Sunday, September 24, 2017

"Psychotics," "Neurotics," Cats And Dogs

According to some attitudes in psychology, a neurotic thinks that the problem is with himself and a psychotic thinks that the problem is with everyone else. Usually both have a point. There is something right - and wrong - with just about everyone.

The hard task is finding out what exactly is right – and wrong – with everyone. There are many qualities that work for some things and not for others. A pragmatic approach works in engineering, and inspiration-seeking approach works in arts, but neither works in the other. A person with the propensities of the engineer may think that there is something wrong with the person who thinks like an artist. In fact we are seeing a different mindset that does not work in his own pursuit but works in the other.

So that when we see someone with the propensities of an artist being raised by engineers, he will be seen as being wrongly made. In response to this he may decide that there is something wrong with himself, or he may decide that there is something wrong with people around him. What we are seeing instead is simply difference. A difference that can, if nurtured properly, produce beautiful results; or, if not, lead to a lifelong conflict.

Differences can be dealt with in any number of possible ways. It takes tolerance, maturity and often great skill to get people with different propensities to live in peace. Unfortunately such are not always found. A cat that is raised by dogs will be seen as abnormal, and a dog raised by cats will be seen as a barbarian. But there will not be any way for a cat to be a normal dog or for a dog to be a normal cat.

One thing that does happen in such situations is that a cat would pretend to be a dog. The cat would expend exceptional effort to learn how to bark like a dog, bite like a dog and wag its tail like a dog. This kind of cat would be known as a sociopath. It would be a pretender, putting on a front to act like a normal dog, in many cases succeeding, and sometimes developing extraordinary insight into how dogs think and using that insight for usually wrongful ends. There will be two major problems with this situation. One is that the cat will not develop its feline qualities and fail to use them for the benefit of the civilization. The other is that its personal relationships will stink, as in genuinely close relationships the front slips and, as the dog kisses it, it finds – to its horror – cat whiskers.

Sometimes the cat decides that the problem is with the dogs. Such a cat becomes a rebel. It meows very loudly and obnoxiously and frequently scratches everyone in sight. Some cats like this wind up criminals; others become feminists or suchlike; some join Hollywood or academia; and occasionally they rise to leadership of countries and sometimes have oral sex with interns while in office. Whenever anything of that sort happens, the dogs bark very loudly indeed, and often they get together to not only chase the cats out of the leadership positions but put into place orders to criminalize and pathologize cats, in some cases waging extermination campaigns against them.

In some places there is the attempt to medicate the cats. Usually this results in cats who sleep 12 hours a day and do not have the energy even to chase after mice to feed themselves. This leads dogs to think that such cats are parasites and should be shot.

Of course we also see attempts to claim that the cats are evil. The problem with this stance is that both according to the Bible – and according to the evolutionary theory - the cats and the dogs are equal – either in mutual virtue or in mutual sin. Either the nature of both cats and dogs is equally corrupt, or it is equally there for a reason. From Biblical considerations, cats are no more naturally sinful than dogs. Both have sin in their nature, and both have the capacity of choice to act rightfully in spite of that nature. And from evolutionary considerations, both are there for a reason that it facilitates the survival of the species or the success of the society. We need both original thinkers and people who are willing to follow canons, and we need people who are inventive or innovative and people who are willing to do daily tasks.

To a dog, a cat will always be a freak or worse. And when confronted with such an environment, a cat is not likely to be healthy. So there will be some who think that the problem is with themselves and there will be some who think that the problem is with others. And then there will be some wise cats who realize that what we are seeing is simply difference, and that difference between species does not mean that either is good or bad.

A cat who thinks that the dogs are right fails to see the good in itself, and the cat who thinks that the dogs are evil fails to see the wrong in itself. The first results in ruined lives and waste of potential, and the second results in wrongful action on the part of the cat itself. What often is necessary for the cat is finding out what it means to do right and what it means to do wrong. This is not always an easy task. If you are living in a place that tells you that your species is bad period - as is the case if you are Jewish and living in Iran or if you are labeled a sociopath or a narcissist - you are not told a workable way to be good. You are told that you are bad, period. If you go for values to other cats - especially rebel cats - you risk developing values that are spawned in hatred of dogs and that are therefore just as bigoted and oppressive as those of the dogs. At which point you may require going for a workable concept of right and wrong to the wisdom that is not owned by dogs or by cats but that transcends all species.

Should a cat be either a neurotic or a psychotic? A cat should be the best cat it can be and get along with dogs. Any cat can be good or bad, as can any dog. But a cat will never be a dog, and a dog will never be a cat. Let cats be the best cats they can be, and let dogs be the best dogs they can be, and let the two figure out how to work constructively with one another. And then we will have a civilization in which we have the best outcome of both economics and culture – of establishment and innovation - of the dog and the cat.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Fear Of God And Love Of God

Many people have a problem with the idea of the fear of God. They think that you should love God. It appears that we are called upon to do both.

