Ponerology; a study of evil

[Sal]

Thanks for the link dark beaver, it's going to take some time to read through it and also the links within.

I liked his comment about Freud and neurosis. It is true that our understanding of the human mind has a root in all that he layed down. Jung saw early on that Freud was heavily influenced by the "times" and according to Jung it corrupted his results.

Psycho/socio-pathology and it's understanding is in its infancy. I don't know if I would term the behaviour "evil" per se. That is too easy a catch phrase. I don't know what I would term it. There is a level of behaviour that is so black it is almost beyond normal comprehension in terms of the way the average individual views the world.

I can also see why such individuals are attracted to politics or commerce. I did just recently read an article about such. In order to acquire and run vast corporations one must be able to place the individual aside. If one considered the harm done to others how could one spearhead the mechanisms needed to acquire vast wealth and once acquired do what it takes to ensure one keeps it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Thanks for the link dark beaver, it's going to take some time to read through it and also the links within.

I liked his comment about Freud and neurosis. It is true that our understanding of the human mind has a root in all that he layed down. Jung saw early on that Freud was heavily influenced by the "times" and according to Jung it corrupted his results.

Psycho/socio-pathology and it's understanding is in its infancy. I don't know if I would term the behaviour "evil" per se. That is too easy a catch phrase. I don't know what I would term it. There is a level of behaviour that is so black it is almost beyond normal comprehension in terms of the way the average individual views the world.

I can also see why such individuals are attracted to politics or commerce. I did just recently read an article about such. In order to acquire and run vast corporations one must be able to place the individual aside. If one considered the harm done to others how could one spearhead the mechanisms needed to acquire vast wealth and once acquired do what it takes to ensure one keeps it.

It's ethics, morality, love and empathy that the psycopath rather than put aside simply does not feel and therefore cannot engage. In the culture we live in, one of wealth worship, this gives the psycopath a decided advantage over the individual encumbered with the aformentioned emotions. Acquisition determines worth, in todays business and political circles this has become by design and in concert with power the only officially recognized motivating traits. The account ledgers have no columns for humane benevolent existence, they remain sterile as does the culture that adheres to and eventually succumbs to mammon.

 

[Sal]

It's ethics, morality, love and empathy that the psycopath rather than put aside simply does not feel and therefore cannot engage.

Yes, and a point of interest with that is.......why.

And like it or not, in some instances people want to skirt around the obvious. If one takes a child and gives that child no nurturing and no love and then on top of that abuses that child, the brain finds a way to cope and survive. It detaches from the feeling.

In the culture we live in, one of wealth worship, this gives the psycopath a decided advantage over the individual encumbered with the aformentioned emotions.

One of the points that nudged me in the article was that people who experience a good and healthy range of emotion tend to explain away pathological behaviour by thinking; "that person is just going through a particularly bad time" thus we excuse the behaviour. We then also reinforce it.

Acquisition determines worth, in todays business and political circles this has become by design and in concert with power the only officially recognized motivating traits.

Absolutely, people proudly brag about their ability to make the green and even to being unethical about it like it is a badge of honour.

The account ledgers have no columns for humane benevolent existence, they remain sterile as does the culture that adheres to and eventually succumbs to mammon.

Yes. Another point in the article..... 4% is a HUGE number yet we do not address it. If 4% were dying of heel spurs there would be a public out cry.

But the public in general are quite ignorant of diseases of the mind. In fact I still think we attach such horrendous stigma to mental illness that it is no wonder it stays locked in the closet. Until we bring it out, we will be victimized by it.

 

[MHz]

I don't know if I would term the behaviour "evil" per se. That is too easy a catch phrase. I don't know what I would term it. There is a level of behaviour that is so black it is almost beyond normal comprehension in terms of the way the average individual views the world.

It is the baseline that defines the difference between helping and hindering others. Society can operate two ways, a few enjoy the comforts they have at the expense of others or the society regulates itself to fit the needs of the ones who are the 'poorest'. If only a few can afford to 'produce art' then art won't be in full production. If art production happens to be fun at the same time then some are actually being held back from having part in that aspect of life.
What would be evil in one would not 'have to be' an evil in the other one.


There is a term called the 'Peter Principal', basically it says that each person has a certain limit of talents. As long as he stays doing things that are below that threshold he is quite successful at what he sets out to do. If he gets put into a 'position of power' that is above his natural talents he begins to make mistakes and everything he tries ends in failure.

