I have some questions about SOTT!

[Ryan]

*various questions*

It seems you didn't read the rules, or you would not have asked some of those questions. Actually, "asked" is probably the wrong word, because your posts read like demands for information, not honest questions.

 

[PopHistorian]

Soul's question:
<< If you had power to stop a event which would cause billions of deaths but lead to a better reality over time what would you do? >>
appeared to be probing whether this forum leans toward deontological or teleological ethics. Deontological ethics places moral value in doing duty, the source of which is reason. It is said to be morally intuitive (keep in mind that "morality" is about what is "right" and is thus subjective), and regards each action's immediate effects upon others, without considering the infinite probabilities of effects that might result from each action. Laura's answer reflected this viewpoint almost exactly. Basically, deontological ethics postulates that the end doesn't justify the means.

Teleological ethics are the opposite -- evaluates actions based on end result -- places moral value in a desirable end, which is supposed to be some "good," the means to which are justified. And these means can include morally counter-intuitive actions (such as killing people). A choice for (as in Soul's question) "better reality over time" at the cost of "billions of deaths" would be teleologically ethical. Consequentialism is one form of teleological ethics that states that to reach a desirable end, there is moral value in the course of actions required. Utilitarianism is another form in which the "desirable end" is the "greatest good" for the greatest number of people.

The trouble with teleological/consequentialist/utilitarianist viewpoints is, quite obviously, that each "desirable end" and "good" is determined by an individual or group, which leaves things wide open to subjectivity, relativism, and rationalization. Imagine the playground that this is for the pathological person in a position of power. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism are the ethics of world leaders, who believe they are doing the world a favor by striving for "desirable ends" such as "democracy," "peace," or "wealth," no matter how many people they have to kill, imprison, or otherwise make miserable to succeed in their goals.

If I read it right, I think Soul didn't like Laura's answer and was fishing for someone to contradict it. He pushed the "greater good" argument by asking, "what if the event is part of the realitys natural progress?" Embedded in Soul's question, though, is the suggestion that reality is something other than us and that we have no say in reality's progress. This would deny the idea (among others) that all reality is consciousness. Anyway -- sounded like he was looking forward to an apocalypse and didn't want anyone interfering with progress towards it -- though I could be wrong.

Authoritarian governments simply decide on what's good and decide on the means to achieve it. A democratic government is supposed to run on contractual ethics, so that the populace supports each contract. A "desirable end" is agreed upon, then the means (course of actions) to it are supposed to be decided upon based on reasoned argument, weighing the side effects, agreeing to accept them, etc. However, every stage of the process is an open door to manipulative and deceitful behavior. How is agreement reached? Who gets to vote? Did a majority even vote? Who counts the votes? Who determined the side effects? How were they determined? How were they presented? Was everyone informed of them without bias? Is there a provision for stopping the means if they go off course? Is there a provision for stopping the means if the effects aren't what was expected? Etc., etc.

 

[Soul]

unless mankind has no affect on the cycles of nature Adpop, that consciousness only affects reality within it limits and once the consciousness has moved past those limits and wants something more then it will moves on to a more suitable reality within different limits.

If nature has no connection to the consciousness and functions on it own mechanisms then wouldnt allowing nature to complete it cycles be right thing to do even if you may have learned how to malipulate it process then the question would be should you interfere or allow nature to take it course trusting in it?

Apocalyse as you put it so negatively :( it better to see those such events as a catalyst of nature to bring forth a renewing and transmutation for the reality and all connected to it, but if you choose to see it negatively that is your choice I see it as both. My main concern is this worlds leaderships as they may in there ignorance cause a unessary war, the events in middle east are concerning specially with Iran if it gets worse nature will have to increase it renewing process (time isnt involved here).

In no way must you accept anything I claim you have your choices and own ways of doing things, I have mine but a spark can ignite another to create a flame.

 

[j0da]

In no way must you accept anything I claim you have your choices and own ways of doing things, I have mine but a spark can ignite another to create a flame.

That's what trolls usually do - they ignite flames on forums.

 

[Laura]

unless mankind has no affect on the cycles of nature Adpop, .....

In no way must you accept anything I claim you have your choices and own ways of doing things, I have mine but a spark can ignite another to create a flame.

Geeze, what happened to

.... I do not wish to stink your forums up any longer, im done letting you feed on me, .... Good bye ... I wish you well in your future,...

