affects peoples’ feelings and reactions more. Therefore, even though we CAN and often DO separate the artist from the art, the feeling of betrayal can be more than it is towards science. Especially if the artist made an image of himself as a child-friendly, family man/woman.

Personally, I separate the work from the individual because I see the individual as a vessel, through which life, the universe, God, inspires. And any vessel/instrument, if poorly maintained, is subject to decay. Therefore I have no problem enjoying the works, fruits and successes of artists and scientists, even if they have proven themselves to be horrendous individuals; and by the same token, I value their work, and do not worship them as individuals.

Sure, we appreciate and respect their efforts, and condemn their misdeeds. But a useful and good work remains a useful and good work, regardless. With this attitude, I have no issues continuing to relate to the works, no matter what the individuals have done, since they were mere tools and vessels to begin with.

‘’All the existing arts and sciences were once hidden secrets of nature. By his command and control of nature man took them out of the plane of the invisible and revealed them in the plane of visibility, whereas according to the exigencies of nature these secrets should have remained latent and concealed.’’ – ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

But I however understand the outrage; it just seems like those who cannot separate the two, is usually because they put too much importance on the individuals/vessels/tools to begin with. But I understand the sentiment.

A scrutinising look at most ‘’great achievers’’ would uncover anything from misdeeds to downright atrocities. Does this mean the world should deprive itself of all the vaccines, and mechanics, and art, and treatments, and poetry, and films, and songs, etc…? Yours truly thinks absolutely not! And who draws the line that demarcates how good you must be at your craft, for the world to knowingly and willingly ignore your atrocities? Is there a gauge or standard measurement? Who decided it? Not the average person! And how much time must pass before their atrocities are ‘’forgiven’’ and even hailed? (See the post on ‘’time-dependent bias’’).

What they gave to the world, belongs to the masses now. It belongs to you and me. And with the masses they shall remain, and yours truly believes we can draw use from these fruits, guilt-free.

 Their atrocities, however, belong to them, and with them they shall remain. This is the only way to hold them accountable, without clouding the waters of reason and common sense, and without losing what inspiration gave US, albeit through THEM. Nobody is beyond morality. Nobody is above a principle. Nobody is exempt from the judgment of the Golden Rule, however ingenuous they may be.

In the end, aside from the Almighty Himself, EVERYONE is accountable for their thoughts, words and actions. And by the same token, everyone can be inspired to achieve and produce gems. With this in mind, let us all tread lightly along the path of righteousness, including in the pursuit of excellence, in fact, ESPECIALLY then. 

‘’The acquisition of sciences and the perfection of arts are considered acts of worship.’’ – ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

Habit, is roughly defined as the tendency for something to transpire, often and with some regularity, presumably with little conscious thought.

We see habits, or habitual patterns everyday; ranging from our morning routine, to the movement of heavenly bodies in space. Strictly speaking, these are all habits; some more naturally occurring than others, but all habits nonetheless. Even the habitual treatment of hair, makes it grow a certain way; it develops a habit. Everything, and everyone is indeed subject to this phenomenon known as habit.

Perhaps the structures most prone to habit formation, are our neurons. We are aware of the complexity of the human brain, and how it is the most potent and yet little understood structure in the known and observable universe. By the same token, this is also the most adaptable structure, and the most ready to form habits. It can take on new ones, get rid of old ones, and replace both (consequently the best way to break a habit is by replacing it actually).

Therefore, what is a gift is also a challenge: precisely because it can form habits so readily, can we pick up a myriad negative patterns/tendencies, and by the same token, have little excuse for not picking up healthy ones. Since we are going to form habits anyway, our conscious efforts must be geared towards exposing ourselves to situations, events, people, etc., that render the acquisition of healthy habits, optimal.

There are countless ways to perfect the formation of healthy habits; it is indeed a lifelong process. A life of forming good habits, is in itself a habit! 5 practical and daily applications/suggestions could be:

An early start. It is a truism to state that starting one’s day early has more benefits than not. Whatever should be pursued can adequately be pursued, and should the need for changing the course of action arise, there is presumably enough time for this, with minimal need for postponement of relevant activities, since time is literally more readily avilable. The more or less obvious psychosomatic health benefits, need not be discussed at this juncture.

An adequate base. Though none of us is guaranteed tomorrow, and no one knows what life holds, yet to whatever small degree, it behoveth us all to have some sort of ”plan of action”, however modest, or vague this may be. Some are more detailed planners than others (though we all are subject to ”homo proponit sed Deus disponit”), but everyone can have some idea of what they wish to accomplish in the immediate future. This greatly assists practicality and motivation.

In addition, a stable moral life, filled with introspection, structure, and decency, only helps further. As Socrates often suggested how the unexamined life is not worth living, the opposite is obviously true; an examined one props up all the constructive tools for realisation of various goals, major and minor. Strengths become consolidated, and weaknesses are eliminated.

A challenging and realistic routine. Though all these points are interconnected, this may be more directly related to the first. Our routines help us attain whatever goals we have set. Therefore they must not only be challenging and fulfilling, but decently feasible. Life has more than enough obstacles to surmount. Your routine, though challenging enough to steer you closer to your goals, need not be an uphill task in and of itself. Whatever you decide, endeavour to stick to it. Should it be the right structure for your day(s) you shall find out. Should it be wrong, you shall find out and effect necessary changes, sooner than if you do not stick to it. By the same token, go to bed early!

The idea remains to do one’s best in the here and now. Whatever planning for the future happens, should not take away from acting now; a fine balance is to be achieved.

One can further divide the above into a myriad points, but these are the broad basics. In the end, let us keep in mind, as always, that like most things in life, the formation of healthy habits, is an organic process.

“The more we search for ourselves, the less likely we are to find ourselves; and the more we search for God, and to serve our fellow men, the more profoundly will we become acquainted with ourselves, and the more inwardly assured. This is one of the great spiritual laws of life.” – Shoghi Effendi