Paul Levy on Wetiko psychosis

[HiThere]

You seem to be confusing the definition of 'fact'. There is no reason to dispute a fact - a fact is a fact, it is objective. --Anart

I suppose if you wish to believe that a fact cannot be disputed, that is your prerogative. You need to remember though that humans are not infallible, and we are the ones who decide what is "fact" and what is not. That is why even in science nothing is ever said to be proven with absolute certainty. The way I see it, everything is in a constant state of flux, going from one form to another. Along with that, our perceptions change as we get older and our experiences multiply.

I am sure that in your own life you might have considered something to be a fact for you that later had to be revised because you became more enlightened about the situation. It is a fact that you now weigh a certain number of pounds, and that your hair is a certain length, and that your face may be free of wrinkles, but with every moment that passes, those so called facts are continually getting revised.

Impermanence is a fact of life, strange as that may sound. Even with that though, I cannot be so sure. But it's all I have to go on, mainly because my experience tells me so.

It seems like it is hard for you to accept the fact that this forum is shared by people who has agreed to agree on some basic premises, including the view on psycopaths. This is an axiom behind the worldview that is expressed in different ways on this forum. If we were to accept that psycopaths are misguided instead of on an different evolutionary path, much of the other reasoning behind the thoughts discussed here becomes incoherent.
You have had ample time to understand the view expressed here, but choose to see it another way. Are there still insights to be gained from repeating the differing views?

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=hithere]You have had ample time to understand the view expressed here, but choose to see it another way. Are there still insights to be gained from repeating the differing views?[/quote]

The underlying thrust of these unresearched posts seems to be that of a self-percerception without the normal need to study, the possession of a richer world-view than the group chosen to correct, and a persistence eventually leading to a pronouncement of reality which is the same as psychopathy, which we know to be cognitively deficient, incapable of understanding the basic concept of "a fact."

 

[upsidedown]

It seems like it is hard for you to accept the fact that this forum is shared by people who has agreed to agree on some basic premises, including the view on psycopaths. This is an axiom behind the worldview that is expressed in different ways on this forum. If we were to accept that psycopaths are misguided instead of on an different evolutionary path, much of the other reasoning behind the thoughts discussed here becomes incoherent.
You have had ample time to understand the view expressed here, but choose to see it another way. Are there still insights to be gained from repeating the differing views?

Well, I don't disagree on everything everyone on here is saying about psychopaths. It sounds though like maybe you are asking me to leave, so I will. I appreciate that you have allowed me on here, though without Levy's article being posted I would not have even known this site existed. I will agree to disagree and move on. I have learned a lot here, but I am not convinced of many of the things that I have been told. If this makes me a psychopath, well then, so be it. Sorry if I have wasted your time. I wish you great success with your mission. See deeply into it and let it lead you where it will. May your life be filled with joy and happiness, and your struggles be not in vain.

Fairdinkum, I don't know you, but I appreciate the article on Levy and what you have posted from Lobaczewski. You are spot on about almost everything. It is interesting though how, through our various filters, we can see the world in so many different ways. I am glad for that too, because if not, we would all be fascists.


"Oh Ahab! cried Starbuck, "not too late is it, even now, the third day, to desist. See! Moby Dick seeks thee not. It is thou, thou that madly seekest him! --Melville

 

[StrangeCaptain]

You seem to be confusing the definition of 'fact'. There is no reason to dispute a fact - a fact is a fact, it is objective. --Anart

I suppose if you wish to believe that a fact cannot be disputed, that is your prerogative. You need to remember though that humans are not infallible, and we are the ones who decide what is "fact" and what is not. That is why even in science nothing is ever said to be proven with absolute certainty. The way I see it, everything is in a constant state of flux, going from one form to another. Along with that, our perceptions change as we get older and our experiences multiply.

I am sure that in your own life you might have considered something to be a fact for you that later had to be revised because you became more enlightened about the situation. It is a fact that you now weigh a certain number of pounds, and that your hair is a certain length, and that your face may be free of wrinkles, but with every moment that passes, those so called facts are continually getting revised.

Impermanence is a fact of life, strange as that may sound. Even with that though, I cannot be so sure. But it's all I have to go on, mainly because my experience tells me so.

Here we consider often the concept of objectivity. It is an ideal concept in the sense that we suspect in our current form of experiencing life we can not perceive in a completely objective fashion. I suspect that it is admitted at least once in every major thread by those who contribute often that our own senses, our own thoughts, our own emotions add some subjective color to what we perceive and we use the methods that we think are effective to try to clean our perceptions.

In the ideal sense, a fact really is a fact. It is a statement about objective truth.

We are well aware that our understanding of truth is revised as time goes on, but at any given moment, we have a working hypothesis based on various sources. We are not going to discard our working hypothesis every time someone simply says it is wrong or some part of it is mistaken. When we change it, it is because a bit of information arises that is at least of the same quality as the previous information.

You mention that scientific theories are never completely proven just not yet disproven, which is true, but the new theory has to explain all of the phenomenon the old theory explains to be a truly proper replacement.