What does it mean to fear God? It means that you don't want to make God angry at you. You do not want God's anger. For an omnipotent being to be angry at you can be quite a problem. So it is important not to provoke God's wrath.

That, is the meaning of the fear of God.

Is it compatible with loving God? Absolutely it is. There is no reason at all why one should not love and revere at the same time. The love part in this means, among other things, that you do not want God to be unhappy with you. You love God and you want to make Him happy. It breaks your heart when God is unhappy with you. So you do what you need to do to make God happy.

Together, fearing God and loving God stand to lead toward righteous conduct. Fear means that you don't want God to be angry at you, and love means that you don't want God to be unhappy with you. Different people are motivated by different things and at different times in their lives. The people who are motivated by self-interest are most lead to righteous conduct through fear of God, and the people who are motivated by love are lead most to righteous conduct through love of God. There is a large place for both fear of God and love of God. So it is rightful that people both fear God and love God.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Christ's Teachings And Correction Of Left And Right

It appears that Christ teaches us whatever we need to be in order to be pleasing to God. He would provide whatever is in your character, or at least I believe He has been doing that with me. In my case it has been quite a lot. I did not realize how bad I was, or am. Being in contact with a perfect being shows the extent of one's flaws; and even the better people – which I am not – will feel completely inferior to Christ.

Christ has been teaching me many things – honesty, humility, principle, responsibility, self-control. Any number of these things – especially humility – I did not see for a long time as a virtue; but having a being such as Christ come into your life without being supercilious makes a very strong case for humility. If the most powerful being in the known Universe can be humble in his relations to you, then that means that you too should be humble. The others are virtues inequivocally. Many people speak in favor of things such as responsibility, but they do not practice it. There is nothing responsible about poisoning the planet. Whereas the kind of responsibility that God appears to demand from us – making sure that our actions have the right consequences – is most certainly a virtue.

One thing that I have learned is that, if someone bends the rules, then others will bend them as well, and in many cases they will be doing it for very wrong things. If conscience is gone, then people will do unethical things to the planet. People will do what is in their short-sighted self-interest but that impacts badly on other sentient beings. People will be rapacious and short-sighted. Whereas with Christ there are certain rules, but they work for the better.

So Christ has also been telling me to waste nothing. That is rightful as well. This is something that unfortunately the Western civilization has for a long time not done, and it is something that people such as the Native Americans understand a lot better. When they killed a buffalo, every part of the buffalo was used for something. The Incas worked out agricultural practices that fed everyone without being destructive to nature. This is a matter that other civilizations understand much better than do us. And I do believe that this understanding is consistent with the will of God. I do not believe that the creator would be happy with people plundering the creation with no eye toward posterity, or with people destroying what they cannot at this time re-create.

On many matters the “greenies” and the “pinkos” have a point, and it is a point that I consider to be consistent with Christ. You do not destroy what you cannot re-create. You do not treat workers like rubbish. Now any number of people in these mentalities have a negative view of Christianity; but that is a folly. In fact within Christianity there are many reasons to espouse at least parts of the agenda of both. Once again, I do not believe that God would be happy about people destroying what they cannot re-create. Nor do I believe that God would happy about people treating others badly.

Now I have known any number of people on the Left. There are many people who think badly of them, but even among the Commies there were many who came from rightful considerations. There are many people on the Left who do not like to see the nature plundered or workers treated badly. These are completely legitimate considerations. A true Christian would take heed of these things.

Of course when they decide that the Western civilization is the root of all evil or that the “propertied class” should be slaughtered they are doing a massive wrong. It should however be possible to address their legitimate concerns without partaking of these and other grievous errors. These, once again, can be very well addressed through the Bible. God would not be happy about people destroying what He has created and what they cannot re-create. Nor would Jesus be happy about people treating their neighbor badly.

Now I used to have a very low view of conservatives; but I do not any more. I have a newly found respect for Christian conservatives. That is because I have myself experienced Christ – or so I think – and it is rightful that people would invite Him into their lives. However these people are not all doing the right thing either. There are many of them who live wasteful lifestyles, and there are many of them who have no compassion. Neither of these attitudes are likely to be pleasing in the eyes of Christ. I want these people to change these attitudes while retaining the real Christian virtues of character, ethics and hard work.

So Christ stands to correct both those who strayed from the straight and narrow to the Left and those who strayed from the straight and narrow to the Right. He would correct those who believe in wrong things and act unrighteously and those who poison the planet. And then He stands to put into place a much wiser order than any that man has devised.

