So, it has seemed obvious that since abuse, unlike life-threatening situations, is difficult to resist because, since injury is the objective, resistance increases the risk of injury, a common strategy is to take out revenge on someone else. In other words, abuse spawns the perpetuation of abuse by prompting its spread from generation to generation.
Now the question occurs to me whether there are other consequences to abuse which we may also not recognize.
For example, is it possible that the effort to compensate for psychological deprivation may manifest as an irrational desire to consume. So, one might question to what extent consumer culture is a response to systematic deprivation.
Indeed, the question has been asked by academics and they found a correlation. But, did they inquire whether deprivation is motivated by a desire to artificially promote consumption and to do so without any consideration of utility.
These ideas are difficult to explain because they require the substitution of intent for reality at all levels–the ideal for the real. How do we explain that?
Idealists are, by definition, not materialistic and this is supposed to be a good thing. Why? Wherefor the persistent denigration of the material world? Because it changes? Because it challenges the brain’s attachments to its perceptions as certainties?
Does that mean we are the prisoners of our brains?