How does that aspect play into things?

I can also see why such individuals are attracted to politics or commerce. I did just recently read an article about such. In order to acquire and run vast corporations one must be able to place the individual aside. If one considered the harm done to others how could one spearhead the mechanisms needed to acquire vast wealth and once acquired do what it takes to ensure one keeps it.

If it is just sat on when 'X' amount is acquired then it is only making sure somebody else doesn't get any benefits from 'having wealth'. If the leaders of a Corp have to be able to 'shut-out' the effects of their product on certain people maybe they are producing the wrong item.


Dex, from a scientific POV how many 'foot-ball sized fields' of copper and zinc (laid out in battery type grid where each cell would produce 1.5v) would I need to power the ME? (lead would be better than zinc)
The # of cells/field would give you a voltage and the closeness of the plates would give you amps. The cells would produce more power based on how easily current could be passed through the electrolyte. Salt-water will pass a higher current than fresh-water. Dead Sea water should pass a higher current than normal Ocean water.

The above might not be practical with Ocean water (3-5%) but Dead Sea water is 26-35%, the cell should have a higher efficiency and higher total output. Any idea how much this change would effect the cell?

Over time what effect would that have on the water? I don't think you can harm something that is already considered to be dead BTW

Any bubbles produced would probably be either hydrogen or oxygen, useful in their own right.

Change the metals and/or apply a current and you get various results

 

[Sal]

It is the baseline that defines the difference between helping and hindering others.

Hi MHz.......

not certain of what you mean by the baseline defining the difference between helping and hindering.

Even the terms "helping" and "hindering" may be relative to someone's perception. For example, you may think someone needs help with something and choose to assist them.

They may decide they do not need nor desire your help. They may even view your help as an aggressive or bad thing.

Society can operate two ways, a few enjoy the comforts they have at the expense of others or the society regulates itself to fit the needs of the ones who are the 'poorest'. If only a few can afford to 'produce art' then art won't be in full production. If art production happens to be fun at the same time then some are actually being held back from having part in that aspect of life.

Society can only operate in two ways?

That is a very extreme view couching everything in extremes.

Not my way of seeing the world. I believe there are a limitless number of ways for society to operate. AND somewhere there is a way where most needs can be met for most people thereby meeting the greatest good for the greatest number.

What would be evil in one would not 'have to be' an evil in the other one.

Absolutely agree. But there is still a code which most humans would agree to accept as improper and harmful human behaviour.

There is a term called the 'Peter Principal', basically it says that each person has a certain limit of talents. As long as he stays doing things that are below that threshold he is quite successful at what he sets out to do. If he gets put into a 'position of power' that is above his natural talents he begins to make mistakes and everything he tries ends in failure.

Yes and I think the theory also states that an individual if given enough time and ambition will be promoted to his level of incompetence.

I do not view incompetent as psychopathic although it sure can feel like it sometimes... in fact a totally incompetent boss could perhaps bring out a tad of psychosis in me... ;-)

How does that aspect play into things?

Except perhaps assisting someone to feel the need to go postal, I don't think it does.

If it is just sat on when 'X' amount is acquired then it is only making sure somebody else doesn't get any benefits from 'having wealth'.

Well yes........ but only. If I am a despot and have acquired 80% of the wealth within my country, I can assure you that word "only" is highly relevant.

If the leaders of a Corp have to be able to 'shut-out' the effects of their product on certain people maybe they are producing the wrong item.

Sorry, you lost me here.........

 

[L Gilbert]

No Dex. all 3 existed before anything was created. Those are two different words. Science can't/doesn't create anything, it only manipulates some things that are already there................

That comment is a perfect example of the misunderstanding of science. The purpose of science is to explain the universe to us, not to create or destroy, manipulate truth/fact, etc.
People use what science discovers for us for a myriad of purposes, some "evil" some "good". What they develop to use the scientific data is called "technology".
As far as creation goes, it is an opinion. An extremely uninformed one, but an opinion.
About "evil": Anything a person does is done to satisfy a need. There are hundreds of things that can affect the workings of the brain (from a chemical imbalance in the brain to a sensed phenomena) and if a certain sequence is thrown a bit off by one of these hundreds of things, then the person does something harmful. It is NOT mystical and NOT to be attributed as being caused by some demon or other such irrational explanation.

