Thanks for providing the definition. According to what you provided, it cannot be something one is born with. I understand. I'm not sure what you mean by "creating a scale/degree or division between us... etc". i don't really want to get deep into this as I just signed up to respond to one post, but truth is that there are varying degrees of sanity and ponerology and psychopathology whether the forum or anyone else wants to acknowledge that or not. It's what causes one person to murder and another to calm him/herself down in such a situation of heightened emotion/anger. I do believe that psychopaths have emotions- you can clearly see their emotions of anger, and feeling of threat, fear, etc. They just don't have too many positive ones. Anyways, you can call my points conversive thinking if you like, or any other philosophical definition you want to put out there, but I can say that no one here on this board or anywhere is 100% objective- everything people say including the person who said I am doing a disservice to the forum's vision is coming from some subjective point of view based on his/her life experiences. It's like how media channels say "we are unbiased news, we are superior." There's no such thing. If conversive thinking means projecting one's own pathology onto others, then I would have been suspicious of everyone around me from the time I was young, and never be victimized by psychopaths. I would have assumed that others are equally bad as myself. But no, reason I was victimized is because I had no idea that others could be so manipulative and I assumed that everyone is good inside. Because I had good feelings inside myself, I assumed that about others and projected the same good feelings onto others which landed me in big trouble. But if I am cautious now and do not trust easily now, I am called a conversive thinker. But these bad experiences have made me doubt and mistrust people in general. Cannot win. Anyways if I have misunderstood any of the definitions or violated your forum discussions, I apologize. Will take a backseat and read. Thanks.
"Puzzling People" by Thomas Sheridan - a puzzling person
- Thread starter Gawan
- Start date
Thanks for providing the definition. According to what you provided, it cannot be something one is born with. I understand. I'm not sure what you mean by "creating a scale/degree or division between us... etc". i don't really want to get deep into this as I just signed up to respond to one post, but truth is that there are varying degrees of sanity and ponerology and psychopathology whether the forum or anyone else wants to acknowledge that or not. It's what causes one person to murder and another to calm him/herself down in such a situation of heightened emotion/anger. I do believe that psychopaths have emotions- you can clearly see their emotions of anger, and feeling of threat, fear, etc. They just don't have too many positive ones. Anyways, you can call my points conversive thinking if you like, or any other philosophical definition you want to put out there, but I can say that no one here on this board or anywhere is 100% objective- everything people say including the person who said I am doing a disservice to the forum's vision is coming from some subjective point of view based on his/her life experiences. It's like how media channels say "we are unbiased news, we are superior." There's no such thing. If conversive thinking means projecting one's own pathology onto others, then I would have been suspicious of everyone around me from the time I was young, and never be victimized by psychopaths. I would have assumed that others are equally bad as myself. But no, reason I was victimized is because I had no idea that others could be so manipulative and I assumed that everyone is good inside. Because I had good feelings inside myself, I assumed that about others and projected the same good feelings onto others which landed me in big trouble. But if I am cautious now and do not trust easily now, I am called a conversive thinker. But these bad experiences have made me doubt and mistrust people in general. Cannot win. Anyways if I have misunderstood any of the definitions or violated your forum discussions, I apologize. Will take a backseat and read. Thanks.
Buddy
The Living Force
hubub said:
Sometimes I find it hard to draw clear semantic boundaries, myself. Heck, for some of my life, I couldn't even 'think through' difficult emotional periods. I was either predominately emotional-inductive-non-verbal or predominately unemotional-deductive-talk-too-much.
I have discovered that, although I've been somewhat twisted in some ways in my childhood and many, many people suffer from twisted, distorted thinking and feeling to various extents and in different subject areas, the real dangerous ones, at least to me, are those whose distortions are across-the board and leave a trail of hurt people in their wake, no matter what you call them. You don't need definitions to 'see' what's in front of you.
Most of us messed up people just haven't had any intelligent, knowing and caring people to point us in the right direction but when they do, positive changes CAN be direct and instantaneous! Hard-core cases respond with much more predictable behaviors--when you know the patterns to look for.
FWIW
L
Lauranimal
Guest
I have to admit, I'm not sure I understand what this means, Robin. Would you be willing to flesh that idea out for me? Maybe my thinking is off... but I have been under the impression that there is something of a scale... and that sometimes observing by comparison can help one come to a closer approximation of objectivity when there are no absolutes?
I might just be missing something here... and honestly, I'm not especially sophisticated, so I really appreciate you taking the time to help me understand.
