AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION, RECONCILIATION ...

hook because they have to do something, they cannot just let it
pass by. So, what do they do?
Scenario 2: Guilt for trauma, hoping that will do.
Y is suffering a trauma, meaning something with an identifiable
cause that did hurt and still does hurt, even to the point of PTSD
(post-traumatic stress disorder). X shows signs of guilt, with
identifiable cause in his own violence. The guilt hurt, still
hurts and will continue hurting, "as long as I live".
The hypothesis would be that through this mechanism symmetry
and possibly balance have been obtained. There is no need to
drizzle salt and pepper in the wound, to turn the knife around, or
any other metaphor. X has enough problems with his own
conscience, made credible if he adheres to a faith where the bad
deed (assuming hurting Y is one) carries heavy demerit, or reduces
the chances of salvation down toward zero, meaning that there is
enough trauma in storage for him in the afterlife.
Scenario 3: Y the victim hurts X the perpetrator: revenge
The hypothesis is that trauma for trauma, and, implicitly, guilt
for guilt, sticking to the moderate version--an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth, with no interest--may do the job. We assume
that X and Y agree on what constitutes equal amounts of violence
the tit for tat, the quid pro quo, and agree that equalization
means closure. They are both equipped with internal violence
book-keeping machinery, both draw satisfaction from a balanced
bottom line. The problem is whether Z agrees to any settlement
between X and Y, Z being God or Caesar, the state or the public,
only two of them, or all in one.
31