 

[MHz]

not certain of what you mean by the baseline defining the difference between helping and hindering.

A persons actions are usually done as a ways of benefiting that same person, if that process results in 'harm' to another person then don't both aspects have to be considered in deciding if that action qualifies as being evil?

Even the terms "helping" and "hindering" may be relative to someone's perception. For example, you may think someone needs help with something and choose to assist them.

Lets examine food, if people are hungry should more food be grown or should that land be used to grow fuel when only a small percentage of people even own vehicles?

They may decide they do not need nor desire your help. They may even view your help as an aggressive or bad thing.

Once the basics of life are covered what money can provide would seem to come down to what a person wants to do on an individual level, that would have to be a personal choice, rather than a dictated one.

Society can only operate in two ways?

That is a very extreme view couching everything in extremes.

Not my way of seeing the world. I believe there are a limitless number of ways for society to operate. AND somewhere there is a way where most needs can be met for most people thereby meeting the greatest good for the greatest number.

It's fine if they are extreme examples, that makes it easier to see the differences. Which type of society would seem to meet the standards you gave above. One has a 97% difference in 'income' over the whole population, the other has a 3% difference. One would seem that just about everybody can do the same things (if they want), the other would seem that only the top would have that 'right'.

Absolutely agree. But there is still a code which most humans would agree to accept as improper and harmful human behaviour.

No matter how righteous or sinister a person is there is still a code of conduct that each will not cross, there would be a huge difference between the two sets of principles though.

Yes and I think the theory also states that an individual if given enough time and ambition will be promoted to his level of incompetence.

I do not view incompetent as psychopathic although it sure can feel like it sometimes... in fact a totally incompetent boss could perhaps bring out a tad of psychosis in me...

Except perhaps assisting someone to feel the need to go postal, I don't think it does.

It can certainly happen, the very top portion is usually a matter of family connection though and not tied to endless promotions.

Well yes........ but only. If I am a despot and have acquired 80% of the wealth within my country, I can assure you that word "only" is highly relevant.

If you could do everything you possibly wanted to do with 30% of that money what is the purpose of keeping the extra 50%, other than to deny it to others who have less? To say it was for the next generations of your family would have to assume they wouldn't be making a good living all on their own.

Sorry, you lost me here.........

Say a Corp has two choices, make a product that has high returns on investment but will harm a large population, the other product only has a modest return and has no harmful effects on anybody. Which is the more likely to get produced? I tend to think the Corps would go for the one that has the highest return and then try to blame the 'harmful things' on other factors. In one case you are going to find lies, in the other that wouldn't have to be the case.

That comment is a perfect example of the misunderstanding of science. The purpose of science is to explain the universe to us, not to create or destroy, manipulate truth/fact, etc.
People use what science discovers for us for a myriad of purposes, some "evil" some "good". What they develop to use the scientific data is called "technology".
As far as creation goes, it is an opinion. An extremely uninformed one, but an opinion.
About "evil": Anything a person does is done to satisfy a need. There are hundreds of things that can affect the workings of the brain (from a chemical imbalance in the brain to a sensed phenomena) and if a certain sequence is thrown a bit off by one of these hundreds of things, then the person does something harmful. It is NOT mystical and NOT to be attributed as being caused by some demon or other such irrational explanation.

Science also gives us new and useful tools and just about anything else money can purchase. If 77B is spent to find out what some moon orbiting Jupiter is made of when that same 77B could have been spent 'on Earth's more immediate needs 'how has that been a useful project?

Define creation then.

If you sell me a product that you know will make me ill, and once I get ill you sell me the cure you are evil through and through.

Yes there are hundreds of things that can effect brain chemistry. Greed is not a chemical imbalance, it is a character flaw, probably one without a 'cure'. It can affect individuals as well as large groups.

 

[darkbeaver]

Beware the Psychopath, My Son

by Clinton Callahan / May 12th, 2008
The following is largely extracted from two articles:
Twilight of the Psychopaths, by Dr. Kevin Barrett and The Trick of the Psychopath’s Trade by Silvia Cattori. Both articles are recommended. Both articles reference the book Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes, by Andrzej Lobaczewski. Cattori’s article is longer and includes an interview with the book’s editors, Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Henry See.
I make the effort to share this information because it gives me, at last, a plausible answer to a long-unanswered question: Why, no matter how much intelligent goodwill exists …
(Full article …)

 

[darkbeaver]

Yes there are hundreds of things that can effect brain chemistry. Greed is not a chemical imbalance, it is a character flaw, probably one without a 'cure'. It can affect individuals as well as large groups.