Thanks
Mountain Crown
The Living Force
Auranimal said:
I would also like Robin to elaborate on this, especially in the context of anart's reply to Chirpy. I don't see conversive thinking in hubub's post - it seems to me that hubub confuses the term ponerized with pathological, which can have unique usage.
Robin, how much of Political Ponerology have you studied?
jasstnhawk
Jedi
hubub said:
"Creating a scale/degree" (sane <---> pathological) + "division" (us vs. them)
hubub said:
I agree that there are "varying degrees" sanity and pathology or as anart stated: "that there ARE pathologies that are clearly differentiated from your garden variety ponerization", but when that statement is wrapped up in an us vs. them scenario or concept, we can perhaps lose site of objective truth.
hubub said:
When I posted the definition of "conversive thinking" in response to your statement I quoted earlier ("However, I cannot put myself or others who may be"), I obviously way read more into your statement then what was actually there. So, it should be me who should apologize to you, hubub. In my rush to clarify, I did not take the time to fully comprehend what you were trying to convey and added way more then what was needed in my post. My apologies hubub.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry said:
Auranimal and Jerry, I have tried to flesh out what I meant by "scale/degree" when combined with division in my reply to hubub.
If not, please let me know and I will try to explain further or I am open to revising my thinking, whichever is needed.
I understood hubub was confusing term "ponerized" with "pathological" hence my posting the definition "ponerization" for clarification.
As to the question, "How much Political Ponerology have I studied", well I have read the book twice, review the terms almost daily, and admit that I am a relative newbie to the concept as a whole. Perhaps, until I am more versed in the topic, I should stick to topics I comprehend more fully.
Robin said:
While all people living in this ponerized world are ponerized to some degree, I think there is a very definite division between pathological (or cluster B personality disordered) people and non-pathological people. The former may be born that way, or acquired it during birth, childhood, etc. But their defining characteristics is that they are comfortable with their pathology and thus it is very hard or impossible to "cure" them. This division is more profound and objective than any other division I can think of, including gender, race, culture. Thus I don't see why having such a division, and striving to deliniate it does a great disservice to objective Truth.
Robin said:
Can you quote the relevant passage that you refer to?
Considering this statement, it may be helpful to understand the meaning of "conversive thinking" aka information selection and substitution (from enpsychopedia.org):Robin said:
[/quote]
I also don't see how hubhub's statement is related to "conversive thinking" or information selection and substitution. Hubhub expressed IMO a normal feeling, which is revulsion to pathological behaviors.
My 2 cents.
jasstnhawk
Jedi
Bobo08, I thought I had explained or fleshed out my "position" in my last post. I also, apologized to hubub for my over zealous post. Please read my previous post, and if you need further clarification, I will try my best to clarify.
I was referring to the passage concerning "objectivity":
For me, this means to work towards the realization of the Real I or seeing the Consciousness as It sees Itself, individually--within a like-minded or esoteric network, in order to separate of truth from lies to gain the ability to "see" a close approximation of objective truth. IMHO, an us vs. them scenario puts the whole/group at a disadvantage to "see" objective truth.
Bobo08 said:
I was referring to the passage concerning "objectivity":
For me, this means to work towards the realization of the Real I or seeing the Consciousness as It sees Itself, individually--within a like-minded or esoteric network, in order to separate of truth from lies to gain the ability to "see" a close approximation of objective truth. IMHO, an us vs. them scenario puts the whole/group at a disadvantage to "see" objective truth.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Robin said:
I think you're jumping to conclusions on that and actually stating a paramoralism. This discussion has nothing to do with 'us versus them'. It has to do with seeing reality as it is and the reality of the situation is that we are not all one - human beings are not all the same and created equal. There are people who appear to be human on this planet who lack the very qualities that make human beings human - compassion, empathy, the ability to learn from their mistakes - and they lack them from birth. These are pathological "people" and there is most definitely a degree of difference between them and normal human beings. To pretend that isn't so is to get caught up in the newage idea that we are all one and any pointing out of differences is divisive. It's not divisive, it's just truth.
[quote author=r]
I agree that there are "varying degrees" sanity and pathology or as anart stated: "that there ARE pathologies that are clearly differentiated from your garden variety ponerization", but when that statement is wrapped up in an us vs. them scenario or concept, we can perhaps lose site of objective truth.[/quote]
I don't see the 'us versus them' concept introduced by anyone in this discussion, though you seem to be seeing it. It's rather black and white thinking on your part, especially when the reality is that to most pathologicals, it is a biological imperative to destroy non-pathologicals, be that physically, mentally or emotionally - so - for them, it most definitely is 'us versus them'. I think it is vitally important to understand that there is no moralization involved in pointing out the reality that essential psychopaths are, by definition and hard wiring, not the same as mentally and emotionally normal human beings. If it comes down to 'us versus them' then that is only because they are an intraspecies predator and we, as normal human beings, are their prey. But please understand that this is on the impetus of the pathological - normal human beings usually just want to 'get along' with everyone, and for us all to 'be one' - which is what makes us perfect prey. fwiw.