Friday, September 08, 2017

Analysis And Growth

With psychoanalysis, you are analyzing yourself but you are not improving yourself. Improving is done through much different means.

The project of psychoanalysis is to look back in the past prior to getting any kind of trauma. The problem is that what is re-created that way is the state of mind of a child, which one becomes then quite permanently as a result of following this approach. In many cases the correct thing to do is not psychoanalyzing oneself or re-creating a previous state but rather growth. That is not achieved through self-analysis but through self-improvement.

Clearly there are times when traumatic events would stunt or misdirect growth. However getting past the trauma is only part of the solution. Real effort is made in actually pursuing real growth; and that is a part of the situation that many involved in psychoanalysis fail to see.

A person who comes from the position of psychoanalysis will therefore be expected to remain childish. He would be re-creating what he had been as a child without growing past it. And that does not affectuate in people a real betterment.

Is psychoanalysis worthless? In some cases it is necessary. Once again, there are all sorts of things that happen to people that stunt or misdirect their growth. However it is only the first part in such situations. The second part is actually growing as a person.

Now there are claims that some traumatic events create things such as the antisocial and the narcissistic personality disorders. The people who believe in this frequently claim that such people are bad and can only be bad whatever they do, particularly that they are likely to be cruel. This attitude is of course very cruel in itself. To demonize someone because they have had something bad happen to them is beyond injust. Anyone can choose to act rightfully; and anyone can choose to act in an ethical way, whatever traumatic events they have had in their lives.

So that while it is valid to be conscious of what happened to you as a child, it is not valid to remain a child. Rather real growth and real improvement must be pursued. Analyzing the problem is the first part of the situation. The next part is moving past the problem. And it is in this that true improvement is actually achieved for the person.

The War Of Two Worlds

For a long time I was getting attacked by feminists, who wrongfully saw me as a misogynist. Then I left that world to join a very different world, at which point I suddenly became a pussywhipped idiot and a male feminist.

According to the beliefs of many in that world, a man should control the woman and do everything in his power to beat her down and intimidate her lest she should attempt to leave him, and that he was justified in doing everything in his power to destroy her if she does. I showed the people in that world that this was not the case. When my wife left me to be with another man, I maintained a positive relationship with her. We still have a positive relationship. If a man who has been maligned as much as I have been maligned can do this with a woman who has been maligned as much as my former wife has been maligned, then any man can do this with any woman.

Right now we are seeing the two worlds clash, and I am not taking either side. On both sides we have seen exceptionally vicious behavior. When Hitler and Stalin are fighting each other, the solution is not to take the side either of Hitler or of Stalin. It is to protect the innocent and let Stalin and Hitler keep beating each other.

We have of course seen viciousness all around. We have seen viciousness from the feminists. We have seen viciousness from the Fathers' Rights people. We have seen viciousness from the skeptics. We have seen viciousness from the people involved in personality psychology movement. Among the followers of Christ, we have seen some who favor righteousness without love and some who favor love without righteousness. It appears however that Christ wants us to have both; and this is the course that I am choosing to take.

Do feminists have a point? Yes. Do the Father's Rights people have a point? Yes. When men are being jerks to women, the women have the right to be angry. The same is the case on the other side. What they do not have the right to do is take out on the innocent their anger at someone guilty. If a man raped you, you do not have the right to attack all men. If a woman screwed you over, you do not have the right to attack all women. The people who get attacked in such situations are the least guilty ones of all parties. The women who get mistreated are usually women who have good will toward men and are willing to treat men right; and the men who get mistreated are usually men who have good will toward women and are willing to treat women right. Which means that the better get punished for the sins of the worse. And that is not a rightful state of affairs.

In the recent election I did not vote. I did not know which candidate was better. Trump is a throw-back to 1980s, and Hillary Clinton is a throw-back to 1990s. Both decades were good economically but awful socially. In one the men were jerks, and in the other the women were jerks. I did however write statements defending Donald Trump against his attackers at Psychology Today, who diagnosed him as a narcissist. I take issue with this concept. According to the definition of narcissistic personality disorder, the world owes vastly to its narcissists. If it is narcissistic to seek great success or to have original ideas, then most people who've had great success or original ideas were narcissists. The upshot of this is that the world owes vastly to people with this disorder.

So now we are seeing two worlds clash: The world that labeled me a misogynist and the world that labeled me a pussywhipped idiot. Christ does demand that we forgive our transgressors, but He does not demand that we side with them against their enemies who were likewise transgressors against us. So I am going to sit this one out. Let Stalin and Hitler keep beating each other to pulp. And let's also make sure that as few people as possible wind up as casualties in their foolish conflict.

