multilevelness in ponerology

[Renaissance]

In the Sott article “The Book that Can’t Be Published in America”, the distinction is made between Judaism and Zionism so as to address the common charge of anti-Semitism being made to those who oppose the Zionist state. The article was also leaning towards a redress of Jewish morality. The Signs Team answered by leaving a comment on how organized religion is a paramoralism. So here we can see how a particularly high level of pathology, Zionism, is allowed expression through an older and perhaps lower level of pathology, Judaism (or perhaps it shouldn’t be states as lower or higher levels of pathology but instead may be the degree of pathological infiltration into a system). If this is true then it seems there is multilevelness in the corruption of conscience just as there is in it’s development.

Mulilevelness was used by Dabrowski to describe lower and higher levels of existence, but he used it without the influence of pathology. His described levels were the natural states of normal human beings. Ponerology seems to round out the picture in showing how those with low developmental potential are further hindered in growth through ponergenic infection, however the same infection can act as a catalyst for those with high developmental potential. Just a couple of thoughts.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I agree that Lobaczewski rounds out the picture presented by Dabrowski. I think it's important to remember the "critically corrective interpretation" tendency of some normal people. This can range in its harmfulness, probably depending on the "multilevelness" of the individual in question. For example, many Jews will read the bible with a critically corrective approach, and will be quite moral individuals, in line with their nature as decent people. Others will accept more of the pathological material, and finally the deviants will accept the material in all its pathological glory. But all will take a criticism of the pathological material personality, thus shielding it from any legitimate criticism. These sacred cows are guarded by fences of self-censorship and false "politeness".

So I think Hart's blind spot is his lack of a psychological understanding of phenomena. He doesn't see that Judaism can be as vile as Zionism, depending on whose interpretation you analyze. It really has to do with schizoidal views of the world and their appropriation by psychopaths.

 

[Johnno]

Regarding the bible.

It's almost as if there are exoteric, mesoteric and esoteric message for those on an STS path and the exoteric, mesoteric and esoteric sections for those on a an STO level. All in the same book.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Regarding the bible.

It's almost as if there are exoteric, mesoteric and esoteric message for those on an STS path and the exoteric, mesoteric and esoteric sections for those on a an STO level. All in the same book.

While reading Thompson's "The Mythic Past" I had the same thought. For example, the central philosophical and theological tenet of the Old Testament is that: humanity does not have a "will", only God does. In other words, humans are constantly erring, making poor choices that are not in line with "God's will". And it is only in following God's will that one is holy or redeemed.

Now, at the basest level, this is simply schizoidal political propaganda: the pleebs do not know what's good for them, and they are unholy and have a rotten human nature, therefore they need a strong leader, in the form of a priesthood or political system that dictates what "God's will" truly is.

But at the highest level, it would seem absolutely true. Humans are reaction machines, as Gurdieff said, ruled by their false personality (innate tendencies and environmental influences). They believe they have a will when they do not. They constantly make poor choices that increase their own suffering and the suffering of others. And it is only when one creates a hierarchy of values within oneself and does work on the self that one can discern the difference between the base and noble "names of God." The names that one chooses to be ruled by (i.e. God's will) determine one's polarity.

The problem is, only those with some degree of mulitilevelness can see the latter option. And because most are ignorant of psychopathy, the former is most often the road taken.

An additional problem is that the schizoidal nature of the OT seems to imply that one can only learn God's will from an external source, but this is not true. It must found within, otherwise it is no higher than the level of primary integration. And thus, while it is possible to "correctively" read the OT, it is pathological from the get-go, and should be relegated to the "bad fiction" section of better book stores. ;)

 

[Ryan]

An additional problem is that the schizoidal nature of the OT seems to imply that one can only learn God's will from an external source, but this is not true. It must found within, otherwise it is no higher than the level of primary integration. And thus, while it is possible to "correctively" read the OT, it is pathological from the get-go, and should be relegated to the "bad fiction" section of better book stores. ;)

I was doing some reading specifically of/about the "Book of Job" a couple of months ago, and got the impression that it was a very interesting story with a possible "initiatory" connotation that had been swiped from a different source and "modified" slightly in order to better fit the schizoidal model - ie. that man should give up his free will to Yahweh because he's just a dirty, impure man while Yahweh is "God". Correctively interpreted, the story may actually be a parable about man confronting his own self-important nature and the trap of having a pious attitude that covers the secret desire for some kind of narcissistic supply. I haven't done much research into this yet, but it's something I found interesting. If anyone feels like reading more, the Cassiopedia entry on the Book of Job has some interesting info.

 

[Renaissance]

I think it's important to remember the "critically corrective interpretation" tendency of some normal people. This can range in its harmfulness, probably depending on the "multilevelness" of the individual in question. For example, many Jews will read the bible with a critically corrective approach, and will be quite moral individuals, in line with their nature as decent people. Others will accept more of the pathological material, and finally the deviants will accept the material in all its pathological glory.

Bringing up corrective interpretation is a good point. Just to elaborate on what I think you're saying, it seems a person would have had to develop a certain level of multilevelness in order to correctively interpret - although it would be unbalanced with the intellectual level not being informed of pathogenic infection. Then there seems another category of people who have little to no development potential or multilevelness (but are not pathological) who seem to flatly accept pathological material simply because it is most prominent in their environment.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Bringing up corrective interpretation is a good point. Just to elaborate on what I think you're saying, it seems a person would have had to develop a certain level of multilevelness in order to correctively interpret - although it would be unbalanced with the intellectual level not being informed of pathogenic infection. Then there seems another category of people who have little to no development potential or multilevelness (but are not pathological) who seem to flatly accept pathological material simply because it is most prominent in their environment.

I think that's probably the case. The more primitively integrated you are, the more rigid is your thinking, and thus the more dogmatic. You will thus accept more pathological material than someone with multilevelness. This is why it is characteropaths (primitively integrated individuals with somewhat normal emotions, compared to psychopaths) that play the biggest role in the early stages of ponerogenesis. You could call them the "true believers", I think.

Another factor to consider: Take two people with the same multilevelness: a Jew and Gentile. The Jew is raised in Judaism and interprets it correctively. The Gentile may reject Judaism on moral grounds. So lots of data is needed to make a judgment.

 

[monotonic]

I happened to be scanning these two threads and thought that this post would fit in well here:

My sister works in a maximum security prison. They are mostly murderers serving life. She's noted how focused they are on morality. The men who are imprisoned for killing other men despise the women killers adn tend to have nothing to do with them. The women killers despise the child killers etc. Its like there is a moral heirarchy and the male killers are normal. They see themselves are decent average people unlike those others which are beasts. It got me thinking that another group obsessed by morallity are politicians (and their media) and wonder if they are linked thru their psychopathy. Also, think of the evangelicals.

Anyway, its got me thinking that I should be suspicious of those that show alot of concern on morals. What does anyone else think?

JAmie

This is all from 2007 but it still seems useful especially from a "naturalistic" perspective.