Buddy
The Living Force
anart said:
I agree. There's another more general reason to make differences conscious and explicitly known too, I think. It has to do with how people conjure up 'monisms'--a false 'oneness' or universal context that is more herd-like and group-think than a unity among autonomous entities. Maybe it's just a natural error of lazy system 2, but the reality seems to be that, more often than not, as we conceptualize, we abstract from empirical data and simultaneously generalize. That can be dangerous where similarities are a sole focus of attention while important differences are largely ignored.
Not saying anyone is doing that, just that I've seen this in every 'monism' I've ever looked at thus far and it seems useful for me to keep in mind.
jasstnhawk
Jedi
anart said:
You are absolutely right, once again I read more into hubub's statement:
then was there. Also, I unwittingly used a line of reasoning which does not fit the discussion within this thread nor does it serve me well (or anyone else for that matter) on this 3rd density plane. As stated earlier, I was over zealous in my original reply to hubub. Furthermore, as this thread has progressed, there has arisen a clear need for me to "check" my own programs, wishful thinking, etc.. I also see my "age old" tendency to see things as "black and/or white".
To address the concept of "we are all one", up to this point, I have understood the concept of "we are all one" as "we are all one, but we are not the same." In other words, as I have understood it, -- to move towards STO is to contribute to the whole or to the One as individuals, and those who are STS inclined seek to assimilate all into the One (like the sci-fy Borg concept). Both STO and STS are absolute (Being and non-being respectively), but at different ends of the food chain (this stated with Gurdjieff's "Diagram of Everything/Cosmology/Food Chain" in mind). Perhaps I need to research this topic(s) further.
anart said:
Again, you are correct, and again I am/was seeing more than what was stated. I agree with you that it is of the utmost importance to point out "the reality that essential psychopaths are ... not the same as mentally and emotionally normal human beings". Also, if I am reading your comment correctly, I understand that it is the "pathologicals/STS" who have thrown down the gauntlet first hence the "us (prey) vs. them (predator)", and that I should refrain from (para)moralizations concerning this topic (or any other topic) via becoming more aware of my mechanical thinking, otherwise I am "lunch".
I am "in the weeds today", but I am learning. Please know that I take all the feedback given here seriously, and from it I will start digging in the corners of my mechanical thinking not yet cleaned/cleared, and perhaps check those corners that I thought were.
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
****Vent/ Rant Alert ****
It's Official! Thomas Patrick Sheridan has posted more about his penis than any male I have ever encountered in my 50+ years on this planet! There are Porn Stars who haven't waxed poetic about their wee wee's as often as this "man" (and I use the term loosely) has! The sheer volume of his penis posts is staggering. I think he just sits there all day long at his sticky little keyboard cybersexing with anyone who says they're female. He even creates female sockpuppets to tell himself how wonderful he is.
I swear to gawd, practically every other post I open is him bragging about his wonderful willy. I have dealt with raging Narcissists before...many times, but this guy is unfreak'in believable. Between his "giant dong" and his "alabaster buttocks" I NEED BRAIN BLEACH!
jasstnhawk
Jedi
Jones said:
Thank you for the words of encouragement Jones ... Jumping in today has been a bit "rocky", but you are absolutely right "the only way that we can know where our errors lie is to put what we're thinking out there for review." So, I shall keep "jumping" and learning, "jumping" and learning! :)
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Robin said:
I apologize for interrupting yawl's very intelligent conversation with a newsflash about Thomas Sheridan's penis obsession. I just had such an "EWWWWWW" moment, I needed to share.
Regardless of which words yawl decide are best to use to describe him...I'm just going with "GROSS"
jasstnhawk
Jedi
Guardian said:Robin said:
I apologize for interrupting yawl's very intelligent conversation with a newsflash about Thomas Sheridan's penis obsession. I just had such an "EWWWWWW" moment, I needed to share.
Regardless of which words yawl decide are best to use to describe him...I'm just going with "GROSS"
No worries, Guardian ... :) Personally speaking, I welcome the interruption. However I now feel the need to take a "Silkwood shower" after reading the continuing, pornographic saga of Thomas Patrick Sheridan!
