Necessity of Cruelty

[aletheia]

At times a person who is not cruel and who does not wish to be cruel must act cruelly toward others. This happens most when other people are ignorant or excessively needy, and refuse to recognize another person's needs or wishes because they are too focused on themselves. These people push themselves and their life into the life of another person, either out of ignorance or their own cruelty. At this point it becomes psychologically necessary for the "victim" of this to act cruely in order to separate him or herself from the other's unwanted influence.

This psychological necessity of being cruel when one does not wish to can cause cognitive dissonance and feelings of anger or dissatisfaction. But once one submits his or her "desire not to be cruel" to the law of his or her psychological or personal necessity this tends to go away. The friction is seen for what it is, a necessity due to another person's harmful or ignorant interference, and the "blame" or causality it placed where it belongs, with the other person. At this point one may even feel a sense of pride in being able to successfully act to rid oneself of negative and unwanted influences. This may also be an opportunity to clarify the true intentions of the other person, which may not have been fully revealed previously. Reacting to the actual infleunces and effects another person is causing, rather than to their stated or "obvious" intentions, tends to force their hand -- it becomes much more difficult for them to keep their true motives secret, either from you or from themselves. At this point they may react negatively and press even harder, leading to an increased need for cruelty on one's own part.

For those people who lack this ability to act cruelly as needed, with full intentionality and understanding of this need, this higher understanding is not possible and they tend to remain in a state of confusion, anxiety and stress. They are also less prone to adequately separate themselves from the harmful or manipulative influences of others.

[Stoic Guardian]

Differance between brutality and cruelty.

[Arcturus Descending]

Differance between brutality and cruelty.

And how does one know or intuit that they've crossed that line?

[turtle]

Differance between brutality and cruelty.

And how does one know or intuit that they've crossed that line?

between 2 persons---each may evaluate differently for either cruelty or brutality...

[aletheia]

Differance between brutality and cruelty.

Its the same thing. Cruelty is brutality, brutality is cruelty. No difference here.

I am talking about the necessity of this, call it brutality or cruelty, as forced upon someone by one's situations, as in the necessary interest of one's own health and personal needs. Lack of compassion and understanding by others, or a possessiveness which seeks to (mis-)use others for one's own ends, is the cause of this need. Life must be cruel at times if it is to survive. Ignorant people may not understand this, or not like it, but so be it. People who do not want to be cruel may not like it, but so be it. It is what it is.

I see people all the time who are weakened and stifled by their inability to stop other people from using them.

[Arcturus Descending]

Differance between brutality and cruelty.

And how does one know or intuit that they've crossed that line?

between 2 persons---each may evaluate differently for either cruelty or brutality...

Perhaps cruelty, or what may be perceived as such, is an instance of 'tough love' if towards one's self or another - if there is love and compassion as its motive - within it.
As an example, to release a bird from suffering, one breaks that bird's neck.
The brutality occurs when that bird has already been released from his suffering - and yet the hands continue to wring the little bird's neck.
Cruelty - as a form of tough love - may have an underlying compassionate purpose.
But brutality....

[turtle]

some tough love is not cruel...
some tough love is cruel...
now which is which...
why dont we just talk about cruel..

[Arcturus Descending]

No, I prefer to simply navigate away from these waters ... with eyes wide open.

[turtle]

No, I prefer to simply navigate away from these waters ... with eyes wide open.

why?

[Stoic Guardian]

People can use the words however they please, but to me brutality has always meant something harsh and perhaps necessary.

Where as Cruelity is something harsh and uneccessary.

[James S Saint]

I see people all the time who are weakened and stifled by their inability to stop other people from using them.

Yep and hence the phrase, "Ditch the bitch".

There are 2 problems with the idea of evading response-ability.
1) proper assessment of the truth of the situation versus merely a passion reflex (most often from the same self-focus as is being accused).
2) to what degree one avoids the next encounter, "prejudice".

[aletheia]

Yes -- and the ability for the resolution to have "staying power" if need be.

