Andrzej Łobaczewski - "CHIRURGIA SŁOWA"

[palestine]

associated naivety

I find this to be a precious conceptual finding! Thank you! I have been stumbling upon this aspect and believe it ties to the principle of "lack of knowledge" (if I was to remain "conceptual").

I stumbled upon this idea ("lack of knowledge" being the culprit) here:

Andrew M. Lobaczewski - "Political ponerology"

Ever since ancient times, philosophers and religious thinkers representing various attitudes in different cultures have been searching for the truth regarding moral values, attempting to find criteria for what is right, and what constitutes good advice. They have described the virtues of human character at length and suggested these be acquired. They have created a heritage containing centuries of experience and reflection. In spite of the obvious differences of originating cultures and attitudes, even though they worked in widely divergent times and places, the similarity, or complementary nature, of the conclusions reached by famous ancient philosophers are striking. It demonstrates that whatever is valuable is conditioned and caused by the laws of nature acting upon the personalities of both individual human beings and collective societies. It is equally thought-provoking to see how relatively little has been said about the opposite side of the coin; the nature, causes, and genesis of evil. These matters are usually cloaked behind the above generalized conclusions with a certain amount of secrecy. Such a state of affairs can be partially ascribed to the social conditions and historical circumstances under which these thinkers worked; their modus operandi may have been dictated at least in part by personal fate, inherited traditions, or even prudishness. After all, justice and virtue are the opposites of force and perversity; the same applies to truthfulness vs. mendacity, similarly like health is the opposite of an illness. It is also possible that whatever they thought or said about the true nature of evil was later expunged and hidden by those very forces they sought to expose.

The character and genesis of evil thus remained hidden in discreet shadows, leaving it to literature to deal with the subject in highly expressive language. But, expressive though the literary language might be, it has never reached the primeval source of the phenomena. A certain cognitive space remained as an uninvestigated thicket of moral questions which resist understanding and philosophical generalizations.

It shows troubles arising because of "an un-investigated thicket", and the lack of conscience on a certain amount of things. Evil, pathology, etc - all the things that A. Lobaczewski points out. People dedicated efforts on "love", beauty and the positive aspects of things.

A scrambler in regard of my idea is the fact that STS would of course opt for preventing the knowledge to be spread.

This lays down a sort of equation I could not get out of, but hinting at "lack of knowledge" and "preventing knowledge"; a sort of loop, obviously. "Associated naïvety" may originate here, in midst of a process manipulating a positive aspect of human beings.

(That is my quest on "the how's & why's". Trying to get at the root of things)

 

[Mark7]

This lays down a sort of equation I could not get out of, but hinting at "lack of knowledge" and "preventing knowledge"; a sort of loop, obviously. "Associated naïvety" may originate here, in midst of a process manipulating a positive aspect of human beings.

...and that just made me think of how certain birds will lay their eggs in other birds' nests, and the other birds will raise and take care of the foreign birds like their own. That could almost be symbiotic... but we don't have that here, it seems.

 

[palestine]

but we don't have that here, it seems

(well... rather... )

By the way I like you rsignature very much!

we still have no science of consciousness

Thinking of it, wouldn't it be possible to do something... ? This is of my interest. I have been studying this and thinking of it for a while. It is difficult to not reinvent the wheel but we can feel there is a need to have more accurate sciences for reality.

C's laid down the big objective metaphysic. I suppose Laura meant a "main stream "science of consciousness, something that would work better than our present sciences.

I am stating "main stream", because the thing that immediately came to mind was that a theory of consciousness would unveil the "UFO" aspect. I am not sure. But at a first glance, such a theory would require than to be "objective" - so it would have to encompass all forms of "consciousness"... Unless Men In Black stop appearing, and other variations too - we would be encountering those consciousnesses, on our "roads". A theory of consciousness would have to factor those in.

Unless a somehow "milder" (or "different") model... ? I believe it woudl be possible than to dodge the UFO aspect, perhaps in remaining general. Or in describing things starting from a specific angle, and keeping an opening such as "and there exists other various forms of consciousness". The model would be describing the main "protagonists" here, and would be focused on A. Lobaczewski's ideas.

I think this could be successful since humans are the indigenous people of planet Earth. It would be normal than to start with humans, as a sort of standard. From there, it would be a matter of studying the discrepancies, so to speak - from the "normal human". I think this is something that transpires from A. Lobaczewski's work and I am only spicing it a bit:

Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political Ponerology”

After all, psychologically normal people constitute both the great statistical majority and the real base of societal life in each community. According to natural law, they should thus be the ones to set the pace; moral law is derived from their nature. Power should be in the hands of normal people. A ponerologist only demands that such authority be endowed with an appropriate understanding of these less-normal people, and that the law be based upon such understanding.

And I feel a theory of consciousness that would be practical could make use of:

Martha Stout - "The Sociopath Next Door"

Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.

Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.

The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

A Structural Theory of Narcissism and Psychopathy

According to Robert Hare, Cleckley, Stout, Salter, Brown, Łobaczewski, and many other experts in psychopathy, a diagnosis of psychopathy cannot be made on the basis of visible behavioral symptoms to the exclusion of interpersonal and affective symptoms because such a procedure essentially makes psychopaths of many people who are simply injured by life or society, and allows the true psychopaths who have a well-constructed "mask of sanity" to escape detection.

Canucwhatic Blogspot - “Why do we love psychopaths and sociopaths?”

Psychopaths, however, are people who, at their very core, lack the capacity to make an emotional connection with others, who lack the capacity to empathize, but who have not broken with reality.

Are you sitting next to the office psycho?

The key characteristic of all psychopaths is having no conscience

So there exists a basic dichotomy, in society, which is hidden. It's in terms of consciousness. I wouldn't want to discriminate psychopaths. It's just that "normal human beings" constitute a standard. One problem is that psychopaths are humans with genetic tweaks. What if a STO Venusian comes by? He's not a "human being", neither a psychopath. What if an STS Martian comes by? He's not a human, so he does not fit the "human being with a genetic tweak".

I have been stumbling upon those obstacles when trying to think of a cohesive whole. I know there are some people on Substack who try to lay down a model.

 

[Mark7]

I have been stumbling upon those obstacles when trying to think of a cohesive whole. I know there are some people on Substack who try to lay down a model.

Sounds like you've been doing 'The Work', blessed is he who seeketh after knowledge...

I kinda doubt his link to the actual 'Don Juan' - but otherwise a reasonable analysis it seems.

 

[Wodnik]

(well... rather... )

By the way I like you rsignature very much!



Thinking of it, wouldn't it be possible to do something... ? This is of my interest. I have been studying this and thinking of it for a while. It is difficult to not reinvent the wheel but we can feel there is a need to have more accurate sciences for reality.

C's laid down the big objective metaphysic. I suppose Laura meant a "main stream "science of consciousness, something that would work better than our present sciences.

I am stating "main stream", because the thing that immediately came to mind was that a theory of consciousness would unveil the "UFO" aspect. I am not sure. But at a first glance, such a theory would require than to be "objective" - so it would have to encompass all forms of "consciousness"... Unless Men In Black stop appearing, and other variations too - we would be encountering those consciousnesses, on our "roads". A theory of consciousness would have to factor those in.

Unless a somehow "milder" (or "different") model... ? I believe it woudl be possible than to dodge the UFO aspect, perhaps in remaining general. Or in describing things starting from a specific angle, and keeping an opening such as "and there exists other various forms of consciousness". The model would be describing the main "protagonists" here, and would be focused on A. Lobaczewski's ideas.

I think this could be successful since humans are the indigenous people of planet Earth. It would be normal than to start with humans, as a sort of standard. From there, it would be a matter of studying the discrepancies, so to speak - from the "normal human". I think this is something that transpires from A. Lobaczewski's work and I am only spicing it a bit:

Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political Ponerology”


And I feel a theory of consciousness that would be practical could make use of:

Martha Stout - "The Sociopath Next Door"


A Structural Theory of Narcissism and Psychopathy


Canucwhatic Blogspot - “Why do we love psychopaths and sociopaths?”


Are you sitting next to the office psycho?


So there exists a basic dichotomy, in society, which is hidden. It's in terms of consciousness. I wouldn't want to discriminate psychopaths. It's just that "normal human beings" constitute a standard. One problem is that psychopaths are humans with genetic tweaks. What if a STO Venusian comes by? He's not a "human being", neither a psychopath. What if an STS Martian comes by? He's not a human, so he does not fit the "human being with a genetic tweak".

I have been stumbling upon those obstacles when trying to think of a cohesive whole. I know there are some people on Substack who try to lay down a model.

Hi palestine , i found this pdf book of
Political ponerology by Łobaczewski in polish

https://marucha.wordpress.com/wp-co...ndrzej-lobaczewski-ponerologia-polityczna.pdf

 

[Wodnik]

Hi palestine , i found this pdf book of
Political ponerology by Łobaczewski in polish

https://marucha.wordpress.com/wp-co...ndrzej-lobaczewski-ponerologia-polityczna.pdf

See if I can find pdf of “ Chirurgia słowa “

 

[Approaching Infinity]

See if I can find pdf of “ Chirurgia słowa “

Probably sometime this year I'll start writing a series on this book, using AI translations of all the stuff that isn't repeated in his other books.

 

[palestine]

@Wodnick

Thank you! I already own several copies of the paper book "political ponerology" One day, I found a used copy in a second hand shop, and a very ancient edition! I was very happy.

The second book is very difficult to find. I found one copy one day. So that I can go through the book now. I was trying to find it without success but I have it. Redpillpress own the rights of "Political ponerology" so it is cool than to link the pdf. But I think "chirurgia slowa" has different copy rights so that we should not drop a pdf here. I think the best is to study excerpts.

Thank you @Approaching Infinity it would be great. I can provide you with an Enlish translation of the book if this is of use to you. What would be great would be than to study the book, and I would be very happy to read from you, if you do as you explain.

 

[palestine]

Sounds like you've been doing 'The Work', blessed is he who seeketh after knowledge...

