Void and Compensation

In this article, I share marginalia and reflections on the chapter Void and Compensation in the book Gravity and Grace by Simone Weil.

Void and Compensation

In the chapter Void and Compensation in the book Gravity and Grace, Weil writes:

“Mécanique humaine. Quiconque souffre cherche à communiquer sa souffrance — soit en maltraitant, soit en provoquant la pitié — afin de la diminuer, et il la diminue vraiment ainsi. Celui qui est tout en bas, que personne ne plaint, qui n’a le pouvoir de maltraiter personne (s’il n’a pas d’enfant ou d’être qui l’aime), sa souffrance reste en lui et l’empoisonne.“

Emma Crawford and Mario von der Ruhr translate:

“Human mechanics. Whoever suffers tries to communicate his suffering (either by ill-treating someone or calling forth their pity) in order to reduce it, and he does really reduce it in this way. In the case of a man in the uttermost depths, whom no one pities, who is without power to ill-treat anyone (if he has no child or being who loves him), the suffering remains within and poisons him.”

Marginalia

Definition 1 To communicate one’s suffering is to either ill-treat someone, or call forth their pity.

Proposition 1 If we suffer, then to reduce our suffering is to communicate it.

Proof If an individual suffers and does communicate his suffering, then his suffering is reduced. This is expressed in the following sentence:

“Whoever suffers tries to communicate his suffering, […] and he does really reduce it in this way.”

If an individual suffers and does not communicate his suffering, then his suffering is not reduced. This is expressed in the following sentence:

“In the case of a man in the uttermost depths, whom no one pities, who is without power to ill-treat anyone (if he has no child or being who loves him), the suffering remains within and poisons him.”

From Definition 1, “a man […] whom no one pities, who is without power to ill-treat anyone” is a man who does not communicate his suffering.

Therefore, if an individual suffers, then his suffering is reduced if and only if he communicates it.

Proposition 2 To either ill-treat someone, or call forth their pity, is to be loved by them.

Proof If an individual has no one who loves him, then he can neither ill-treat anyone nor call forth their pity. This is expressed in the following sentence:

“In the case of a man in the uttermost depths, whom no one pities, who is without power to ill-treat anyone (if he has no child or being who loves him), the suffering remains within and poisons him.”

If an individual cannot ill-treat anyone, then he does not ill-treat anyone. And if an individual cannot call forth anyone’s pity, then he does not call forth anyone’s pity. In other words, if an individual has no one who loves him, then he neither ill-treats anyone nor calls forth their pity.

Therefore, if an individual has someone whom he either ill-treats or calls forth their pity, then he is loved. It is reasonable to assume the ill-treated (or the pitier) and the lover are one and the same.

Corollary 1 We only ever ill-treat those who love us.

Proof Suppose that an individual ill-treats someone. Then, from Proposition 2, he is loved by them. Therefore, an individual only ill-treats someone who loves him.

Reflections

I do not believe in Proposition 1. Instead, I believe that one’s suffering can be reduced even without communication. In other words, one’s suffering can be reduced even without either ill-treating someone or calling forth their pity.

Do meditative practices, that bring about either calm or insight, not reduce one’s suffering even without having to either claim a victim or arouse another’s sympathies? Antidotes to suffering exist even beyond the Weilean sense.

If I believe in Corollary 1 to Proposition 2, then the only people whom I have hurt are those who love me, and the only people who have hurt me are those whom I love.

Does this realisation not reveal a deplorable state-of-affairs? One must resolve not to hurt, if one should vow to protect those whom one loves.