So there are two podcasts from Stefan Molyneux. I want to summarise the wisdom and explain my thoughts on it. Also, obviously, integrating it into my perspective at large:
FDR podcast 6049: The TRUE origin of Evil!
The argument Stefan puts forward here from about ten minutes in. It is a good one I think if a little vague, in a way I will explain.
He says that nature is not evil, when you see something like an animal devour another one or whatever else is happening. What nature is is efficiency and hedonism. It is efficient for the lion to eat the baby deer, if that's the easiest to catch. He follows this up with that once you get into more complex feelings and emotions. Humanity. That you then have a concept of good. And good, goes against efficiency and hedonism. It has to. We have to be pushing against efficiency and hedonism to be doing something good. I.e. staying loyal to your spouse.
He then says evil is when you use the higher intelligence in a way that conceals the fact that you are using efficiency and hedonism. So the perfect environment for the thief is the one where no one else steals. Because people are not concerned with theft, and they do not then steal from the thief. So the thief expounds on the virtues of not stealing, but they steal themselves. So; the government.
It seems to have perhaps come together in my description of it. When I heard it it was hard to think through the difference between the animalistic efficiency and hedonism, and the evil efficiency and hedonism, but I think that kind of makes sense.
I don't know if it does completely. It probably does. So one who does "intimate violations". Do they say that "intimate violations" are wrong? Or do they often make a kind of virtue out of it? Say that they like doing it? They don't want to be violated themselves, I assume. But if they are strong enough that might not be an issue? Because they can beat up anyone that tries it? I don't know whether that strict moral deception is always present in criminals.
But I also don't quite agree with the main premise and think that this generalises too strongly to male expressions of evil. Perhaps for men, there is a certain utility to evil since men gain a lot evolutionary from dominance and such. But I have heard examples of incredible sadism by women that do not fit in with this example. For instance, women that torture children. There is no reason for that. It is just evil. At least as far as I understand.
I do prefer for this example, the Law of One explanation. That basically says it's kind of a mystery:
Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self?
Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic.
All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure.
Stefans explanation, in true "Generator Manifestor" form though, is kind of inspiring, and it gives a lot more tools to deal with real world issues. He talks about how to get resources, there are two ways to get them. The good way, or the way of virtue/ hard work. And the way of stealing in a sense.
So with the woman, you can court her, or do your pick up routine. Put in the work. Get the money. Then you can sleep with her. But for the person intent on 'intimate violations'. They just pull her off the street and lock her in the basement. Obviously, the former is putting in the work. The latter is not putting in the work to get the benefit via the womans free will.
It is kind of inspiring. Perhaps not with this specific example. But, in a lot of ways that people are jealous, if you gain something and others are envious of it. You can think to yourself they haven't put in the work. That psychologically helps in a very practical sense.
FDR Podcast 6092: The morality of VENGEANCE!:
Not actually about vengeance per sey. I mean, the podcast was. But the last question I think it was, no, not the last question. The second to last question. Is the one I am talking about. But it ironically matches my thoughts precisely about vengeance.
One of the things Stefan has talked about is that the mind automatically universalises everything. I am going to expose a vulnerability here. I only just realised this is going to sting a bit. But it is definitely necessary to explain my point. But, if we seek to project/ compel a moral standard in others. Then it automatically becomes one that we also compel on ourselves.
There must be some variation here. I am sure there are a lot of women that cheat on their husbands, an act of clear lust, and then tell their husbands they are 'porn brained' for wanting to have sex and things. But anyway, such things perhaps I can't explain.
But for myself. I have found this to be subtly, powerfully true.
First I will bring in some additional questions and issues that people have in life.
One is that, if we have bad experiences. The Law of One and new age in general tries to make it so that we appreciate those experiences or see some benefit in them. Personally, I would never tell people that they should do that, and I do not believe that all experiences do have a positive lesson. I think sometimes the negative just wins a battle, and there is no reason to some things sometimes.
But even so, when thinking of more mundane things than the galactic level of evil 'the negative winning a battle' might be; I think of my own experiences, reflecting on my own past, what am I to do with these memories? If I appreciate them in some way will they be positively solved and give good insights? This is one point.
Another is, obviously I do not believe in forgiveness without contrition. So things don't get solved that way. Additionally I don't believe it is possible. I think the inner being will not make a survival concession like that. Forgiving dangerous people without contrition puts you back in their orbit. I think the forgiveness without contrition mantra is mostly spread by people that get angry at others that didn't actually wrong them. So for them of course, forgiveness without contrition works. Then and the abusers themselves that want the forgiveness without contrition so they can continue their evil deeds.
I think we just have a bunch of things in our minds. Life, and grudges are a part of that. If it is all in some sort of box that can't be easily solved. Perhaps we are angry at something that doesn't even qualify enough to be a conversation, or which no dialogue can be had. Then we just chip away at it with personal insights.
Complexity in the explanation. "Freedom of association".
So anyway. I will explain an issue I have in my life, a light issue. A different situation in life that might explain that in light of Stefans wisdom, and explain how this has reframed the argument in my mind to make me appreciative of the whole thing.
The situation in my life, is that as someone who is disabled. With not much going on. Unemployed. Not in a position to get a partner etc. I don't have friends. I tend to think about past friends and family that have treated me with a lack of respect and sometimes, to my shame, recontacted them. I have done this twice recently. This is motivated by a kind of loneliness and boredom. There are other thoughts and feelings though. Importantly, and of relevance, I don't seem to have the discipline to stop doing this.
The other situation, the 'event' you might say. Is that I have been bullied in several jobs. One of them was an office job I had where I was deliberately socially excluded. This was before I really had insight into the level of my own illness because it is very hidden. But it was an office full of attractive women and they poisoned every new person who came into the business not to talk to me. I dislike these people a great deal.
The question that Stefan answered during his podcast was about social exclusion. The example was interesting, and probably relevant, but not relevant right now. The piece of wisdom that he dropped though was that freedom of association is a very fundamental right. We do not have to associate with people that we do not want to.
The insight really changed my thoughts. I do have faith things will work out in the future. It goes against what is obvious in the real world. But I think things will work out for me. Like I said I have faith.
I have wondered to myself, if things were to work out and these people reconnected. Wanted to associate with me, as they CERTAINTLY would, in my view, if I suddenly gained a lot of status and fame. I don't think that would happen, but taking the extreme to explain the chemistry. I would then be in a position of feeling like the bad guy when they have only very subtly in some cases mistreated me. My default tends to be a kind of open forgiveness attitude, due to the fact I don't really process things massively emotionally. I feel annoyed and a bit resentful. But not strongly enough to turn them away if they turned up tomorrow. It is a weakness.
Perhaps that needs to be reworked. Perhaps I am framing a bad thing in a virtuous way?
What I think has happened here, is that the inner part of my mind has used a kind of service to self strategy. Service to self strategies tend to have an attitude rather like tyrannical violence. Someone doesn't like something you did and you do violence on them to get them to change it. Within my own mind, I have thought to myself that it is negative for these people to have exercised their freedom of association, and because I have been so angry at them, it has then universalised to the idea that I also shouldn't have freedom of association. In place of that, is a kind of vaguely defined emotional blackmail. (Which can later come out with someone like me as "spiritual guidance")
BUT, I can change that thought. The office girls didn't associate with me, my ex best friend, half sister, and all the people in this kind of category. That I would like to associate with but that treat me with contempt. Are exercising their freedom of association. And this should be celebrated. (I genuinely feel this and it is a strong reframe!)
If it is celebrated, if I even LIKE them for it. Then it frees me up, within my mind, to exercise my freedom of association. When I think for some inner emotional blackmail reason, I should message that person and check on them. I also have, within myself, that I have freedom of association. This is my right.
I also think there is another pattern here. One that is not at all good. That in the new age types of communities. We are meant to follow the guidance of a kind of tyrannical system. If we are guided to connect with someone we should do it or we are unethical. But it is more likely that the positive entities, like the Law of One contact are very respectful of free will. Would fully understand and respect ideas like freedom of association.
Hopefully, this will end the pattern of contacting friend and family and experiencing the humiliation of indifference.
No comments:
Post a Comment