Interesting quote on pathology

[palestine]

Thanks for the comments. I've checked into the 8 volumes of the wave, only one has a mention of A. Lobaczewski. Laura put it in perspective, but it's not extensive. I've read Topper, it's great, it helped me a lot. The work on "bidding" made a lot of sense. Laura's article on Ibn'Al Arabi is a nogo for me since it's AI. I will pursue my studies on my own, as I can, and post if anything nice pops up.

Perhaps - back to the quote! Isn't there anything to say about it? Doesn't anybody want to react to the fact that being antifa, antizionist - could turn one's existence towards the STS world? That was the goal of the thread. A discussion. Why is it so, how come that going antizionist will have the effect of ruining the mind? We could apply this to anti-Trump-ism...

Fascinating quote, containing a huge microcosm for extended studies.

The common world view believes that building one's character around "fighting Nazism" (or fascism), in the mind will ultimately, definitely, 100% - lead to a positive outcome. Variations exist - and this would be like an infinite possibility of extending the basic idea. "Fighting a bad element is just fine and there is no limit in this". A process can short-wire that good intention. Most people believe they simply have to be against Nazism - and there you are - I am a good person & society will reward myself. In fact, some people end up being worse humans than people who are lukewarm in the matter of Nazism.

 

[palestine]

Also, evil is a subjective term. Are we evil because we kill and eat cows? We have been there before , having suffered the effects of ponerisation under patholocal leaders and committing shameful acts. STS is a more accurate description and a framework to understand why evil exists, psychopathy being one facet of such. Fwiw

Thanks, that would be exactly the kind of theories I would like to discuss here. Simply framing "evil", "STS" and "psychopathology" - in one model. I think it can be done.

I agree with this:

Also, evil is a subjective term.

But here, when reading this idea which makes much sense (evil is a subjective concept) - I immediately remind myself of A. Lobaczewski, who says: "Since philosophy and else did not care on the opposite side of the coin, let me introduce you to a new scientifical disciplien - ponerology - the study of evil". I cannot prevent myself from ponderingg the fact that evil may be a subejctive concept, indeed, and the fact that A. Lobaczewski managed to spot the mechanism of "Pathocracy", which would be hiding above:

• DNA psychopathies
• psychopathology
• social & political phenomenons

It makes the word "relevant", since a professional psychiatrist who managed to perhaps pierce the veil of 4thD STS with 3D concepts - borrowed it. Asking you if you wouldn't change your mind on that one, under the light of those considerations. Of course that I amn't trying to convince you... but rather to show you an equation whose solution I don't have.

STS is a more accurate description

This has been my hypothesis too. One problem I have been facing is that STS is, too, a precise and 3D "trait" (when sombody starts to serve the self). I think even an animal can start serving the self. Perhaps "STS" amounts to a sort of metaphysical pool, too, and both cases (3D precise trait, cosmic pool) could yield distinctions or studies.

So, asking myself, too, if STS is a more accurate description, so that the word "evil" should be freely subordinated to "STS". It could be so, and this is specifically a matter that I would like to find an answer to. In order, perhaps, to sketch a something... A sort of A. Lobaczewski ∩ C cosmology

That would be because A. Lobaczewski's principles seem to be objective, of value, and matching reality in a high-precision level. Cannot let it like that, even if C's provide a model. Trick would be to "combine". Perhaps there is no hierarchy of quality between the C model and A. Lobaczewski; they would be describing different things, or the same thing in a different way.

Perhaps, it's right than to subordinate "evil" to "STS". I have no clue since nothing has been written on it, in a 1+1=2 way. Hence, why I have been asking (hey guys - I stumble upon this - I don't understand the how's and why's - what is - please). Finally, thanking you for your input precisely adressing the matter!

 

[Wandering Star]

Perhaps, it's right than to subordinate "evil" to "STS". I have no clue since nothing has been written on it, in a 1+1=2 way. Hence, why I have been asking (hey guys - I stumble upon this - I don't understand the how's and why's - what is - please). Finally, thanking you for your input precisely adressing the matter!

My two cents.

Just as a cat in a box can be alive or dead, and the observer (consciousness) determines its quantum state, the concept of "evil" is likewise determined by this.

The law of three, stated in this forum, states that good exists, evil exists, and the situation that determines it exists (I've paraphrased).

Let's suppose there's a forum for STO people, and someone responds to a comment from another forum member with a thumbs down, showing their rejection of that comment. The STO people on the forum would see it as a negative or evil act, and that person would be STS.

If the forum were STS, the thumbs down would be seen as something negative or evil by the forum, and the person would be categorized accordingly as being of the opposite polarity.

To paraphrase the C's, sending love and light to someone STS has the same result as sending a bucket of vomit; it's an act of evil for the STS recipient.

One side manipulates and uses, the other respects and helps.

Both form the whole, but their energies are incompatible.

 

[Wandering Star]

A fairly clear example of STS action would be the mafia portrayed in movies (which is surely the same in real life), which murders, traffics, abuses men and women, and it is seen as something perfectly normal for those who make up the mafia.

The police officers who prevent these acts and imprison the mafia members, are the ones committing the evil acts, as those people in the Mafia understand it.

If you haven't experienced it yet, saying a firm no to someone selfish immediately provokes a very interesting reaction.

 

[palestine]

The law of three, stated in this forum, states that good exists, evil exists, and the situation that determines it exists

Yes, the forum appreciates (the danger / things / ...) in terms of "STS" and my personal situation has been that of having thought of this perspective for some years now. Added to it, in parrallel - A. Lobaczewski.

Years flying by, thinking of "STS" & thinking of "psychopaths" (and specifically the "evil of A. Lobaczewski) - I am starting to try to think of correlations... To draw parrallels. Really a natural road here, of thoughts. What's similar, what's exactly matching... ?

 

[gottathink]

Best to address issues here on the open forum rather than sending me a personal message. So if you would like to post what you sent me here it can be discussed further the benefit of all.

 

[palestine]

Best to address issues here on the open forum rather than sending me a personal message. So if you would like to post what you sent me here it can be discussed further the benefit of all.

I don't agree and felt the issue contained in my PM would be best adressed with it. I of course have no intention to "post what I've sent you" here, especially since if I wanted it there, I would have written it in plain sight. Too, I am not your personal butler and don't automatically carry on actions upon request: what I "would like to" is not up to you to push. So, no I don't "would like to ... and ... or ..."!

 

[Beau]

Best to address issues here on the open forum rather than sending me a personal message. So if you would like to post what you sent me here it can be discussed further the benefit of all.

gottathink, you were right to bring this up here. palestine, your response is rude and unnecessary. If you refuse to discuss something here, start your own forum or substack. Don't go around private messaging our members and then getting upset when they rightfully call you out on it. This is a discussion forum, not a place to find people to privately message. You've already been put on moderation before because of your disagreeable nature. You can either behave in a normal, polite way our you'll be back on moderation. It takes zero effort to be nice.

 

[palestine]

Thank you @Beau for chiming in and having applied an admin's stance.

Since some "friction" / "elements" have been raising your presence, at this stage, I feel I can ask you to consider the following:

and then getting upset when they rightfully call you out on it

... and ask you to double-check on the objectivity of @gottathink 's "rightful" attitude / action. IMo it's far from being rightful and it makes all the difference.

In addition, I am not upset; I don't care at all on this aspect - but since @gottathink has been, in my perspective, featuring un-necessary and counter-productive attitudes - I reserve myself the right to answer accordingly. Hence, my so-called rude tone, which is the strict alignment to an exchange:

Despite my free-will to let go a bit off his initial posts that seemed to be a bit off-track, lecturing and "superior", and not to answer to that (and getting along)... He has been doubling down.

This triggered a PM from me, to him, explaining him how I felt his posts were not spot on, and asking him to behave differently. He tripled down on what then fall down into being a "snitch" post (not aligned I'm afraid), and you can spot this via the objective lack of consideration:

So if you would like to post what you sent me here it can be discussed further the benefit of all.

Seems nobody should determine the needs of others, isn't it? That's what he does here; in fact, this post is manipulative... He makes me write a post when something does not suit him, under the guise of whatever. The precise matter here is that he has not been productive in the context of thsi thread, and his activity has been one of a dilution - rathe rthan a contribution. I think there is a border to the forum guidelines, and when a principle such as the one you explain - applies. @gottathink may have been flirting on that border, ending up with me being the bad duck. I won't accept that and will request impartiality.

I think.. we cannot put all & everything under the guise of forum's principles such as "do your own studies, maybe we could start a thread discussing the matter of ..." - those are to be framed into a precise context. Here, the context is ... missing.

So thank you for your action: I am, indeed, complaining and asking for a twist in this new moderation message. I invite you to have a look at the thread, and see if @gottathink is pristine, or if, by any occurence, he may have been giving into the easy way. I won't accept a blame scapegoating phenomenon.

I don't appreciate the commensurate energy that I am compelled to spend here, seemingly for a person having the feel for doing the cop (not you). This matters to me.

 

[sid]

@palestine, you are clutching at the straws now. There are some mental gaps evident from the way you post or ask questions. Perhaps, re-read the feedback provided and reflect. You have a misunderstanding of this forum and community in general, which is expected when arriving freshly from the fake reality out there. This is not for everyone and that’s ok.

Something to note that you are not owed an explanation or a response by anyone about anything. Why? Because, It cannot be explained to your mind just yet because your mind is holding you a prisoner. And you don’t know this either which is a tragedy.

You need to tear down everything you know or think about eveything, including the way you go about it. A full program of unlearning and relearning is needed if there is to be any hope for you. Fwiw