Which will happen first, the Republicans destroy the rule of law or the rule of law will destroy ...

[Moonbeam]

A couple queries.

O: Do you feel this excludes the possibility of one simply 'being evil'? I don't like the term evil, as it implies morality which is a human construct.. but how about, Does this exclude the possibility of someone being innately inclined to acting in a way that is antithetical to normative social function, and societal cohesiveness? I feel as though I've met people like that, although I cannot guarantee their 'backstory' enough to verify that they are, in fact, free of experiences that would justify their behavior.

M: I find it pretty hard to know the details of my own behavior but I do believe that some people are born deficient in the capacity to feel empathy, that they aren't is a rigorous sense, human. I don't think that's very common but I don't know if there is some sort of genetically related empathy scale. I don't know much of anything and this is a really big area of general ignorance, in my opinion. I think some people surrender to the idea they are worthless and go with it, as a way to repay the favor of being fucked over.


O: What do you feel is a person's 'neutral state' then? When ego is removed from the equation. Is there any differentiation between individuals free of ego? Or are we 'copies' of each other in that state?

M: I see two natural states, one in children before they get fucked over and one in people who have regained their original state and can no longer have it taken from them. A third possibility is attaining such development without having been fucked up to begin with. I would think such a condition rather rare but might happen with enlightened guardianship. I believe we are all the same, that being is being, but clearly we are all born with various abilities and natural inclinations.

O: Does free will not exist, then? Just a layered response on top of an ego, built from past experiences and past (and present) emotions?

M: I think there is a lot of religious nonsense around the concept, that it is a requirement of those who wish to blame. Personally, in the way that people want to use it in that way for blame I think it's an illusion. On the other side of that coil, one should not give up on the aim to be as conscious as one can not to act out of unconscious negative emotions. Being mechanical does not give one a free pass to sin. I believe that being is a fully conscious state so that no sin arises out of being when one is what one is.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I find it pretty hard to know the details of my own behavior but I do believe that some people are born deficient in the capacity to feel empathy, that they aren't is a rigorous sense, human. I don't think that's very common but I don't know if there is some sort of genetically related empathy scale. I don't know much of anything and this is a really big area of general ignorance, in my opinion. I think some people surrender to the idea they are worthless and go with it, as a way to repay the favor of being fucked over.

As I said earlier, I've known a couple people that I'd regard as 'subhuman', though that may just be me being egotistical/elitist (for lack of a better phrasing). In reality, they are probably just as human as anyone else, and just as flawed, albeit in a way that directly affected my life in a negative way.

I see two natural states, one in children before they get fucked over and one in people who have regained their original state and can no longer have it taken from them. A third possibility is attaining such development without having been fucked up to begin with. I would think such a condition rather rare but might happen with enlightened guardianship. I believe we are all the same, that being is being, but clearly we are all born with various abilities and natural inclinations.

Is it even possible, then, to have interests/abilities/inclinations without letting ego apply? Or does this fall into the scope of 'enlightenment' to you?

I think there is a lot of religious nonsense around the concept, that it is a requirement of those who wish to blame. Personally, in the way that people want to use it in that way for blame I think it's an illusion. On the other side of that coil, one should not give up on the aim to be as conscious as one can not to act out of unconscious negative emotions. Being mechanical does not give one a free pass to sin. I believe that being is a fully conscious state so that no sin arises out of being when one is what one is.

Does that imply that ego (and desires/thoughts carried by ego) is necessary, for some, to avoid their own neutral/unconscious state of committing evil? If one feels inclined to say, take a life, but takes a conscious effort to prevent themselves from doing so (for whatever reason their ego dictates), is their ego not performing a service of good, for that person and society as a whole?

 

[Moonbeam]

I can see that they do believe we are evil. I have posted as much many times. They will vote for child molesters before they vote for any liberal, even a fucking conservative DINO like Doug Jones.

I can only tell you why I think they see us that way: they have been programmed to see us that way by decades of agitprop. I'm sure it also has to do with self-hatred and ego, but it doesn't really matter.

I do know you have posted evidence that conservatives understand the moral values of liberals better, but I don't think I ever gave it more than a cursory glance. I suspect that the difference is marginal at best, because even if they know our values better than we know theirs, they clearly do not have what could be considered a good, or even fair understanding. If we assume that roughly 1 million of the 3.4 million posts in this forum are from conservative leaning members, I think it would be a safe bet that over 75% of them include at least one straw man. It is very rare that a conservative poster here frames their opponent's position accurately. I also suspect that liberals have a hard time understanding the moral values of conservatives because they aren't consistent, and even when they are they often make no God-damned sense.

