Too Much Aversion To Aversion A Perversion.

Too Much Aversion To Aversion Kills Prevention.

Anger Sometimes Not Just Best, But The Only Way:

Many people are conflicted about conflicts. They are told conflicts are intrinsically bad, and they should wrought the conflicts out of themselves. Avert aversion, and conspiracy theories, and the world will be yours. This sweetly insipid medicine is central to the plutocracy of the USA, and is repeated at all levels, from family therapists, to (nearly) all the media, to the presidency. “Black” and variously colored youth seem to increasingly disagree with this treatment. It is getting ever harder to swallow, as more and more youth are starting to understand Obama is more Wall Street than ex-disgruntled youth (whom, actually, he never was. Silver spoon is more like it.)

Anger is actually best, when it is the most appropriate attitude. Obama saved the private banks and the careers of the banksters who managed them, but what did he do for Black youth? If not now, then when, and what? Is breaking the necks and piercing with bullets those who disagree the solution, looking forward?

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Look To The Right Of The Burning Police Car: All Obama Cares About Is Trade Deals For His Plutocratic Pets

Obama said it was all the fault of “thugs” who live in Baltimore, not banksters who steal on Wall Street. Don’t bite the hand that feeds…

The problem of the Jews confronting Hitler, is that they did not get angry enough. If they had, maybe the American Jews would have protested the pro-Hitlerian policy of plutocrats and the infeodated government of the USA.

Now we have Nepalis left to themselves, dying without rescue, while helicopters are used to ferry in style 1,000 gold plated “climbers” on Everest (who otherwise would have to well, climb down!). Hey, Nepalis are made to die in the service of the gold-plated ones, whereas the gold plated ones ought not to be expected to walk! In case like that, contempt is minimum service. Anger is more appropriate. And, appropriately enough, Nepalis are getting angry.

Europe, in the past was crumbling under plutocrats and religious fanatics (including Great Britain). So was, say, China. Flowers and smiles did not work. Violence is how one got rid of these predators.

But let’s give a the party of apathy a chance to open its mouth for a minute, or so:


Anthony Biglan, “senior scientist” at the Oregon Research Institute, a “leading figure in the development of prevention science” has helped over the past thirty years “to identify effective family, school, and community interventions to prevent the most common and costly problems of childhood and adolescence”. He uses “prevention science to build more nurturing families, schools, and communities throughout the world.”

Says Mr. Biglan: “The world has struggled with how to deal with others’ aversive behavior for millennia. The fundamental problem is to get people to not respond to others’ aversive behavior with their own aversive behavior because, more likely than not, doing so will simply perpetuate coercion and conflict.”

The way the author has it, aversion causes aversion, which causes aversion… So what caused aversion in the first place? Aversion? It sounds like the chicken and egg problem: the egg gave the chicken, who made the egg… It’s the chicken and egg problem, without the chicken.

The author blames responding to aversion by aversion. He advocates turning the other cheek, quoting Jesus, Gandhi.

But he does not roll out the violent quotes of Jesus, of which there are several:

Matthew 10:34. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Or Luke 19: 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

Or Jesus’ last message to his disciples: He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” [Luke 22:36.]

And don’t tell me I deform Jesus’ message! Jesus threw the merchants out of the Temple. Proof that not only he was physically violent, but that he was some sort of Kung-Fu master, or the like. Yes the best known version of Kung-Fu was invented by the Shaolin Monastery for defense against from bandits around 610 CE (and at the crucial battle to establish the Tang Dynasty in 621 CE).

Jesus knew that turning the other cheek was not the only valuable strategy to bring the reign of goodness. All too often, aversion to aversion brings forth only toleration of abomination.

The Nazis eliminated hundreds of thousands of Germans viewed as mentally or physically defective. (The Nazis had justified this by claiming that Germany’s population had augmented by 50% in 70 years, whereas the mental retards and degenerated specimens’ population had augmented by 450% in those same 70 years; so soon, the Nazis ominously concluded, one German out of four would be degenerate; thus the need to act now; simultaneously the children of Franco-German unions who were not pure white, were sterilized; there were several thousands.)

The Nazis’ plan was to see how little aversion to extermination the population could be trained to develop. After this, they exterminated Poles, and then Jews (many Germans had Jewish, or somewhat Jewish, friends or relatives, so the case of the Jews was most delicate).