What is a character flaw? Is not character a product of nuturing and environment? Does nurturing not train bio/chem responce in the subject? And what kinds of greed can be beneficial?
If I were to be greedy for the love of others would I not perform and provide for those others accordingly and would the products of my selfinterest then be rendered evil because of my originating greed?

 

[MikeyDB]

What is a character flaw......?

A character flaw is in demonstrating a willingness to embrace the "answer" that gets you what you want....regardless of the dynamics and the consequences to anyone and everyone around you. To be charitable, many psychological and emotional conditions/states are product of culture. We learn both what we "need" to learn within our cultures and how to learn. Our societies didn't become infatuated with immediate satisfaction of our wants and desires, we've been trained/conditioned to believe that concepts like "freedom" and "self-expression" and "greed" are the benchmarks and in many instances the "hallmarks" of postmodern consumption societies. We learn-to-learn by a variety of means but the most obvious in North American culture is a dependency on the images and values provided through TV and media. "Old-fashion-values" relied on a sense of community and an awareness of the critical interrelatedness of everything we encounter in this experience of existence. Modern and specifically post-modern society is the ME FIRST" result of appeasement of appetites before accumulation of substance in terms of value formation and erecting frameworks of morality and ethics that apply beyond the immediate and the individual. We have only a sense of "community" when we hear the cry for help coming from people who've suffered some calamity whether that's a natural disaster like a flood or hurricane or the result of mismanaged and inept fiscal management of resources.

There was a time when "home-invaisions" wasn't a part of the civilized worlds lexicon....

 

[darkbeaver]

What is a character flaw......?

A character flaw is in demonstrating a willingness to embrace the "answer" that gets you what you want....regardless of the dynamics and the consequences to anyone and everyone around you. To be charitable, many psychological and emotional conditions/states are product of culture. We learn both what we "need" to learn within our cultures and how to learn. Our societies didn't become infatuated with immediate satisfaction of our wants and desires, we've been trained/conditioned to believe that concepts like "freedom" and "self-expression" and "greed" are the benchmarks and in many instances the "hallmarks" of postmodern consumption societies. We learn-to-learn by a variety of means but the most obvious in North American culture is a dependency on the images and values provided through TV and media. "Old-fashion-values" relied on a sense of community and an awareness of the critical interrelatedness of everything we encounter in this experience of existence. Modern and specifically post-modern society is the ME FIRST" result of appeasement of appetites before accumulation of substance in terms of value formation and erecting frameworks of morality and ethics that apply beyond the immediate and the individual. We have only a sense of "community" when we hear the cry for help coming from people who've suffered some calamity whether that's a natural disaster like a flood or hurricane or the result of mismanaged and inept fiscal management of resources.

There was a time when "home-invaisions" wasn't a part of the civilized worlds lexicon....

I just briefly discussed with my sons not ten minutes ago the absolute necessity of community and how we are involved in a small way in a battle for the commons.

 

[darkbeaver]

What is a character flaw......?

A character flaw is in demonstrating a willingness to embrace the "answer" that gets you what you want....regardless of the dynamics and the consequences to anyone and everyone around you. To be charitable, many psychological and emotional conditions/states are product of culture. We learn both what we "need" to learn within our cultures and how to learn. Our societies didn't become infatuated with immediate satisfaction of our wants and desires, we've been trained/conditioned to believe that concepts like "freedom" and "self-expression" and "greed" are the benchmarks and in many instances the "hallmarks" of postmodern consumption societies. We learn-to-learn by a variety of means but the most obvious in North American culture is a dependency on the images and values provided through TV and media. "Old-fashion-values" relied on a sense of community and an awareness of the critical interrelatedness of everything we encounter in this experience of existence. Modern and specifically post-modern society is the ME FIRST" result of appeasement of appetites before accumulation of substance in terms of value formation and erecting frameworks of morality and ethics that apply beyond the immediate and the individual. We have only a sense of "community" when we hear the cry for help coming from people who've suffered some calamity whether that's a natural disaster like a flood or hurricane or the result of mismanaged and inept fiscal management of resources.

There was a time when "home-invaisions" wasn't a part of the civilized worlds lexicon....