Hehe. Liberals are mostly concerned with justice and equality. Conservatives are concerned about those also but to a lesser degree because they have a bunch of other things they also worry about, things like respect for authority, purity, group loyalty, all virtues that confer survival value to societies but are of little interest to liberals who worry about caring and fairness, something that conservatives also value, but as I said not exclusively so not so much. As you know I view bigotry as first off, the belief that moral values are good, which I think is factual, and the belief that whatever conditioning one has been exposed to as children is in fact that moral good, way that gays are evil because the Bible says so. This is based on the belief that the Bible can't be wrong because it was written by God, but it was actually written by men who said it was the word of God. It is a faith other people do not share and is logically absurd. But purity is very important to conservatives as is reverence for authority. The trick is to know what purity really is and what authority deserves respect. That is where the argument should be, not on trying to say that purity is evil or that respect for authority is per say evil. In short one can have proper moral concerns and be wrong in what you believe they are when spelled out. Speaking of spelling, did I spell 'per say' right?

 

[Moonbeam]

@ Osiris: As I said earlier, I've known a couple people that I'd regard as 'subhuman', though that may just be me being egotistical/elitist (for lack of a better phrasing). In reality, they are probably just as human as anyone else, and just as flawed, albeit in a way that directly affected my life in a negative way.

M: If I were with you in a private conversation I would ask you to feel that negative, to seek understanding as to why you question their humanity. I don't know or care about them. I would be interested in helping you to find out what you feel. So the specific answer to your question isn't what is relevant to me. I hear pain that I wish were not there.

O: Is it even possible, then, to have interests/abilities/inclinations without letting ego apply? Or does this fall into the scope of 'enlightenment' to you?

M: Probably the same inclinations and abilities since they are part of the self. I use the word ego to describe the external manifestation of our inner deflection of pain, the face we tell yourselves is us but is just pretense. We still have an ego besides that but I would call that the self that is real. I may have an individual way of talking about this that isn't standard or conform to official definitions.

O: Does that imply that ego (and desires/thoughts carried by ego) is necessary, for some, to avoid their own neutral/unconscious state of committing evil? If one feels inclined to say, take a life, but takes a conscious effort to prevent themselves from doing so (for whatever reason their ego dictates), is their ego not performing a service of good, for that person and society as a whole?

M: The simplest way for me to express this that comes to me at the moment is that self love is real self respect, a quality that defines that which is of the greatest worth. Self love is what we were born with as our potential, what was taken from us via being put down, and what can be reacquired via 'enlightenment' or some experience with some similar but different fancy name, none of which would be the experience itself. We are all the same so if you love yourself you love everyone. The lover never does anything to harm the beloved. It's not an effort or a compulsion or a task or moral duty. It's what is when you are. There is only love. It can be hidden by delusions, by inculcated beliefs.

 

[Moonbeam]

My wise grandfather always said to never shoot without recognizing your target and knowing what's behind it.

Then you won't shoot a corpse that may not actually be dead, please. There may be coals in the ash. The inalienable will ever flower like the phoenix and the resurrection. Your despair is witness to that, I think.

 

[Noah Abrams]

I have gone over this myself. What is a human? What is a sub-human? And as discussed above, I think having a capacity for empathy is what describes a human. But ultimately, the definition or description is not important. A human is just a word. The word is not the actual thing/person/. Just like beauty can only be experienced and not defined, such thing/people can only be experienced to know the true horrors of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Then you won't shoot a corpse that may not actually be dead, please. There may be coals in the ash. The inalienable will ever flower like the phoenix and the resurrection. Your despair is witness to that, I think.

Applied to myself I see despair as something that I choose not to participate in. Remember Richard III from Shakespeare?

"Dream on thy cousins smothered in the Tower.
Let us be lead within thy bosom, Richard,
And weigh thee down to ruin, shame, and death.
Thy nephews' souls bid thee despair and die."

"Bloody and guilty, guiltily awake,
And in a bloody battle end thy days.
Think on Lord Hastings. Despair and die!"

"Richard, thy wife, that wretched Anne thy wife,
That never slept a quiet hour with thee,
Now fills thy sleep with perturbations.
Tomorrow, in the battle, think on me,
And fall thy edgeless sword: Despair and die!"

Despair and die, the two worst things that could happen to Richard. To die is obvious, but to despair means surrendering all hope, to permit utter failure to doom and dog your heels.

I do not despair over any of this. I may feel ire, a sense of injustice which threatens and may come about. No, I'd have to hate myself indeed to poison my soul this way.

What I am doing is calling out the Richards of our time, whoever they may be, and hope that Richmond wins the battle and prove worthy.

These are far different things than despair but I am not obliged to support the serfs of the Plantagenet dynasty whether by their action or inaction.

Now is the winter of our discontent. Made glorious summer by this sun of York- we hope.