1 result for (book:nopr AND session:673 AND stemmed:would)

NoPR Part Two: Chapter 21: Session 673, June 27, 1973 6/53 (11%) hatred hate war love powerlessness
– The Nature of Personal Reality
– © 2011 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Part Two: Your Body as Your Own Unique Living Sculpture. Your Life as Your Most Intimate Work of Art, and the Nature of Creativity as It Applies to Your Personal Experience
– Chapter 21: Affirmation, Love, Acceptance, and Denial
– Session 673, June 27, 1973 9:38 P.M. Wednesday

[... 7 paragraphs ...]

On their return home the code of behavior changed back to one suited to civilian life, and they clamped down upon themselves again as hard as they could. Many would appear as superconventional. The “luxury” of expressing emotion even in exaggerated form was suddenly denied them, and the sense of powerlessness grew by contrast.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

They were told by politicians that it was to be the last war, and the irony is that most of those in uniform believed it. (I, Robert Butts, was one of the believers.) The lie did not become truth but it became more nearly so, for despite their failures the ex-servicemen managed to bring up children who would not go to war willingly, who would question its premise.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Hate, left alone then, does not erupt into violence. Hatred brings a sense of power and initiates communication and action. In your terms it is the build up of natural anger; in animals, say, it would lead to a face-to-face encounter, of battle stances in which each creature’s body language, motion, and ritual would serve to communicate a dangerous position. One animal or the other would simply back down. Growling or roaring might be involved.

(10:25.) Power would be effectively shown, but symbolically. This type of animal encounter occurs infrequently, for the animals involved would have had to ignore or short-circuit many lesser preliminary anger or initiation encounters, each meant to make positions clear and to ward off violence.

Another small point here: Christ’s dictum to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39, for instance) was a psychologically crafty method of warding off violence — not of accepting it. Symbolically it represented an animal showing its belly to an adversary. (Jane, as Seth, patted her midriff.) The remark was meant symbolically. On certain levels, it was the gesture of defeat that brought triumph and survival. It was not meant to be the cringing act of a martyr who said, “Hit me again,” but represented a biologically pertinent statement, a communication of body language. Give us a moment… (Softly:) It would cleverly remind the attacker of the “old” communicative postures of the sane animals.

[... 10 paragraphs ...]

If you understood the nature of love you would be able to accept feelings of hatred. Affirmation can include the expression of such strong emotions. Give us a moment…

[... 24 paragraphs ...]

Similar sessions

SS Part Two: Chapter 12: Session 550, September 28, 1970 hate hatred sausage cheek evil
NoPR Part Two: Chapter 11: Session 644, February 28, 1973 emotions beliefs refute revengeful hateful
SS Part One: Chapter 4: Session 522, April 8, 1970 dimensional actors roles three pretend
TES2 Session 75 July 29, 1964 structures psychological perspective construction hatred