Dump The NAP

 Words are important.  They are in fact the most important things in our lives.

Therefore, our choices of wording is perforce important, and to that point I would turn your attention to that which has come to be known as the Non-Aggression Principle, AKA the "NAP".  While the spirit of the NAP is righteous, the choice of "aggression" in the moniker is quite unfortunate.  It states that the initiation of aggression is always a bad thing with no moral or princi[pled validity.  This particular architecture of the concept fails on the basis of its simplistic construction, a common problem with many ideas.  Because of this, I have witnessed endless examples of the gross misapprehension of "aggression", more specifically the assessment of its initiation, such that some of those cases tap dance right past the absurd.

As often, it serves us well to consult the dictionary for definitions of "aggression".  To wit:

AGGRESSION, n. The first act of injury; an attack; and assault. - Worcester English Dictionary, 1860

AGGRESSION, n. The first act of injury.  -Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1785

 

AGGRESSION, n. The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression.  - Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

From just these entries we can see that "aggression" is a rather broad term.  It may connote physical acts, verbal, or simply the perception of conditions such as one's posture, choice of words, etc.

Words are important.  Therefore, and because the term "aggression" seems to evade far too many in terms of a sufficiently precise meaning, I suggest leaving that term in the rear view mirror in favor of "transgression".   Once more, the dictionary comes to our aid:

TRANSGRESSION, n. The act of transgressing, or of passing over or beyond any law, civil or moral; the violation of a law or known principle of rectitude; breach of command; fault; offense; crime; sin. 

Here we see a term whose meaning always connotes and impropriety or crime, which is to say that a transgression is always deemed as wrong, whereas with aggression it is not always the case.  Transgression is always incorrect as a matter of definition, whereas aggression is not.  It is the fact of the latter that we run into the problem of semantics.  Let us illustrate with an example.

Siblings have their moments.  Janey irritates Johnny in some manner and Johnny blithely lets her know "I'm going to murder you".  Kids say the darnedest things.  In all good likelihood Johnny was not to be taken literally, and so Janey's retrieval of dad's revolver, whereby she holds Johnny at bay until police arrive is probably not justified.  And yet, Johnny uttered words that under differing circumstances might justly see him interred.  Words are important, but so is context.  

A further example may be found in a military action.  Intelligence establishes that terrorists are making bombs at a given location in a foreign land. It further indicates that those bombs will be used to slaughter innocent civilians pursuant to a political objective, which is the very definition of "terrorism".  In such a case, the initiation of aggression through air strikes designed and intended to kill the entirety of the terrorist population is completely justifiable, even though said terrorists have not yet acted upon their intentions to murder innocents.

A stranger on the street by some means gives you cause to suspect they have violent intentions toward you.  In response, you preemptively draw your sidearm and either hold them at bay for police, or if deemed necessary you shoot their carcass out from under their hat.  You have aggressed, yet have committed no crime or other offense against another because you acted in self defense even though your would-be attacker had not yet made his definitive move.

Replacing "aggression" with "transgression" eliminates this wobbly semantic space in the idea due to the extremely broad spectrum of the meaning of "aggression", whereas under no circumstance is it acceptable from a morally principled standpoint of the "western" variety to transgress against another precisely because the term connotes criminality as a matter of pure definition.  But aggression at times is not only acceptable, it is advisable as the examples illustrate.

Words are important.  Human communication is devilish tricky even under the best of circumstances.  Let us not further cultivate bewilderment to the detriment of understanding not only what we say to one another, but that of what is expected of us in terms of the aforementioned principles, which is a really big deal.

Transgression covers it all, and does so unambiguously, whereas "aggression" is a far more vague term prone to widely differing opinions as to what precisely defines it.  No man holds the right to transgress against another, whereas under conditions one may indeed hold proper authority to initiate aggression in the face of a looming, yet veiled threat.

Have I mentioned that words are important?

Be well, be prosperous, be worthy, be proper, and as always, until next time please accept my best wishes.

Behold The Four Vices

Behold the Four Vices: Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, Lassitude (FAIL). 

In their proper measures, these are actually strengths - qualities and characteristics of human beings that aid in our survival as individuals and as a species. But when misapplied in proportion or circumstance, they become erosive and even destructive of the good in our lives, and often to those of the people around us.

Proper fear is the means by which people avoid injuring or even killing themselves, or each other without justice.  Being fearful of one's own maiming or destruction is what prevents the sound man from committing acts that lead to same, as well as the acts of others that would likely produce practically identical results. But when fear becomes an overriding, paralyzing factor, life becomes nightmarish where we no longer find ourselves able to navigate its waters to such a degree that we degrade into a state of mere existence when the degree reaches such a pitch.

In its proper proportion, our right and proper avarice provides the motive force that impels us to pursue the manifold goals that tend to lead to the continuance of our lives, and in many cases to improve our condition.  But when gone morbid, it blinds us to what is important in life.  Greed run amok turns us into creatures of compulsion where all we choose to see is quantity over quality and our senses become dulled most ironically through the hyper focus that arises due to the compulsion to acquire, no matter who gets hurt.

Ignorance is almost universally viewed very negatively, and yet there are many instances where it actually serves as a positive factor in given situations as a lubricant and even aiding in incentivizing us to move in a given direction.  There are things that remain better hidden from our understanding.  Likewise, there are other things the knowledge of which edifies our lives and lends to us the ability to think clearly, sufficiently, smartly, and with good authority.  Ignorance of that which we are better served possessing is a cruelty to ourselves, to others, and as often as not proves itself the danger that it truly is.

Lassitude : the need to rest.  Without it, our lives become bleak, grim.  But when lassitude sets into our bones in false measure, it becomes as a cancer that eats away at our drive to achieve sometimes even the most fundamental of human objectives.  People so stricken waste away in ways similar to those afflicted with physical diseases.

And so we see once again that all things have their places, whether viewed as being positive factors or otherwise.  But the value of a given thing in our lives is not determined by the pure nature of it alone.  Equally important is the measure in which it is taken, as well as the timing and the circumstance.

In all things, context is king.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.