But let’s go back to the aversion of aversion.

The author of the quote above, Mr. Biglan, the self-defined specialist of aversion, also quotes Gandhi.

To see his full essay, consult Scientia Salon: Nurture Effect On Caring Relationships.)

However Gandhi, by posing in Hindu clothes, forever, and with Hindu symbols, such as the Wheel, helped to antagonize the Muslims. This boiled over in 1939. As the Indian Congress voted to declare war against the Nazis, Gandhi, who called Hitler “my friend”, and had corresponded with the mass-murdering, war criminal dictator, did all he could, in vain, for India not to go to war against the racist in chief.

In the end, Gandhi had to turn against the Hindus, and for the Muslims. Gandhi recognized Muslims should get their part of the national treasury. He was rewarded for this perceived “aversion” towards Hindus by being assassinated by Hindu nationalists.

Mr. Biglan also evokes Martin Luther King. However, the entourage of MLK was armed to the teeth, with loaded guns: they were not born yesterday.

So the real fundamental problem of “aversion” is how does “aversion” arises in the first place. In general it does because human beings find themselves in adverse circumstances, or because evil tendencies by a few were not opposed early enough.

So it is the lack of aversion to various adversities, as they are gathering momentum, which leads to large scale aversion appearing in the first place.

An example is the Greenhouse Gas Crisis (“AGW”). If not opposed in a timely manner (and that will require some “aversion”), it will lead to large scale misery and war. Also North Korea, soon to have 40 nuclear weapons according to Chinese specialists, ought to looked at with appropriate aversion.

Prevention of the causes of aversion is how to prevent aversion. And the best way to do this is to have terminal aversion to abomination.

Time to value anger, people!

Appropriate anger, that is.

Appropriate emotions are appropriate. There is no emotion which is not appropriate to all and any situation. Full aversion to aversion is perversion.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

21 Responses to “Too Much Aversion To Aversion A Perversion.”

  1. Aaron Greenbird Says:

    excellent Patrice… on ! its seems to me that the culture and worship of ‘celebrity’ is the soft underbelly of the usa…3 min of news on Nepal, followed by almost 10 min of news on this guy who wants to be a woman !….and this soft underbelly will be the cause of this county’s demise….if our Mother, the Earth, doesn’t have Her say before then……oh wait ! look ! another shinny penny ……..!


  2. SocratesGadfly Says:

    Patrice, while telling a simplistic story of the British Raj that somehow ignores Jinnah’s role in partition, isn’t all wrong on Gandhi. Related to that, even if these gentlemen, Jesus, MLK, etc., weren’t perfect, they still stood out above the general crowd, and there’s still things to learn from them.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Glad to not be “all wrong about Gandhi”. I do not have a single complaint about MLK. The mythical Jesus, though, apparently willing to use violence for no good reason, has also things to teach us NOT to imitate. (Although I will be the first to admit that sometimes, violence is the only way: the Nazis, again, providing the paradigm here. The problem with Jesus is that he wants to kill for no good reason.)

      Nowadays, at least 99% of people in the West do not think that killing people just because they are not Christian is justified, so we have got out of the Jesus trance. However, in the Middle Ages, the (“Christian”) establishment thought “heresy” (“exerting a choice”) was worthy of the death penalty. What I reproach to Gandhi was to view the minor problem (getting the British exploitation of India to stop) to be major, whereas obviously the major problem was the 1,000 war, inside India, with Islam.

      Confusing a major problem, and hiding it behind, a minor one, is a primordial cause of aversion. That Gandhi and his followers may only understand when nukes start exploding over South Asia.


  3. brodix Says:


    I’m not having much luck getting through the moderation. Here was the latest attempt;

    “There is an interesting headline in the Times today, about how “The American Psychological Association secretly collaborated with the administration of President George W. Bush to bolster a justification for the torture of prisoners after 9/11, according to a new report by a group of dissident health professionals and human rights activists.”

    Maybe, instead of trying to seek to comfort ourselves, it’s time we take a good hard look at this biological process, of which we are the current apex.

    To biology, the particular forms are quite evidently transient, while we like to consider them, or at least ourselves, as sacrosanct.

    We think of good and bad as some cosmic duel between the forces of righteousness and evil, when they are effectively the basic biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. What is good for the fox is bad for the chicken and no amount of socializing is going to change that. Life consumes itself.

    The real mystery is the source of this conscious animation and it doesn’t seem to be some benevolent father figure. At most it seems we are all animated by some elemental sense of being, of which we are all individual expressions.

    Maybe, if we can start to see ourselves in each other, both good and bad, then we might be able to step back and better assess the situation.”

    Their (standard) response was, “We have decided not to post your latest comment because we couldn’t understand it.
    Please feel free to revise and resubmit.”

    Do you find it incomprehensible?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      If one is trying to publish in Science, Nature, or another advanced science journal, not understanding a paper is a ground for rejection. However, when standing at the edge of philosophy, this objection has to be used with… moderation.
      I have got that objection from SS many times, so I have learned to bring out my junior high teaching skills (although I only taught in universities, ha ha ha).

      Anyway, thanks for the important information on the American Psycho (…) Association: I have a NYT subscription, to have the pleasure to get censored there several times a week, but I missed that one (I miss most, so keep on telling me).

      If “life did not consume itself” something else would have to do it


    • brodix Says:


      My problem is this is the simplified version and if they really truly cannot understand it, as opposed to just rejecting it and using that as a blanket excuse, how did they graduate with a philosophy degree in the first place?
      If, on the other hand, they don’t like the premise, simplifying it further won’t help.
      I am a bit hard nosed about life, having spent my life raising and training horses, which is a world where sympathy and empathy are given out in very measured doses, so I might seem a bit rough for academic discussion.
      I see life as spiritually bottom up, not top down. The essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. So to me, the premise of this particular discussion seems to assume there is some ideal state to which we would reach, if we were just nicer to each other. That is wishful thinking and only obscures the deeper reality.


      • gmax Says:

        Yeah, this Massimo at Sci Sal is like the definition of PC. Seriously not real. And a closet Christian. And he despises non academics. He booted out this mathematician, Schlafi, after a very public row. Still, he is trying hard


        • brodix Says:


          I certainly give Massimo credit for the effort and I tend to think Dan is influencing the editing decisions.
          I wasn’t around for the Rationally Speaking days, as I tend to avoid religiously influenced debates. My spiritual inclinations are more organically bottom up, so I don’t fall in either category of theist or atheist and there is too much polarization to consider alternatives.
          Referring to Massimo’s stoicism, I think the Greek influence and adoption of Christianity is foundational, given it served to replace their year God, cyclical pantheism, with a more object focused monotheism, but the Trinity is effectively an analogy for past, present and future and so does incorporate the seasonal resetting/recycling of nature into it.
          This goes to my argument that western civilization is based on a premise of time as a narrative vector, from past to future and physics even incorporates this by treating it as a measure of duration, but the reality is the changing configuration, the cycles of expansion contraction, within an eternal present, that turns future into past, is what is most overlooked in our modern understanding of reality. Just as we spent thousands of years trying to explain how the cosmos moved in the heavens, before taking into account the motion of the earth.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dan does not have final censorship control. I think Massimo tried to bring more commenters in by being more ferocious with established commenters…. Except for his sacred cows. I know they put labnut comments through instantaneously, while sometimes sitting on mine, for hours (was the case last time). And I got all my best comments rejected, so now I try hard not too be too smart.

            I deplore that they knocked Schlafi out. He had interesting comments, as a research mathematician, which often infuriated Massimo. Massimo did not realize his anger at him was partly that of philosophers and biologists against mathematicians (I am sort of left wing, Schlafi is definitively from a notoriously extreme right wing family, so I am certainly not biased towards his politics!)

            The refusal to consider the motion of the Earth, I clam, was a POLITICAL debate, an attempt to corral minds. As I explained, it’s not coincidence that Guillaume Le Conquerant, who conquered England, obviously considered it likely. He was an iconoclast…


          • brodix Says:


            It does discourage the inclination to engage, when an honest effort to examine the topics at hand are cavalierly dismissed.

