If my Physics serves me right, H20 has a given boiling point. But reaching that boiling point depends on the quantity of water and the amount of heat applied. Thus, given the amount of heat applied, two liters of water will boil faster than five liters of water. Reverse this condition, given the same amount of water, if heat A is greater than Heat B, then Heat A will boil the water faster than Heat B.

If we construct an abstract verbal model and refer to the boiling point as a function of violence, the violence depends on the quantity of water and the heat applied. Quantity of water pertains to Human tolerance and heat applied pertains to stress as a stimulant. Thus, Violence is equal to human tolerance over stress as a stimulant.


Human tolerance depends on two functions namely personality of formation and personality of revelation. When stress as a stimulant is introduced, the responses of the said personalities, in theory, are always parallel. Meaning, if formation acts on the stimulant, revelation will also do the same. And if formation reacts on the stimulant, revelation will also do the same thing. But what happens when the relationship is inversely proportional?

Postulate One, if the relationship between the formation and revelation is directly proportional, then human tolerance is high. Thus, given stress as a stimulant, a character constructed under this condition tends to exhibit greater control over violence.

Postulate Two, if the relationship between the formation and the revelation is inversely proportional, then human tolerance is low. Thus, given stress as a stimulant, a character constructed under this condition tends to exhibit less control over violence.

Postulate Three, what happens when the relationship between formation and revelation is indirectly proportional? What happens to the character and his or her control over violence? When two elements are indirectly proportional, one assumes that there is a third element involved that connects the two principal elements. So in this case, what do you think is the third element?

Postulates 1 & 2 refer to man or woman as a person who exercises free will. The relationship between formation and revelation is directly or inversely proportional to one another. Thus, there is no obstruction or filter between the two elements. On the other hand, when a third element is involved, there is a filter or an obstruction that either influences or exercises power over the two principal elements.

Given the provision above, if the relationship between formation and revelation is indirectly proportional, then violence is defined by the third element. Meaning, if the third element acts on the stimulant, the first and second elements will do the same. Thus, given stress as a stimulant, a character constructed in this condition tends to exhibit no control over violence.

If a man belongs to the first postulate, given a certain amount of marital stress as a stimulant, it will take a lot of inciting incidents before he will act on or react on the marital stress as a stimulant. But, if it will take a lot of inciting incidents before he acts on or reacts on the marital stress as a stimulant, is the amount of violence when released greater or lower?

We go back to the boiling point. If H2o has a fixed boiling point, then human tolerance also has a fixed amount of violence. This is true if we are dealing with H20 as the type of human tolerance. But what if we substitute H20 with peanut oil whose boiling point is lower than water?


Stress affects the boiling point in this case. Given a character that exercises greater control over violence, control becomes a function of tolerance over stress. If tolerance is greater than stress, then the amount of violence increases because one must gradually increase stress until it reaches the breaking point of tolerance resulting to violence. The gradual increase in stress becomes deliberate, thus if the relationship is directly proportional, violence is also deliberate. And the more deliberate the violence, the more it is cerebral than emotional.

On the other hand, if tolerance is less than the stress, then the amount of violence decreases because stress remains constant. The breaking point of tolerance, is this case, is quick and impulsive. Thus, if the relationship between revelation and formation is directly proportional, violence is deployed quickly and by impulse. And the more impulsive the violence, the more it is emotional than cerebral.

Postulate two operates in a different way. If tolerance is greater than stress, then the amount of violence increases because one must gradually increase stress until it reaches the breaking point of tolerance resulting to violence. The gradual increase becomes deliberate, but because the relationship between formation and revelation is indirectly proportional, violence is deployed quickly and by impulse. And the more impulsive the violence, the greater the neurosis.


On the other hand, if tolerance is less than the stress, then the amount of violence decreases because stress remains constant. The breaking point of tolerance, is this case, is quick and impulsive. Thus, if the relationship between revelation and formation is indirectly proportional, violence is deployed deliberately. And the more deliberate the violence, the less the neurosis.

Postulate three revolves around the relationship of the conduit with tolerance and stress. If we manipulate the variables outside the conduit, the violence attacks the conduit. For example, the conduit is a Christian Value of "Thou Shall Not Kill", if we manipulate the variables outside the conduit, decreasing external tolerance or increasing external stress will neutralize the equilibrium of the conduit. On the other hand, if we manipulate the variables inside the conduit, the conduit disrupts the external equilibrium. Thus, the Christian Value neutralizes itself.


Practical applications of the postulates determine the direction of a material. Postulates 1 and 2 project vertical storytelling. Wherein postulate 1 is more vertical than postulate 2. On the other hand, postulate 3 projects horizontal storytelling. Combining 3 and 1 produces diagonal storytelling while combining 2 and 3 produces an ellipse.

If we follow the stated postulates together with its provisions, postulates 1 and 2 are character driven materials in terms of violence as a core value. In postulate 1, violence is an action. While in postulate 2, violence is an activity.

When violence is an action, it has a physical and emotional or cerebral components. On the other hand, when violence is an activity, it only has a physical or cerebral or emotional component. This makes the violence enigmatic. We can see the physical manifestation of violence but there is no clear meaning or there is no meaning at all. Writing a material in this construct is challenging because the enigma as it moves away from the abstract becomes more concrete despite of the absence of its function. The reverse is also possible. An activity may have meaning but it has no form. So, violence becomes a mystery. You feel the violence but you can not see it. Thus, the violence is more emotional or cerebral than physical. And as it moves away from the physical, it becomes more abstract despite of the absence of its form.


For the third postulate, violence is either negative or positive. When it is positive, it becomes a healing agent or an inviting event. If it is negative, it becomes a disturbance or inciting incident. In both cases, the said conditions disrupt either the conduit internally or tolerance and stress externally.

In the midst of domestic violence directed to women, the said postulates offer us a glimpse in terms of the behavior of the material as reflected by the story, plot, genre and characters. A man who belongs to postulate one has the tendency to employ violence as an act. While a man who belongs to postulate two employs violence as an activity.

Postulate three defines domestic violence as either the internal breakdown of the conduit or the conduit neutralized by external variables. Marital Vows, as a collective is a good conduit that defines a husband's tolerance over stress. If the conduit disintegrates internally, marital violence is due to the breakdown of marriage as an institution. But if the conduit is neutralized by external variables, marital violence is due to the breakdown of the man-woman relationship. Thus, the first case suggests that marriage as an institution defines the relationship, while the second case, the relationship defines the institution.

The postulates presented in this article are approximation of character behavior in terms of personality formation and personality revelation. Violence, as a core value of any material, is affected by the dynamics of the said personalities that occupy a single space. As stated before, violence depends on human tolerance and the amount stress applied. Manipulating these variables affects the character in terms of its attitude towards violence and how the character employs it in its immediate physical and emotional situation.