I just briefly discussed with my sons not ten minutes ago the absolute necessity of community and how we are involved in a small but vital way in a battle for the commons. So when did an imposed/manufactured sence of community become "the community" and what are the dangers of stripping the imprinted commercial sence from the masses?
I have lived most of my life behind unlocked doors, home invasion is unthinkable and unspeakable.

 

[darkbeaver]

[SIZE=+2]Beyond Insanity[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]By Amos M. Gunsberg[/SIZE]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]We used to call them psychopaths — these creatures that appear on our planet physically in human form, but are not human beings. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] We noted they are amoral. That should have given us a clue. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] We noted they do not FEEL feelings. That should have instructed us. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] We noted they are heartless. That should have set off the alarm. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] These creatures lack elements which distinguish the human being. They exhibit no connection with, no understanding of what we call "morality," "honesty," "decency," "fair play," etc. They lack the faculty we call empathy. They lack the faculty we call introspection. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] Mankind has spent centuries trying to make sense of these creatures as some form of human being. All in vain. Not only in vain, but at enormous on-going cost to our civilization. These creatures are not human beings gone wrong. They are a different species ... dedicated to the murder of human values ... as a prelude to the murder of human beings ... e.g., the tactics used by Nazis, past and present. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] They laugh at us. They say: "No one understands us. People can't put themselves in the minds of men who act without a conscience. They try to understand, but they can't." [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] These creatures do not THINK human. They do not SPEAK human. They do not know what it is to BE human. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] We classify them as "humanoid." [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] Yes, they have human form. If we manage to resist their onslaught long enough, we will eventually develop technical scanning equipment which will measure how different they are from human beings, despite their similarity of form. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] In the meantime, the quality of our lives ... and often our very lives ... depends on our recognizing these creatures for what they are, and taking steps to neutralize their attempts to destroy us. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]EVIDENCE OF HUMANOID BEHAVIOR[/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]They make pronouncements without substantiation. To them, these pronouncements represent what reality is ... pronouncement by pronouncement. The present pronouncement may contradict what they said a moment ago. This means nothing to them. They make no attempt to deal with the contradiction. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] They demonstrate a total lack of understanding what we mean by a "fact." In their writings and in their speech, they do not use that word. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] We humans find this hard to believe. The use of facts is such a basic part of our lives. We base our conclusions and our actions on them. We go on from there to test things and establish more facts. When we debate, we present facts, and show how we derive our observations and our positions from them. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] Without facts, all we have is what we call "fantasy." [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] Since these creatures have a human appearance, we assume they must think like us ... be aware of what we are aware. We think they MUST know what facts are. When they don't address the facts, we say they are playing a game. We think they do know what the facts are, but don't want to admit it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] Not so! They DON'T know what a fact is. When we speak of facts and ask them to address the facts, they look at us with vacant eyes. They don't know what we're talking about. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif] They study us because their strategy is to pass as human. They hear us use the words — facts, evidence, substantiation. They lack the human capacity to understand what we mean. What they do is ignore our reference to facts, ignore our requests for th
[/FONT]http://www.serendipity.li/bush/ b...nd_insanity.htm

 

[darkbeaver]

Psychopathic Groups and Distorted Definitions

By Brent Jessop

Global Research, June 19, 2008
Knowledge Driven Revolution

Trademark of the Psychopath
The use of an inner, or esoteric, language to intentionally deceive is a trademark characteristic of the psychopathic personality or a psychopathically dominated group. This is nicely summarized in Andrew M. Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (1998) [1]:

“An ideology of a secondarily ponerogenic association [secondary stage of infiltration by psychopathic individuals] is formed by gradual adaptation of the primary ideology to functions and goals other than the original formative ones. A certain kind of layering or schizophrenia of ideology takes place during the ponerization process. The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group’s propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world, although it can in part also be used inside with regard to disbelieving lower-echelon members. The second layer presents the elite with no problems of comprehension: it is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names. Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, understanding this “doubletalk” requires simultaneous fluency in both languages.
Average people succumb to the first layer’s suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well. Anyone with certain psychological deviations, especially if he is wearing the mask of normality with which we are familiar [a psychopath], immediately perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him. Comprehending this doubletalk is therefore a vexatious task, provoking quite understandable psychological resistance; this very duality of language, however, is a pathognomonic [specific characteristics of a disease] symptom indicating that the human union in question is touched by the ponerogenic process to an advanced degree.” - 116
​

L