Beyond Insanity

[Argonaut]

The following are sincere questions, so please bear with me.
I am trying to wrap my head around this.

Is the following true?
STO=For Creation, for BEing
STS=Destruction, for NON-BEing

Are these two choices, mutually exclusive or can have
a little "grey in between"?

So what is(are) the true role(s) of "Primary Creators"?

+ are creators only (STO?)
+ are destroyers only (STS?)
+ are both (STO/STS and weighted depending on level of knowledge?)
+ are neither (perfectly balanced, and accepts ALL for what IS?)
* Is there more to it than what I listed above (with bias?) with
comments in parenthesis?

The reason I ask these question has to do with
the rationale of killing/death/extermination/control
as a wrong/right use of the free-will principle?

When is destruction a creative principle and what
is the right thing to do if one is seeking STO goals?

Dan

I don't think there's any grey in between, although in our current state we may not always see the dividing line. We observe both Creation and Destruction in nature, and Cosmic Mind also contains both, but they are still two distinct modes. Where things get murky is if an STS act can truly serve an STO purpose. Does this ever happen? It seems to, in some cases. To plant a garden one must first destroy whatever's already growing in the area. To preserve one's life and safety, deadly animals must often be killed. And for the most part we must kill in order to eat. So what's the essential difference between these things and killing psychopaths to clear the way for a better world? This is the mindset jacksun seemed to be in. He read Laura's words about rattlesnakes, and took them to what he viewed as the logical conclusion.

I have no trouble understanding that slaughtering psychopaths is not a solution. But then why are other forms of killing/destruction ok? I think it's because we live in an STS world, making STS actions sometimes necessary. So in that sense jacksun is right. But ultimately he's still wrong. Because STS methods should be avoided as long as there is an STO alternative. And in the case of a ponerized world, there IS. We're already engaged in it. The STO answer is FOTCM and everything which has led up to it.

And there's also what the C's have said. We must still act in favor of our destiny, even if it appears to be acting against another. If a psychopath were in my house with a gun, I'd do what was needed to get myself and loved ones out of that situation alive. Most anybody here would. Same goes for a deadly snake. That's acting in favor of our destiny. But that's not the case with the psychos controlling our world right now. We can act in favor of our destinies even with them around - and often even BECAUSE of the lessons they provide. On the other hand, I'd say it's acting against our destinies to even promote killing psychopaths. Because such talk could put a big "terrorist" target on our heads. It's not just a right vs. wrong issue - it's a matter of our own safety, and our freedom to continue working towards a true STO solution.

And finally, as Mac mentioned, if we came at the psychopaths directly we would lose. It's guaranteed. Like Lennon said, "Once they get you violent, they know how to handle you." Such an endeavor could even be spun by the PTB into an excuse for martial law. They want us angry. They want us to try and fight them. They want us down at their level so they can deal with us in a way they understand. Let's not give them that satisfaction.

 

[dant]

Argonaut:

Thanks for responding! You have put together some good things
to think about, but of course, it seems to me, that it is not always
that clear-cut, in what the choices ought to be, for every given situation?

One thing that I was thinking about when I posted this question
is: What if it is possible to recognize psychopaths for what they
are and simply allow them to live according to their type/behaviour,
in their own habitats, but do not allow them to occupy places where
the majority of (normal) people's welfare might be at stake? Is that
something we do today for "failed" psychopaths/OPs/certain people?

Is it no different to allow rattlesnakes or other critters to live in designated
habitats, where (normal) people do not belong, for their own safety, and we
can all get along just fine? Perhaps this is unrealistic, given what we observe
in our 1-4D environment, and what lessons does this serve, and for whom?

If a critter escapes outside of it's own habitat, then simply call the "critter-handler"
and have this critter placed back into it's designated habitat? We somewhat do
this today, all over the world? What is wrong with that? No killing is necessary
in these cases, unless the critter is "psychotic" and is a constant danger beyond
preservation?

Seems to me, the more we learn about managing the affairs of all things so that
all things can co-exists (if that is even possible), the better off that 'balance' can
be restored/maintained? Perhaps the lesson is that we got lazy (in knowledge),
and let things get completely out of hand (chaos), and we end up to where we are
now? Is this a natural and recurring theme, for observers to learn from, if they care?

I am reminded of: 'This is one big school..., All there is, is lessons...'

Dan

 

[Argonaut]

You have put together some good things
to think about, but of course, it seems to me, that it is not always
that clear-cut, in what the choices ought to be, for every given situation?

It's not always clear-cut, you're right. We see things from a limited - and often skewed - perspective. Doing the work can help with that. But we still have a long way to go. So in the meantime, what do we do? Most of the time we can submit our situations to the forum for feedback. As Laura has said, this group acts collectively as a qualified Fourth Way teacher, a "man number 5." It's a source of great wisdom. But what about choices we need to make quickly, in the heat of the moment? In those cases I think we can still apply the knowledge we've gained so far. We'll make some mistakes - but if we're always striving to act in an STO way, those mistakes will be lessons.

[quote author=dant]
One thing that I was thinking about when I posted this question
is: What if it is possible to recognize psychopaths for what they
are and simply allow them to live according to their type/behaviour,
in their own habitats, but do not allow them to occupy places where
the majority of (normal) people's welfare might be at stake? Is that
something we do today for "failed" psychopaths/OPs/certain people?
[/quote]

It might be possible. But since psychopaths only seem to enjoy using/abusing normal people, how could we ensure a happy existence for them in psychopath-only habitats? And what if they produce non-psychopath offspring? Would we take those children away from them? Or would we sterilize them so it doesn't become an issue? It seems like no matter what, we risk being inhumane if we try to control their lives like this. Psychopaths could be considered "developmentally-disabled" under the current definition. We currently have "group homes" for DD people, where we try to help them live full, happy lives. Maybe we could have something similar for psychopaths? Homes or communities where normal people have the "job" of pretending to let the psychopaths manipulate and use them. It could also double as a hands-on education for learning about their ways. This sounds pretty silly though, and the employees would have to be extremely good actors. But honestly, I don't have any definite ideas about what we should do with them... It's a tough one.

As for failed psychopaths (serial killers, etc), I guess we could do what we're already doing - just a more humane version. Those types definitely need to stay isolated, even from other psychopaths.

[quote author=dant]
Is it no different to allow rattlesnakes or other critters to live in designated
habitats, where (normal) people do not belong, for their own safety, and we
can all get along just fine? Perhaps this is unrealistic, given what we observe
in our 1-4D environment, and what lessons does this serve, and for whom?

If a critter escapes outside of it's own habitat, then simply call the "critter-handler"
and have this critter placed back into it's designated habitat? We somewhat do
this today, all over the world? What is wrong with that? No killing is necessary
in these cases, unless the critter is "psychotic" and is a constant danger beyond
preservation?
[/quote]

This could work, except that some animals tend to hide and then turn up unexpectedly. They can be hard to fully contain. And certain creatures do seem to be a constant danger beyond preservation... Like king cobras, who supposedly hunt a person down relentlessly once they've sensed one in the area. Maybe it's not the animals who need to be kept in designated habitats - maybe it's us. It could be a simpler solution. Cities could be built with this in mind, maybe. Inside giant domes! I think that human overpopulation may be a big factor, too. The animals technically already have their habitats, but we keep expanding into them. So many animals have no choice but to share space with us.

[quote author=dant]
Seems to me, the more we learn about managing the affairs of all things so that
all things can co-exists (if that is even possible), the better off that 'balance' can
be restored/maintained?

Perhaps the lesson is that we got lazy (in knowledge),
and let things get completely out of hand (chaos), and we end up to where we are
now? Is this a natural and recurring theme, for observers to learn from, if they care?
[/quote]

I think so. We're now living with the result of centuries of pathocracy, so figuring out where to go from here is difficult. Maybe it could help to think about how things might have evolved if psychopaths had never taken over? There may also be good examples of non-ponerized societies we can study.

[quote author=dant]
I am reminded of: 'This is one big school..., All there is, is lessons...'
[/quote]

Indeed. :)

 

[durabone]

THEY DO NOT FEEL FEELINGS.

That's a tough call. Seems that they feel fear and anger quite well.