This lesson will likely be added to and include more examples and questions.
Lesson 3 CVIARP
In the previous lesson Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality we mentioned the justification for imposition is to prevent or remove imposition. The observation of imposition doesn’t necessarily mean the imposing act is immoral because it could have been precipitated by an unprovoked act of imposition or the preemption of imminent imposition.
The acronym CVIARP represents Circumstance, Value, Intents, Action, Result, and Purposes. This is the sequence in which a consciously created result occurs. What an individual does is determined begins by their circumstances as an individual cannot do anything not available to them by their immediate circumstances. I am going to begin with a scenario to demonstrate the different points of action within the sequence, followed by an example of how it is applied to determine the cause of results as well as joint responsibility for the production of a result.
Circumstances include the spatial area a person exists in and has access to, as well as their access to resources which most relevantly consists of their access to money. The immediate space you are in determines your opportunities to create a result. More opportunities can be created depending on an individual’s access to other spaces and access to resources within those spaces, but a consciously created result begins with circumstances.
The value of an act is subconsciously determined by the anticipated feelings an act will produce based on experience or the similarity between the act and experience. Value determines desire.
Intended Purpose: The subject of desire is the intended purpose.
Intended Action: The action an individual intends to perform to create a result
Intended Result: The result an individual intends to achieve his intended purpose.
For example, a person at a carnival desires a stuffed bear. Their motivation is a product of their circumstances consisting of a setting that provides the opportunity to acquire a stuffed bear, and the value of the stuffed bear to the person.
The participant must strike a pad with a mallet, the force of which is transferred to a puck that is propelled up a tower where it must strike a bell to win the prize.
The desire is the intended purpose of gaining the bear.
The intended action is striking the pad.
The intended result is the puck traveling to the top and striking the bell, which fulfills the intended purpose, gaining a bear.
The act performed intended to produce the intended result to fulfill the actors purpose.
The effects produced by an action.
The purposes served by the results of an action to all affected parties.
In the scenario where the participant’s action fails to accomplish the intended purpose, the force generated is insufficient for the puck to reach the bell. He fails to achieve his intended purpose winning the stuffed bear. Of course the intended purpose of the owner of the game is fulfilled having retained the bear which contributes to profit.
Chicago Gas Station Shooting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ITVLM-yXE)
Please watch the video above and record your thoughts concerning why the man in the video was shot before reading on.
The result we are focused on is the man being shot inside the gas station.
What’s interesting is the shooter may not consciously know why he shot the man, but subconsciously in consideration of the known and presumed circumstances his motivation is ascertainable.
The first circumstance of interaction is the shooter telling the victim “ What’s your homie on. You better tell your homie to watch who he talking to before his ass die out here. On god, tell your homie I don’t play, on god.”
The victim responds “who you talking about”?
The shooter “You know who I’m talking about, tell your homie out there he better watch who he talking to on god. Talking about weed, I don’t even smoke, get the fuck out my face nigga.”
The victim responds “He was probably just trying to sell you some weed”.
The shooter “How many times is going to say it. I don’t smoke, what he don’t understand, I don’t smoke. What you want to rob me or something? Now I’m feeling some type of way.”
The victim “if someone was going to rob you they’d have did it already”.
The shooter “they ass is gon die already in this store. That’s what’s gon happen. You want to die? I’m asking you.”
Proceeded by three shots.
We know by the first circumstance that produced the interaction according to the conversation is the victim’s friend soliciting the shooter to sell him marijuana, and the victim being seen by the shooter with the individual who solicited him. This is a non-relevant circumstance because there was no conscious intent by his friend to produce the result of the victim being shot. By non-relevant I mean the act of the victim’s friend soliciting the shooter although it is the cause for the interaction between the shooter and the victim inside the gas station, it is not the cause of the victim being shot because had the interaction been different the victim may not have been shot.
