The Living Force
Very intelligent people have been trying to understand "sick systems" for millennia. They have proposed a multitude of supposedly 'healthy' systems as replacements. Some of those systems have actually been attempted. None of them have worked. Why? Because they become ponerized, because the 'sick' individuals, about whom no one was talking, moved into the social movements working to establish these systems and corrupted them, as Lobaczewski so carefully documents in his book.Leif Erlingsson said:But your total fokus on broken people - psychopaths - makes it appear as though you are dividing people into "us and them", in spite of all the nice words to the contrary. I know those nice words, I have believed many of them for 15 years as a devoted mormon. This focus - rather than focusing on sick systems - is dangerous. I agree completely with regard to the sick systems, and agree with Dr Lobaczewski in this regard. But some of the footnotes of the book, by Henri Sy and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, suggest that something is not right. They are footnotes which enforce the differences between different "kinds" of people. Actually contrary to one of Dr Lobaczewskis figures on one of the pages in the book.
Without identifying the pathological individuals, and their pathological ways of seeing the world, without a thorough understanding of how their experience of the world is at variance with the experience of those Lobaczewski calls "normal people", we'll never get out of this cycle of events.
That should be clear to anyone who studies the question. Lobaczewski spends a long part of his book explaining the different individual types of pathology before he goes on to show how they function together in a system. He names individuals as examples of the various types. In other words, he does not shy away from looking at broken people. So Mr Erlingsson is incorrect to imply that there is a difference in understanding between the text and the footnotes.
Given that the psychopaths have used every conceivable difference between normal people to promote hatred, setting us one against another in order to divide and rule, killing any and all, it can be considered a somewhat normal learned response to automatically decide that any division is wrong, that dividing people at all, based upon any criteria, is wrong. We have certainly seen this response over and over again among those who think that if we could just love one another, the world would be a beautiful place. But it is clear to me that people who react this way are reacting mechanically.
I doubt they have ever studied psychopathy.
Cleckley or Hare present such a wealth of information about the nature of the psychopath, about their shallow emotional life matched with the most profound indifference to the fate of others, that it is clear we are dealing with individuals who are, for all practical purposes, significantly different from normal people. We ignore that difference at great risk, as the history of our world shows time and again.
It is easy to react mechanically, in this case, to respond to centuries of division based upon trivial difference with a refusal to differentiate and distinguish at all. It is much harder to be objective and to rise above our mechanical natures, digging below the appearances to understand the true dynamics at play. Resisting and overcoming the mechanical urge is a question of the 'third force', a question of understanding that there is good, evil, and the concrete situation in which the dynamic between the two plays out that must be understood in order to know which is which. A correct understanding of psychopathy is absolutely necessary to be able to make such an analysis.