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Growth And Risk

In economics there is the concept of growth and the concept of risk. Growth is steady increase in the value of the stock; risk is its fluctuation. In investments, people like to maximize growth and minimize risk.

In life, sometimes people do something else. They increase risk in order to get higher. Of course risk will also take them very low. The people who take that route experience great highs and great lows, but over the long run they lose.

Using the concepts from economics, it makes sense to do the opposite. It is to do as much as you can to increase growth while minimizing risk. Some measure of risk is good. It prevents life from becoming boring. However over the long run it is growth that is desirable, and risk that is less so.

Risk is great when you are young. But as you get older what you want is steady growth. So it becomes advisable to encourage growth and, while not necessarily eliminating, at least reducing to manageable levels, the risks that one takes.

A positive feature of risk is that it exposes one to the unexpected. From the unexpected grows the understanding of the world and the wisdom. Wisdom can then be used by self or others to enhance growth. With wisdom the growth increases.

Take the risks to achieve wisdom; use wisdom to enhance growth.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Psychology And Free Will

For a long time the main idea in studying people has been that of free will. According to free will, people have the ability to choose their behavior, and people's behavior is a function of conscious, deliberate choice.

This idea has been challenged by some in psychology, who stated that people's behavior was instead a function of drives, feelings and instincts. Some people saw this idea as being liberating from the moral strictures that went along with the idea of free will; but in fact it is enslaving in the end. The logical outcome of this kind of thinking is the attitude that people are their nature and can only be their nature. So that, if someone is possessing of a bad nature in one or another form, then this attitude will damn such a person for life. According to this thinking, once a sociopath always a sociopath, once a narcissist always a narcissist, once a pedophile always a pedophile, and further along the same line. The outcome of this has not been liberation, it has been something very close to fascism. Some people are singled out for extermination or at least evisceration and dehumanization. And that has created one of the most vicious movements that the West has known in a long time.

In this scenario the liberation is achieved through re-introduction of free will. Liberation is achieved by regaining the concept of choice. Even if one has something wrong with his brain, he can still choose to act in a rightful manner. A pedophile can choose not to act on his pedophilic urges. A sociopath can learn ethics. And a narcissist can use his mind to figure out another person's perspective even if his heart fails to do the job.

A movement that once promised freedom from moral strictures of Victorianism ended up becoming a force for fascism. According to these trends in psychology, some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. The result has been vicious, relentless persecution of some people. This trend in psychology is not even rational. Once again, if people are responsible for their actions then anyone can choose to act rightfully; and if some people cannot choose to act rightfully whatever they do then people are not responsible for their actions.

I believe that people are in fact responsible for their actions. In fact I know they are. There have been all sorts of people who chose to act rightfully regardless of what was in their nature or in their psychology. In this situation the idea of free will indeed becomes a force for liberation. It allows people to choose rightful conduct and rightful thinking whatever exists in their natures. And that makes it a force for true liberty.

The problem with the Victorian model was that it ignored everything except free will. In such a situation it is in fact correct that people see other things that are there – things such as feelings or instincts or drives. But then psychology went to the other extreme and denied free will. It stated basically that we are animals. One obvious problem with this, once again, has been that it has lead to fascism. Psychology decided that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This is irrational; this is cruel; and this is wrong.

And by restoring free will without ignoring everything else that is there, is achieved true freedom and complete existence as human beings.

Tuesday, September 05, 2017

"Losers" And Christianity

I have had it with one or another person going on about how others are losers.

Most of these people owe the bulk of the money they have to scientists – whom they would regard to be losers. They owe their postitions as yuppies to their teachers and their professors – whom they would regard to be losers. They owe their property rights and their lives to the military and the police – whom they would regard to be losers. And they owe the money that they make to manual and brain laborers – whom they would regard to be losers as well.

I am tired of people claiming Christian values treating others like dirt. This is not what Christianity is meant to be about. If you claim your authority to come from Christ, then you better be treating other people well. And if you are not willing to do that, then you cannot claim to have Christian values.

Yes, I was guilty of this wrongful behavior myself. I have learned from it. I did use to have some elitist attitudes; but life has cured me of that problem. Right now I have respect for all sorts of people for whom I did not have respect before. I want to see more people make the same choice.

If you really do believe in Christian values, then you are obligated to be good to other people, including people who are not part of any kind of “elites.” And if you are not willing to do such a thing, then you cannot claim legitimately to have Christian values. The people who claim to have Christian values when they are treating their workers like dirt are full of crap. You are a Christian, you are obligated to be good to others. And if you refuse to do so, then you cannot claim to be a Christian.

So it is about time that this hypocrisy be confronted. If you are a Christian, then you are obligated to treat others well. And if you fail to do so, then you cannot claim to be a Christian.

It is about time that more people recognize this and treat the situation accordingly.