Man is limited by his inability to forget. So cultivating, at the least, an active power of ignoring and crafting means of separation between oneself and harmful influences, is very important. But this can be difficult, as it may consume a lot of conscious energy and time. One's sympathy inevitably "suffers" here, which is to say withdraws within itself and becomes more condensed, refined, mature.

[James S Saint]

This issue might also fall into the category of "Tough Love". Real love requires courage to take chances, not merely to surrender, but to draw the line. Love requires protections. One of which involves immutable limits for specific critical behaviors. But one of those behaviors involves the degree of forgiveness to be afforded, else there is no protection or limits of behavior and the love is lost.

Unfortunately the issue is trying to decide exactly where those limits must be. Because they are necessarily sacred, decisions must be made. But the human mind is ill equipped to discern the exact measurements involved. How does a man decide that his woman has simply spent too much money on shoes or purses? How does a woman decide exactly how much attention to other women from her man has been simply too much?

[Tab]

I think basically, for any system of control - large or small - if you find that "cruelty is necessary" you're doing something wrong, or at least not doing something entirely right.

Pretty much the mission of any control system has to eventually be to abolish the need for sticks to get your donkey to move.

[aletheia]

I think basically, for any system of control - large or small - if you find that "cruelty is necessary" you're doing something wrong, or at least not doing something entirely right.

Pretty much the mission of any control system has to eventually be to abolish the need for sticks to get your donkey to move.

By control system you also mean, system of self-regulation and behavior/intention/drive? Or one's "method" and "mission" to one's life? This topic is not about creating or using systems (or any other means) to "control" the behavior of others, but rather is about the necessity of limiting another's potentially harmful influence upon oneself. If another person or thing is influencing you in a detrimental manner, you will make a decision whether or not to allow this infleunce to continue.

This manifests, or often can manifest, as a cruelty, as a severe or harsh break and unbroachable limit placed before the other influence. It is putting oneself at arm's length. This is "cruel" only if it causes additional harm or suffering on either oneself or the external influence/other person. Which, often enough, this is exactly what happens.

Cruelty is necessary because some degree of control over things which influence oneself is necessary. This control (whether conceptualized as a system, method or something else) is "cruel" whenever in the exercising of this control someone is harmed or hurt as a result. Further, it is cruel because one deliberately makes the choice to effect this control regardless of the hurt it may cause to another (or even to oneself). This is the "necessity" of the act.

[Tab]

Hmm. Well in that case, I think you'd have to be severely mentally ill to enable you to be actively cruel to yourself. Masochistic sexuality excluded. Your brain just doesn't work that way.

[aletheia]

This issue might also fall into the category of "Tough Love". Real love requires courage to take chances, not merely to surrender, but to draw the line. Love requires protections. One of which involves immutable limits for specific critical behaviors. But one of those behaviors involves the degree of forgiveness to be afforded, else there is no protection or limits of behavior and the love is lost.

Unfortunately the issue is trying to decide exactly where those limits must be. Because they are necessarily sacred, decisions must be made. But the human mind is ill equipped to discern the exact measurements involved. How does a man decide that his woman has simply spent too much money on shoes or purses? How does a woman decide exactly how much attention to other women from her man has been simply too much?

Yes. This can be about "tough love" but it can also be different than this. "Love" is strength, vision, knowledge, tolerance, good-will. Sometimes one of these must be sacrificed for the sake of the others.

Forgiveness can be an important regulator in this, I agree. But transgressions and harmful influence can also out-span the range of the utility of forgiveness.

Deciding where the limit lies can be tricky, or rather: deciding at which point one reaches a critical threshhold, a tipping point, can be difficult. There are various internal and external incentives both to "cross the line" as well as to continue to resist crossing the line. But I think the more rational a person is the easier it becomes to know where this limit has been crossed.

[Dan~]

Sometimes beings come towards us with harmful behavior.
We must either kill, or capture them, if we love what they want to destroy.
This is how love and violence should be. One leads to the other but only in a certain way.
That is the good violence compared to bad violence.