            The result is one tries jumping through the political hoops, before even considering the logical ones. Consequently it enshrines assumptions over argument.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Sure, John. That’s why I have never censored a SINGLE comment on this site (although I excoriate what I view as erroneous arguments). Since the censorship has been cranked up at SS, I go there rarely: if somebody says something idiotic, or even something interesting, I know I cannot reply appropriately: in the former case my tone would be at fault, in the latter, I will not been following the conversation. As GMAx said, Massimo is a closet Christian (so attacking what he and his pets call “Gnu-Atheism” is big). Nothing wrong being a Christian, except when a philosopher, and claiming to be neutral, while knocking off anything really damaging to theists. Just an example…

            Massimo has blocked comments from mine just because the main author had suffered enough at my hands already (as when this neurologist made an essay on fishes not experiencing pain). A case of academic stroking academic…


  4. Occam's beard Says:

    Patrice Ayme wrote:
    “So the real fundamental problem of “aversion” is how does “aversion” arise in the first place. In general it does because human beings find themselves in adverse circumstances, or because evil tendencies by a few were not opposed early enough.”

    Good point and one reason why we should be careful about our epistemic confidence in the conclusions we reach on this subject, especially the actionable ones.


  5. brodix Says:


    Oh well. It’s their soapbox and their agenda. The part of about taking philosophy to “Main Street” doesn’t seem to include views coming the other direction.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There seems indeed to be a number of people with very rigid attitudes… And a contempt for Main Street (such as when Coel said that the neurologist and author Sam Harris was no scientist… because he was no Principal Investigator (basically). But, you know, this is common in academia, from Kindergarten teachers to top notch researchers: lots of rigidity and contempt.

      MOOC (Massive Online Open Courses) may change this. At this point degrees/diplomas are important… But maybe they are not.


    • brodix Says:


      I think it goes much deeper than just academia, or even opinion in general. If you consider everything from stem cells maturing into adult cells, to the ways in which culture and language both frame and create our thought processes, it is an elemental fact of ordering.
      What defines, also limits. I can recognize the process at work on how I view reality and yet still find it very difficult to stretch my boundaries in different directions. Often even trying to hold one view will conflict with other views and then have to try peeling them away to see the divergences and connections and then the mind gets all twisted around and I just have to push the reset button and drop the thought process. In a physical sense, it’s like grounding out static electricity.
      One of my advantages is that I tend to avoid the more social aspects of life and mostly work around the farm and so I have the mental space to do this. If I was stuck in academia, which is all about brain training and building up specific disciplines, specialties, etc, that would be impossible. I was never any good at school anyway. It was trade school for the type of white collar jobs I was temperamentally unsuited for and the people I grew up around were not particularly intellectual. Not dumb, but just not inclined to look too deeply at reality.
      Once you start peeling away the layers, you will find yourself staring into the abyss. Having had enough close to death experiences, as well as having enough people to whom I was close die, that is something I am willing to explore, but few are.


      • brodix Says:

        Those disciplines most defined by order and structure are necessarily the most blind to what is not ordered.
        Specifically physics, which views the opposite of order as disorder and chaos and obsessively tries to extract ever finer detail from it.
        Yet the opposite of order is energy, which is inherently fuzzy, exactly because it is dynamic, since order is necessarily static.
        So anything below the level of being measured is presumably non-existent. Therefore we have randomized point particles, instead of waves.
        The real basis of reality is this conserved energy, otherwise known as the present, not some ensemble of reductionist particles.
        Time is just its changing configuration.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Indeed Language builds the brain. Because it is made of associations, logical, or emotional.
        Probably the “Farm” (nickname of Stanford U, BTW) is not “Main Street” as far as Sci Sal is concerned… 😉


  6. brodix Says:


    Energy does defy its definition.

    Occasionally the structures break down, when they prove unable to channel the energies and new ones form.

    There is much of the world today resting on increasingly unstable ground. What discipline is truly able to explain what is happening? Politics? Economics? Sociology? Philosophy? Theoretical physics?
    Or are they mostly concerned with protecting their fiefdoms?

    My interest is trying to figure out the dynamics at work, irregardless of the particular devices used to do so.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      How to define energy is not clear. It’s a major problem in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation, as Einstein himself recognized. And it has not been alleviated since.
      For social structures, it’s clear much need to be changed. The Leadership Principle ought to be revisited…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: