Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 14 of 45  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 45 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Owning Your Own Shadow
8 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2010 - 12:09PM #131
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

Mar 19, 2010 -- 2:34AM, Namchuck wrote:

 As Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn once said: 'If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? 


But the line between good and evil is placed in hearts by the society of which they are a part.  Note evil is a social concept not an intrinsic part of our nature.  Take for example the fight or flight reaction.  It is a necessary evolutionary adaptation to danger, possibly mortal danger.  It may be necessary to kill to avoid a mortal danger.  Killing in this situation is not evil, it is not even illegal.  Self defense is strong plea in a murder trial.  


There are two ways of dealing with this reaction to danger.  One is to impose a subconscious dogma that killing is evil.  That God disapproves of this reaction.  Or that it is socially unacceptable in any circumstance except a socially or God approved war.  The other is to learn to control it.  Martial arts are an Asian solution to this.  Please note that martial arts are ultimately lethal skills, but control over them is an integral part of the training. There is no thought that killing is evil, but it is strongly ingrained that it must be necessary.  Necessary is a rational controlled conscious thought.  


The problem with the subconscious evil is that not only might it slow you down in a life threatening situation, but that a necessary commission of the evil might have serious psychological consequences.  Not a real problem in a bar fight with a guy with a knife, but if the evil is something less threatening, say spilling one's seed on the ground, the cognitive dissonance can destroy an important relationship like a marriage with children.  Gee, God, I didn't spill it on the ground I spilled it in a mistress.  That's OK right? After all my wife was pregnant and unreceptive.  


Please note that sin is sin.  Killing a guy in a bar fight or spilling ones seed on the ground, both sin and both having major psychological consequences for commission albeit one being much more common than the other.  Evil is the same.  A socially imposed unconscious bar to action.  And since it is unconscious it is an all or nothing bar.  No nuance, no control.  


 


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2010 - 1:00PM #132
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

Mar 19, 2010 -- 2:34AM, Namchuck wrote:

 At Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem in 1960 the prosecution hoped to use him to personify the horrors of the Holocaust and made every effort to bring out the evil in the man, but he turned out to be disappointingly ordinary person (raised, incidentally, in an intelligent environment without "repression" where he apparently learned "intelligent control over antisocial behaviors). Hannah Arendt subtitled her book about the trial The Banality of Evil,  saying: 'The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted, nor sadistic, that they were, and still are terribly and terrifyingly normal.'


Oh, well, I might as well bring down the wrath of God and everybody on the board, by saying that Eichmann was not evil.  The evil that Arendt was talking about was a post hoc evil imposed by those who won the war.  In the context of the society of which he was socially a part, he was doing a possibly distasteful but socially mandated job.  One can reasonably say the society was evil as evil is a social attribute. But those carrying out the social directives are not evil.  


Were the bombardiers at Nagasaki and Hiroshima evil?  They killed hundreds of thousands of people and probably more horribly.  See the poetry of Togi Sankichi or movement 8 of The Armed Man by Karl Jenkins.  Or a more difficult question was Truman evil?   


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2010 - 10:15PM #133
Namchuck
Posts: 12,199

Mar 19, 2010 -- 6:38AM, Myownpath wrote:


Eloquently said Namchuck. You have renewed my hopes in you.




 


You mean I'm not completely beyond the pale!?


 


Thanks, Myownpath.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2010 - 10:46PM #134
Namchuck
Posts: 12,199

Mar 19, 2010 -- 1:00PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 19, 2010 -- 2:34AM, Namchuck wrote:

 At Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem in 1960 the prosecution hoped to use him to personify the horrors of the Holocaust and made every effort to bring out the evil in the man, but he turned out to be disappointingly ordinary person (raised, incidentally, in an intelligent environment without "repression" where he apparently learned "intelligent control over antisocial behaviors). Hannah Arendt subtitled her book about the trial The Banality of Evil,  saying: 'The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted, nor sadistic, that they were, and still are terribly and terrifyingly normal.'


Oh, well, I might as well bring down the wrath of God and everybody on the board, by saying that Eichmann was not evil.  The evil that Arendt was talking about was a post hoc evil imposed by those who won the war.  In the context of the society of which he was socially a part, he was doing a possibly distasteful but socially mandated job.  One can reasonably say the society was evil as evil is a social attribute. But those carrying out the social directives are not evil.  


Were the bombardiers at Nagasaki and Hiroshima evil?  They killed hundreds of thousands of people and probably more horribly.  See the poetry of Togi Sankichi or movement 8 of The Armed Man by Karl Jenkins.  Or a more difficult question was Truman evil?   


 




There is little doubt that our species has a proclivity to be remarkably obedient to authority -  which is just one of those bits of dangerous evolutionary baggage we all carry around - and perfectly capable, depending on the context of the situation, of doing horrible things to others. And, as My Lai has shown, we can be persuaded to kill in cold blood, overriding and excluding all our normal inhibitions in particular situations where other values apparently hold sway.


My own intuition is that 'evil', for all of its dark and threatening aspects, is inevitable. A sort of black hole in nature. Get to close and you get sucked into another reality in which all the rules have changed. The form and character of particular evils may be determined in this reality, which in turn inherits its pattern from another. And 'good', I would suggest, is not necessarily the opposite of evil, but one part of the field in which both exist. That part which straddles a fine line along with things that are 'just right'. Being there encourages optimal growth and perfect proportion providing neither too much nor too little, but 'just enough' of what we need to keep out of trouble and survive.


We happen to be the products of natural selection, of genes that are essentially and necessarily selfish, with a rigid set of rules that maximise a narrow kind of short-term advantage. It's a system that works pretty well, on its own limited terms. And it has produced everything in us that is both 'good' and 'evil', but it is completely amoral, devoid of empathy and long-term concern. It is up to us to provide these moral qualities. As Darwin said, 'It is very probable that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man'.


That feels right, and the evolution of a moral sense, and of the necessary immoral acts which sharpen such a sense, are just as likely wherever life may be found.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2010 - 11:01PM #135
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

Mar 19, 2010 -- 8:06AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

From birth to the age of about six the events of one's life get sorted into the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Our unconscious mind has the greater influence and our life is built on its foundation. IOW, our cultural self is controlled by the hidden "cogs of the wheels" of the unconscious. Do you ever have psychological pain? Do you ever suffer psychologically? Do you ever have negative emotions? Do you ever blame other people for the way you feel?....


sdp 


In the early years events frequently get stuffed into the unconscious shadow by parents and mentors whose shadow has been carefully nurtured by their parents and mentor's belief system.  


However, it is not a necessary or even desirable means of raising children.  It is possible to give children control over their actions and in effect to relegate the subconscious to the trivial. Body regulation, habits, manners, and peripheral awareness for interesting things to bring to the conscious attention of the mind.  But the cultural self is managed by an aware and active consciousness managing all relevant social interactions.  Will hesh do it perfectly, never making a mistake, of course not.  Mistakes are how we learn especially in social situations.  But will the mistake be caused by the unconscious? In most cases no.   


Such a properly raised child as an adult will answer "No" to all of your questions above.  And hesh will answer no to all similar questions relating to negative self image and loss of self control.   


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2010 - 12:06AM #136
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,212

Mar 19, 2010 -- 10:46PM, Namchuck wrote:

We happen to be the products of natural selection, of genes that are essentially and necessarily selfish, with a rigid set of rules that maximise a narrow kind of short-term advantage. 


With a slight modification that genes are not the selfish property of the individual but of the species.  For a social species, such genetic characteristics as follow the leader, protect the young, empathy, and rally round to protect the herd/tribe/pack/pod far outweigh individual selfish traits in many cases even self preservation.  Horatio at the bridge was genetic imperative.  As is the fireman charging into the burning building to save a stranger.  


Those genetic imperatives will bite us on the backside if we are not careful.  The follow the leader imperative is particularly dangerous.  There are people that when given an imperative by a recognized leader can do nothing else.  IMO that is a conditioned shadow function by parents who say "Do what you are told" rather than some version of "I would appreciate your help." Genetics will insure that the kid will do what hesh is told in either case, but one will make the adult bow to that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony who says God says do this.  Or to the man thousands are saying "Heil" to. 


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2010 - 12:48AM #137
Wendyness
Posts: 3,012

Mar 19, 2010 -- 10:46PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 19, 2010 -- 1:00PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 19, 2010 -- 2:34AM, Namchuck wrote:

 At Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem in 1960 the prosecution hoped to use him to personify the horrors of the Holocaust and made every effort to bring out the evil in the man, but he turned out to be disappointingly ordinary person (raised, incidentally, in an intelligent environment without "repression" where he apparently learned "intelligent control over antisocial behaviors). Hannah Arendt subtitled her book about the trial The Banality of Evil,  saying: 'The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted, nor sadistic, that they were, and still are terribly and terrifyingly normal.'


Oh, well, I might as well bring down the wrath of God and everybody on the board, by saying that Eichmann was not evil.  The evil that Arendt was talking about was a post hoc evil imposed by those who won the war.  In the context of the society of which he was socially a part, he was doing a possibly distasteful but socially mandated job.  One can reasonably say the society was evil as evil is a social attribute. But those carrying out the social directives are not evil.  


Were the bombardiers at Nagasaki and Hiroshima evil?  They killed hundreds of thousands of people and probably more horribly.  See the poetry of Togi Sankichi or movement 8 of The Armed Man by Karl Jenkins.  Or a more difficult question was Truman evil?   


 




There is little doubt that our species has a proclivity to be remarkably obedient to authority -  which is just one of those bits of dangerous evolutionary baggage we all carry around - and perfectly capable, depending on the context of the situation, of doing horrible things to others. And, as My Lai has shown, we can be persuaded to kill in cold blood, overriding and excluding all our normal inhibitions in particular situations where other values apparently hold sway.


My own intuition is that 'evil', for all of its dark and threatening aspects, is inevitable. A sort of black hole in nature. Get to close and you get sucked into another reality in which all the rules have changed. The form and character of particular evils may be determined in this reality, which in turn inherits its pattern from another. And 'good', I would suggest, is not necessarily the opposite of evil, but one part of the field in which both exist. That part which straddles a fine line along with things that are 'just right'. Being there encourages optimal growth and perfect proportion providing neither too much nor too little, but 'just enough' of what we need to keep out of trouble and survive.


We happen to be the products of natural selection, of genes that are essentially and necessarily selfish, with a rigid set of rules that maximise a narrow kind of short-term advantage. It's a system that works pretty well, on its own limited terms. And it has produced everything in us that is both 'good' and 'evil', but it is completely amoral, devoid of empathy and long-term concern. It is up to us to provide these moral qualities. As Darwin said, 'It is very probable that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man'.


That feels right, and the evolution of a moral sense, and of the necessary immoral acts which sharpen such a sense, are just as likely wherever life may be found.




 


A most impressive post Namchuck!  I'd pay to hear you give a lecture.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2010 - 2:15AM #138
Namchuck
Posts: 12,199

Mar 20, 2010 -- 12:48AM, Wendyness wrote:


Mar 19, 2010 -- 10:46PM, Namchuck wrote:


Mar 19, 2010 -- 1:00PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 19, 2010 -- 2:34AM, Namchuck wrote:

 At Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem in 1960 the prosecution hoped to use him to personify the horrors of the Holocaust and made every effort to bring out the evil in the man, but he turned out to be disappointingly ordinary person (raised, incidentally, in an intelligent environment without "repression" where he apparently learned "intelligent control over antisocial behaviors). Hannah Arendt subtitled her book about the trial The Banality of Evil,  saying: 'The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted, nor sadistic, that they were, and still are terribly and terrifyingly normal.'