??????????

The guy starts out with a manipulation and then more manipulations... "Alas, cruel world! You don't like me, I'm leaving... " and then shows back up with more manipulations.

Can we say "pathological egotism"?

 

[Johnno]

unless mankind has no affect on the cycles of nature Adpop, .....

In no way must you accept anything I claim you have your choices and own ways of doing things, I have mine but a spark can ignite another to create a flame.

Geeze, what happened to

.... I do not wish to stink your forums up any longer, im done letting you feed on me, .... Good bye ... I wish you well in your future,...

??????????

The guy starts out with a manipulation and then more manipulations... "Alas, cruel world! You don't like me, I'm leaving... " and then shows back up with more manipulations.

Can we say "pathological egotism"?

Works for me :)

Not sure if "Souls" email address is viewable by the general public but the L337 GaMerZ handle is completely at odds with his pontifications.

 

[j0da]

Not sure if "Souls" email address is viewable by the general public but the L337 GaMerZ handle is completely at odds with his pontifications.

One must be well into gaming to know such slang/terminology. "L337" stands for "Elite". See http://the1337gamerznet.com/

 

[Soul]

Dont worry Laura I will leave 'im threat to your agenda, im not conditional' just hope your prepared to take responsibility for every soul that your information and methods have harmed' for if you plant seeds you are responsible for the crops.

I have not said anything that im not sure on myself can you say the same you had it proven to you personaly i take responsibility for all knowledge I give to this world.

you may ban me if like, it what you do to those who think outside the circle.

 

[vinny]

Dont worry Laura I will leave 'im threat to your agenda, im not conditional' just hope your prepared to take responsibility for every soul that your information and methods have harmed' for if you plant seeds you are responsible for the crop

straight from the covert-aggressive manipulation handbook: transfer of responsibility onto the target

I have not said anything that im not sure on myself can you say the same you had it proven to you personaly i take responsibility for all knowledge I give to this world.

you may ban me if like, it what you do to those who think outside the circle.

Soul's aggressive barely-masked-insults are not welcome here.

 

[ark]

you may ban me if like, it what you do to those who think outside the circle.

Soul is not thinking outside the circle. Indeed and in fact (sleepvinny is right) what Soul writes is the textbook case.

 

[kenlee]

Dont worry Laura I will leave 'im threat to your agenda,

Au contraire, it is your agenda that is really threatened.

 

[Pierre]

: I feel hostility from this I will leave as obviously this is not ready nor a place of light.

: I wish you well in your future, I hope you get what it is your looking for.

: Dont worry Laura I will leave

Obviously, Soul is willing to leave. Now the question is when ?

 

[Laura]

Geeze, this guy is reminding me a lot of Jon of Australia... In fact, I said so after his first post. Ya'll remember ole Jon and his doom saying on me and cass? Remember how he could sound fairly reasonable as long as nobody was contradicting him or pointing out the fallacies in his ideas? And then, how he would deteriorate? I've already pointed it out in another thread somewhere, but he fits the Schizoid psychopath profile to a "T". Note the text in bold below:

Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall herein discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this relationship rather motivated by tradition.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, but they pay little attention to the feelings of others, tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses.

Sometimes they are eccentric and odd.

Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions.

They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others.

Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.

 

[Anders]

you may ban me if like, it what you do to those who think outside the circle.

The question is whether there is any thinking going on at all.

If we allow for the possibility that soul is truly thinking outside the circle, then it might be useful to see from which circle he is coming from. For this it might be helpful to think in terms of the analogy of 4 concentric circles that Gurdjieff proposes. The inner being the esoteric circle, the next being the mesoteric circle, the third innermost being the exoteric circle and the outer circle the way of mechanical life.

"So that the possibility for people to understand depends on the possibility of penetrating into the exoteric circle where understanding begins.

..."Mechanical help cannot be required in any work of the fourth way. Only conscious work can be useful in all the undertakings of the fourth way. Mechanical man cannot give conscious work so that the first task of the people who begin such a work is to create conscious assistants."

Trolls are most possibly on the outer fringes of the 4th circle and the mechanical nature displayed by 'soul' has been evident from post one and pointed out repeatedly.

Whether 'Soul' will see this and leave voluntarily is yet to be seen.

 

[Anders]

but he fits the Schizoid psychopath profile to a "T".

Would that "T" stand for Troll by any chance