I think we have described somewhat the foundations of what we think in places where you are not satisfied, adn it is not clear to me that you have provided any quality information with which we could revise anything that we currently think approximates truth.

If you are fundamentally at odds with our working hypothesis, then either present information of sufficient quality to change it or consider the possibility that there are other forums where your ideas will be considered in the way that you want.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I will agree to disagree and move on. I have learned a lot here, but I am not convinced of many of the things that I have been told. If this makes me a psychopath, well then, so be it. Sorry if I have wasted your time. I wish you great success with your mission. See deeply into it and let it lead you where it will. May your life be filled with joy and happiness, and your struggles be not in vain.

When somebody chooses to leave and does so politely, I do appreciate that. Thank you. I would be negligent if I did not point out that the line "I have learned a lot here, but I am not convinced of many of the things that I have been told. If this makes me a psychopath, well then, so be it." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of psychopathy. This is not what would make you a psychopath.

 

[Buddy]

You seem to be confusing the definition of 'fact'. There is no reason to dispute a fact - a fact is a fact, it is objective. --Anart

I suppose if you wish to believe that a fact cannot be disputed, that is your prerogative. You need to remember though that humans are not infallible, and we are the ones who decide what is "fact" and what is not. That is why even in science nothing is ever said to be proven with absolute certainty. The way I see it, everything is in a constant state of flux, going from one form to another. Along with that, our perceptions change as we get older and our experiences multiply.

I am sure that in your own life you might have considered something to be a fact for you that later had to be revised because you became more enlightened about the situation. It is a fact that you now weigh a certain number of pounds, and that your hair is a certain length, and that your face may be free of wrinkles, but with every moment that passes, those so called facts are continually getting revised.

Impermanence is a fact of life, strange as that may sound. Even with that though, I cannot be so sure. But it's all I have to go on, mainly because my experience tells me so.

The 'problem' with facts has been discussed before today. This appears to be one of the ongoing 'gifts' of Existentialism. Seems like all the discussions that degenerate to this point are initiated by people who are aware they have the catch-all of asserting that there is no such thing as reality (until they get constipated), and that all knowledge (including for some reason knowledge of the structure of their own logic) is therefore impossible. Yet in the next breath they will assert that they have absolute knowledge that there is no such thing as ghosts, goblins, "ESP" or not having empathy for psychopaths.

Why is it so hard to understand that all knowledge exists in a context? Knowledge is contextual, facts are contextual. Where a fact has been established, it is contextually accurate. When knowledge grows and known facts get modified, the previously known fact is still a fact within the context in which it was discovered and become known.

That's evolution. Newtonian Physics didn't get 'dis-proven' so much as it simply became a 'special case' of what later became "Relativity", because the context of discovered knowledge was more limited in Newton's time.

 

[Renaissance]

It seems like it is hard for you to accept the fact that this forum is shared by people who has agreed to agree on some basic premises, including the view on psycopaths. This is an axiom behind the worldview that is expressed in different ways on this forum. If we were to accept that psycopaths are misguided instead of on an different evolutionary path, much of the other reasoning behind the thoughts discussed here becomes incoherent.
You have had ample time to understand the view expressed here, but choose to see it another way. Are there still insights to be gained from repeating the differing views?

Well, I don't disagree on everything everyone on here is saying about psychopaths. It sounds though like maybe you are asking me to leave, so I will. I appreciate that you have allowed me on here, though without Levy's article being posted I would not have even known this site existed. I will agree to disagree and move on. I have learned a lot here, but I am not convinced of many of the things that I have been told. If this makes me a psychopath, well then, so be it. Sorry if I have wasted your time. I wish you great success with your mission. See deeply into it and let it lead you where it will. May your life be filled with joy and happiness, and your struggles be not in vain.

If you choose to leave, that is entirely your choice at this point. No one is asking you to leave. I'd also like to mention that the reason forum members agree upon certain ideas is largely because individual's have thoroughly researched the topics while challenge their own perceptions, often with the use of the group for feedback. It's a method that's gotten results. The difference is that you're debating without researching. I also think the concepts here be shocking, so I do think those who are new deserve time to truly consider the ideas. But I don't know if you're actually considering ideas or not. I would think you would have to read the material to truly do so. It doesn't seem you've really allowed yourself to delve into it yet as it seems you're more occupied with defending your stance or getting ready to leave. You do say you've learned a lot and I hope that is true. There does seem a part of you that is interested in the ideas here, but to be honest there seems a stronger part that is more interested in yourself.

Also the group here is not for convincing you of anything. If you want to learn something, go ahead and research it. When you do not have background knowledge of any particular field, it is quite bizarre to demand others fill you in, and then say you disagree (or even agree) without having investigating the material for yourself. Which basically leaves you with the opinions you hold onto so dearly. Again, that is your choice, but it doesn't have to be that way. It does not make you psychopathic, but it isn't healthy or useful either.

 

[CAROL]

Here is a free download to Lobaczewski's book

Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes
Andrew M. Lobaczewski

Download (PDF)

Mod edit: This is a copyright violation and link removed. List of legitimate suppliers available here: http://ponerology.com/order.html