Thank you for the positive and encouraging message. I appreciated it much and wanted to thank you for the kind words. (On that note - I am ... getting older lol!)

@Wodnik, I am sorry that I mispelled your nick name, wrote it Wodnick instead of Wodnik. I am very sorry about that.

---

I have to amend something that I wrote, in regard of main stream psychology. I quoted some excerpts hinting at main stream psychology as not being up to date and perhaps unable to adress psychological issues. This could be too black and white. It remains true, but I have to say that A. Lobaczewski has room for "Freud" and that he sees objectivity in main stream psychiatry / psychology. It is just that he believes that it is insufficiently objective in its fundations, and that the best method remains to be found.

I wouldn't want to convey the idea that psychology and psychiatry are worthless. I believe it is of use, and it can help. Even Freud. There exist skilled professionals and the job of psy is something needed, of value and they of course know a great deal on the mind.

 

[palestine]

Please allow me to introduce a very interesting quote, which seems to corroborate the following one coming from Political Ponerology (so, the new quote comes right after!):

Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Political Ponerology”

After all, psychologically normal people constitute both the great statistical majority and the real base of societal life in each community. According to natural law, they should thus be the ones to set the pace; moral law is derived from their nature. Power should be in the hands of normal people. A ponerologist only demands that such authority be endowed with an appropriate understanding of these less-normal people, and that the law be based upon such understanding.

I already quote that one but the new quotes seems to go along the very same lines... I understand A. Lobaczewski's thoughts stem from an idea that humans, normal humans - is a reality, a specific nature, "fundamental" in the sense that they are the indigenous people of the Big Blue marble... We meet different "species", there exist many "variations" perhaps... But nevertheless, "human beings" have a role, a function - they constitute a sort of "standard".

From there on, it does not allow any form of superiority or else... Well, there must be, somehow, because "normal genetic humans" are the representatives. They must be more fit for all jobs pertaining to "the planet Earth". So it's not a matter of judgment - but simply a mater of "fact". To discern if we are superior than another species, we would have to perform a sort of exam, and examinate each "points". That is not the matter here, and the idea is perhaps the belonging to planet Earth, and the knowledge of man and reality.

So here is the second quote:

Andrew M. LOBACZEWSKI - “Chirurgia slowa”

Psychotherapy cannot be based on any doctrine of heterogeneous origins in relation to human nature. Therefore, any political, sociological, philosophical, or religious doctrine that imposes on the human personality properties that are speculative and not derived from human knowledge cannot constitute a basis for therapy of that personality. (((((((Fundamental premises can only stem from an understanding of human nature, the individual nature of man, and its reactions to the social environment and historical conditions. Whenever a therapist departs from this principle, their work begins to miss its purpose.)))))))

Concept is simple: main stream world views & folk wisdom, that don't know about - for instance - genetic psychopathy and various "races" ... will tend to see all humanoïds as being the same. All is nowadays put into the same bag. When it's not, especially when it comes to the above-mentionned idea... That of "human beings, representatives of something specific and delimited".

"A psychotherapy based on an heterogeneous view on human nature" means this. The idea is that there is no homogneity what we spectate, when we look at society. The mass of people, all people and beings - is not homogeneous... It's far from being an homogeneous whole, as we have been taught to believe. There exists many variations - and it appears "normal human beings" are part of an equation, and that it is appreciable (objective) than to consider it as a sort of standard.

And so, A. Lobaczewski explains it's wrong than to factor in heterogeneity in regard of humans.

This means humans are something specific, it's X and not Y. Both views have consequences and the idea heere is to simply remain objective with "what is". What we do with it is another step.

So - human nature is a definite domain, specific traits. Love, being, spirituality - a proper way for growth, etc - which may be different when it comes to races variations. What's applicable to humans may not work for others, at all.

It's about a big basic of the world view. I think it's a pillar of A. Lobaczewski's teachings. I wasn't sure, but reading this sentence confirms my idea on the matter. I am still not sure but this is what I come up with.

On my side, I seldom see world views that are pejorative in regard of "humans". Many people tend to adopt the schizoïd idea that "humans are weak, humans are faillible": It isn't so. Humans are perfect, and they are good, naturally good.

Pejorative takes such as "ah - those humans - they are so stupid" don't meet reality. Even if it sometimes has a sort of truth because humans, manipulated, act stupid - the fundation remains: that is not how humans ultimately are... Ultimately, deep inside, they are not like that - so conveying the idea "ah.. those humans ... etc" is simply off-track, technically speaking. We would build a wrong world view starting from there. Once we meet a normal human who has been able to correctly developp, without pathological interferences, and becoming on the STO road for example - we would think "ah, humans are weak so that person must be". That is why it is important IMo than to give the fundamentals their proper due... And to believe in humanity in general...

Sorry for the "violins" & things but I appreciate all of this as a sort of gross starting point to progress.

People are very badly affected, programmed and manipulated. result are people that are dangerous, sometimes, for ourselves. So this is not an encouragement to "open our hearths" to whoever comes by, but an idea, for a proper system of thoughts. "How things really are" in the basics.