The next circumstance is the shooter telling the victim to tell his friend to stop soliciting him to buy marijuana. For the shooter the first relevant circumstance is him being solicited. While we cannot confirm the value, presumably the value of the act is security that comes from the solliciter not interacting with the shooter, which produces the action of speaking to the victim, to achieve the intended result of the victim relaying the message, which will lead to the intended purpose of the solicitor ceasing interaction with the shooter, which is rooted in a the value of feeling more secure. The act of speaking fails to produce the intended result.
The victim’s circumstances begin with the complaint about his friend soliciting the shooter. The value of his action in stating he probably just wants to sell you some weed is to remove the negative feeling that exists in the confrontation. The intended action is telling the shooter that his friend’s intentions are benign, where the result is to relieve the shooter’s suspicions, to produce the purpose of ending the confrontation.
The victim’s circumstances change once the shooter reveals his suspicions, where the shooter tells the victim “what you want to rob me or something?” This revelation is motivated by the value of gaining security. Where the shooter believes if he aggressively confronts the solicitor’s friend, he will relay the message that the shooter is not someone who they should try to rob.
The circumstances of the victim are not only in the revelation of the suspicion but the implications of how the shooter is asserting himself to the victim. The value of stating “if someone was going to rob you they’d have did it already” is not motivated by removing the negative feeling of ending the confrontation, but motivated by removing the negative feeling that comes from a reduction in self worth. While this cannot be confirmed, if the victim wanted to end the confrontation he would have confirmed to the shooter that he would relay the message. He would likely experience a reduction in self worth because the act of confirming that he would relay the message, implies that he is afraid of the shooter. In urban terms he got hoed, punked, or checked by the shooter. The reduction in self worth may be completely or partially inherent, where he views himself negatively for not having stood up to the shooter, or it could be image promoting, where he feels others will hear about the incident and have a negative view of him which causes a decrease in self worth.
The circumstance was the shooter revealing that he suspected they were trying to rob him. The value of the victim’s statement was the preservation of self worth, the act was speaking it, the result was being shot which fulfilled his intended purpose but with the consequence of being shot.
The shooter’s circumstance was being confronted with the idea that they could rob him if they wanted to rob him. The value is likely two fold, in part feelings derived from self worth, and in part feelings derived from security, in that if he doesn’t take bold action, allowing someone to say that if they wanted to rob him they would rob him increases the likelihood that someone will rob him. The value of shooting the victim is self worth and security.
The circumstance that produced the act of shooting was the victim saying “if someone was going to rob you they’d have did it already”. Morally the act of the shooting is wrong, imposing physical harm outside of the purpose of preventing or removing imposition.
Although not related to CVIARP, the actions of both parties are intelligent in consideration of perceived threats. If the shooter believes they are trying to rob him it is important for him to assert himself as someone who is not going to be easily robbed. As a violence is concerned, violence is only resorted to when one believes the effort will be minimal or the reward will be great. If the shooter can convince the victim that he cannot be easily robbed the victim will tell others and if they are thinking about robbing someone they’ll likely try to rob someone else.
For the victim, if he allows the shooter to “ho him”, others will perceive him as someone who is soft and people will seek to exploit him. All he had to do was say alright I’ll let him know and he wouldn’t have been shot. Instead he tells him he’s rob-able, and this is why he was shot.
What’s interesting to me is that the shooter chose to confront the solicitor’s friend and not the solicitor. It’s strange to me because it implies the shooter was afraid of the solicitor which clearly is not the case because he had a gun that he was prepared to use. There isn’t enough information from the video to understand the circumstances that caused the shooter to address the solicitor’s friend and not the solicitor.
CVIARP is laborious and not completely practical but the point of the tool is to follow motion as it relates to the interaction of thoughts, feelings, and behavior with the environment. It’s more practical to consider events in terms of cause and effect beginning with circumstances. CVIARP is the sequence that contains the points of action within a consciously created event, where understanding CVIARP creates familiarity with points of action.