Oh, well, I might as well bring down the wrath of God and everybody on the board, by saying that Eichmann was not evil.  The evil that Arendt was talking about was a post hoc evil imposed by those who won the war.  In the context of the society of which he was socially a part, he was doing a possibly distasteful but socially mandated job.  One can reasonably say the society was evil as evil is a social attribute. But those carrying out the social directives are not evil.  


Were the bombardiers at Nagasaki and Hiroshima evil?  They killed hundreds of thousands of people and probably more horribly.  See the poetry of Togi Sankichi or movement 8 of The Armed Man by Karl Jenkins.  Or a more difficult question was Truman evil?   


 




There is little doubt that our species has a proclivity to be remarkably obedient to authority -  which is just one of those bits of dangerous evolutionary baggage we all carry around - and perfectly capable, depending on the context of the situation, of doing horrible things to others. And, as My Lai has shown, we can be persuaded to kill in cold blood, overriding and excluding all our normal inhibitions in particular situations where other values apparently hold sway.


My own intuition is that 'evil', for all of its dark and threatening aspects, is inevitable. A sort of black hole in nature. Get to close and you get sucked into another reality in which all the rules have changed. The form and character of particular evils may be determined in this reality, which in turn inherits its pattern from another. And 'good', I would suggest, is not necessarily the opposite of evil, but one part of the field in which both exist. That part which straddles a fine line along with things that are 'just right'. Being there encourages optimal growth and perfect proportion providing neither too much nor too little, but 'just enough' of what we need to keep out of trouble and survive.


We happen to be the products of natural selection, of genes that are essentially and necessarily selfish, with a rigid set of rules that maximise a narrow kind of short-term advantage. It's a system that works pretty well, on its own limited terms. And it has produced everything in us that is both 'good' and 'evil', but it is completely amoral, devoid of empathy and long-term concern. It is up to us to provide these moral qualities. As Darwin said, 'It is very probable that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man'.


That feels right, and the evolution of a moral sense, and of the necessary immoral acts which sharpen such a sense, are just as likely wherever life may be found.




 


A most impressive post Namchuck!  I'd pay to hear you give a lecture.




 


Thanks, Wendyness.


It's an endlessly fascinating issue, isn't it?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2010 - 3:21AM #139
Andy
Posts: 82

when i was younger definitely shadows but nowadays no shadows take me as i am, everything we do is a choice so be happy with your consequences.


 


 


 

“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concetrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.
My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”

Nikola Tesla

All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.

Voltaire

Thinking is the talking of the soul with itself.
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Mar 20, 2010 - 9:33AM #140
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

Mar 19, 2010 -- 11:01PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Mar 19, 2010 -- 8:06AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

From birth to the age of about six the events of one's life get sorted into the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Our unconscious mind has the greater influence and our life is built on its foundation. IOW, our cultural self is controlled by the hidden "cogs of the wheels" of the unconscious. Do you ever have psychological pain? Do you ever suffer psychologically? Do you ever have negative emotions? Do you ever blame other people for the way you feel?....


sdp 


In the early years events frequently get stuffed into the unconscious shadow by parents and mentors whose shadow has been carefully nurtured by their parents and mentor's belief system.  


However, it is not a necessary or even desirable means of raising children.  It is possible to give children control over their actions and in effect to relegate the subconscious to the trivial. Body regulation, habits, manners, and peripheral awareness for interesting things to bring to the conscious attention of the mind.  But the cultural self is managed by an aware and active consciousness managing all relevant social interactions.  Will hesh do it perfectly, never making a mistake, of course not.  Mistakes are how we learn especially in social situations.  But will the mistake be caused by the unconscious? In most cases no.   


Such a properly raised child as an adult will answer "No" to all of your questions above.  And hesh will answer no to all similar questions relating to negative self image and loss of self control.   


 




I agree wholeheartedly J'Carlin. This fits with my favorite book on childhood education (or really what would be non-education) Joseph Chilton Pearce's book Magical Child. Pearce says a child has a natural inclination to learn how the physical world operates. He calls this nature's intent. He says all we have to do is supply content for nature's intent and a child learns naturally. A child's predisposition is to learn.


Pearce says the primary means a child learns is play. All we need do is give a child 'stuff' to play with (content), supply love and affection and we'll turn out a natural genius.


Pearce says all the crap we lay on kids, our own crap (my words, not his) begins to shut down the driving intent of babies and small children. The emotional baggage we lay on kids begins to act as a barrier between the driving intent (to learn how the world operates) of children, and that outside world. The negative baggage (do this, don't do that, etc) becomes a filter to experience. And this negative baggage becomes actual neural wiring in our brains.


Pearce says this dumbs down a child's natural intelligence.


You give his primary advice, "give children control over their actions". One thing we did to help accomplish this was child-proof our home. We removed anything we didn't want broken and locked dangerous doors. Of course, psychological child-proofing, much more difficult.


(I can highly recommend this one book of Pearce's, Magical Child, Rediscovering Nature's Plan for Our Children, 1977, to anyone, especially parents, but most especially, to perspective parents. His other books, good, but a matter of world-view "tastes").


........................


"He (Sam) bonds to his mother, to her anxiety and her value. His instinct for taking his cues from her grows; whereas in natural development, it should fade as autonomy unfolds. Developing no power of decision, Sam is doubly dependent on mother's cues to decide for him, a dependency that will eventually shift to his culture's professionals and institutions, who stand ready and waiting.


Sam's driving intent is nevertheless to interact with his world and structure a knowledge of it. He reacts negatively to the negations blocking his drive, but the stress his own negation places on his anxiety bond proves too threatening, and he eventually capitulates. Before any interaction with the world, he will check his parents for their reactions, for their signals of approval or disapproval. In fast, intuitive glances, he will read their moment-by-moment anxieties concerning his actions and reactions and their fears concerning events that might occur.


Slowly, a screen forms between Sam and his world. The screen is a value system based on parents anxieties. Finally, he no longer interacts, maintaining a flow of energy with his world; he only reacts according to his learned value system for prejudging experience. His long-range senses are utilized as barriers between self and world because that world carries potential hazards, which, in turn, carry potential anxiety reactions from his parents. His world view grows flat and shallow, and because his genetic intent is thwarted, his anxiety grows apace. He is slowly split between the pulls of intent and the anxieties of intentions. ......... He will never bond with the world and will have no safe place to stand.


(OTOH)


The magical child is allowed open interaction, free of concern for value or utility. This is possible only because the parents assume responsibility for his survival.  ......... Psychological damage can block his entry into the matrix shifts that are to come. Parents do not load him with concerns that can register as anxiety. Because he is allowed his own evaluations, such power of decision gives a corresponding power to act, and he responds to the instant unfolding of the moment as it is.


The child, roughing in a world knowledge, wanders without rhyme or reason, and he plays. He has no goals other than the moment, and no other time exists. To the child the time is always now, the place is always here, the center is always "me". For this is the way a world knowledge is structured.


At the same time, the parents institute an underlying strata of order. They give him four walls of "thou shalt nots" that are reasonable, unvarying and consistent. These boundaries mostly concern personal relationships. He know exactly where he stands in relation to his parents, what they allow, what they do not allow. He is not faced with ambiguity or indecision.  (Essentially the ones you mentioned J'C).


No reasons are used with the prereasoning child in the expectation that s/he will grasp adult logic". Reasons can fill their conversations with him/her, but not their communications or directives. If correctives are needed, they are concrete. The parent picks the child up firmly and removes him/her from the boundaries of transgression. They let him know without apology that boundaries are to be observed". (Correction in such a manner, without an emotional "storm" on the part of the parents, lessens the emotional baggage. note sdp)pages 106, 107 


......................................


One of my all-time favorite books............     


sdp    

Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 14 of 45  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 45 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook