Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Appreciation And Happiness

Once in rural Russia, a priest asked a newlywed couple how their life was. They said that everything was great, but the house was too small. So the priest told them to bring a goat into the house. After some time, he told them to take the goat out of the house. They said after this that the house was big enough.

Some things are like that. A strenuous effort will improve you while you are doing it, and you will have appreciation after that for the time that you are not putting in a strenuous effort. And if you have been given one or another kind of privilege that you do not appreciate, having that privilege taken away for a period of time will create rightful appreciation for it.

Sometimes people do not appreciate what they have. Instead they envy what others have, even though by historical and global standards they have it very well. I have been one of these people. Then I have been through different kinds of unpleasantness, and I developed appreciation for what I had had. I am reminded of a poem by Anna Akhmatova,

We thought we were beggars, we thought we had nothing at all
But then when we started to lose one thing after another,
Each day became
A memorial day -
And then we made songs
Of great divine generosity
And of our former riches.
So now I appreciate what I have a lot more, even if I do not have a mansion and a Mercedes.

The same is the case with other things than wealth. It can also be the case with human relationships. Sometimes having relationships is for the better, at other times it is for the worse. With anything that people want, appreciation grows if you have lost it and then found it again.

Right now I appreciate just about anything. That I am in comfortable quarters. That I have a good family and good friends. That I am healthy. That I have decent food. That I have known wonderful people who think well of me in return. That I have a lovely daughter. That I can have insights. That there is a power in my life that is guiding me toward better character and better choices.

Often people do not appreciate what they have, and they make themselves and others miserable that way. The correct solution is to build appreciation for such things. One way to do that is to take such things away from them and leave them without them. Then, once appreciation grows, return those things.

Of course there are times when what one has really is unwanted, and something quite different is wanted. If this is the case, what is unwanted can be taken away as well. Then the person will decide whether to want it and go back to it or to make do without it. In either case, taking away what is unappreciated is warranted, allowing the person to decide whether to have it and appreciate it or to make do without it altogether.

In my case, once again, I now appreciate just about everything. And that makes me much happier than I was when I had many things and acted like a brat.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Reflected Glory And Great Men

I had a girlfriend named Layo who had spent slightly over a year married to the right-hand man of a deceased swami named Adano Christopher Ley. The swami's other followers were nasty to her, and she came away from the experience with an impression that God had rejected her.

God did not reject Layo. People who thought they were God rejected Layo. These people were bullies and usurpers. They had been in contact with a great man, and they made the mistake of thinking that they were great themselves. They were not great. Not anything close to it. They simply had had the good fortune to have their lives touched by a great man. The knowledge and power that they had came from him, not from them.

There are many people who make the same error. And the correct solution is to remind them of what is actually the case. They did not author the wisdom that they have been given. Somebody else did. And that means that the credit belongs with the source, not with them.

At least the Christians are commanded to be humble. But many followers of gurus are not humble, but both abusive and arrogant. Once again, they make the error of thinking that, because they have been in contact with somebody who was great, they are great themselves. In most cases they are not.

We see a similar error on behalf of any number of people who live in great countries. They think that, because they live in a great country, they are great themselves. In most cases they are not. They simply have had the good fortune of having been born in a great country. They get a bloated ego without having done anything to deserve it. Whereas in countries that are not great, people do not have that crutch, and someone who wants to feel great has to work at it.

As should be the case for anyone who wants anything like greatness or sense of accomplishment.

Now there are some things that should be extended to most people, such as tolerance. But greatness is something that has to be earned. And in case of people such as Adano's initiates, it was not earned. It was bestowed on them by a great man who believed that he owed them a karmic debt. So they decided, once again, that they were better than other people, such as for example Layo. They were not better than her. They were worse than her. She had a brain and went to a great length to make sense of what Adano had stated and what others had stated. Whereas these people simply had had the experience of being around a great man.

I think that there are many situations in which such things need to be clarified. I will not respect you because of whom you have been around. I will respect you because of who you actually are.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

From Militant Atheism To Christ

Rationalism is followed by romanticism, and romanticism is followed by religion. Romanticism deconstructs false logical structures and opens the way to spiritual experience. This in turn opens the way to Christ.

In 2000 I had a great spiritual and romantic experience. As I opened my mind to spiritual forces, thus came in the mindsets of practicing Christians and, after that, Christ Himself. When spiritual energies become inescapable, also becomes inescapable the greatest spiritual energy that is there. Christ comes in and takes the person to the true source.

Of course religion is often followed by rationalism; but there does not need to be a contradiction between the two. As my mathematics teacher who was a devout Christian said, there is no contradiction between science and Christianity. Physics, chemistry, biology and suchlike reveal the divine design, and genuine understanding of these subjects builds respect for the universe as well as what it came from. Science and religion can, and should, work together. One does not preclude the other.

So we see people saying things such as that religious people are stupid. I used to think the same thing; but the experiences that I have had are so numerous and so unavoidable that it would make a believer of a militant atheist such as one used to be, much more a regular skeptic. Reason and logic are tools, not ideologies. A truly rational person, when met with something that does not parse with his worldview, changes his worldview. A person who tries to deny the evidence is not rational and he is not logical. He is dishonest.

We especially see this dishonesty in some in the academia, who claim that an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary level of proof. I see nothing at all extraordinary about something that the bulk of humanity believes. Far more extraordinary – and far more arrogant – is the claim that most people are stupid or crazy and that the only people who are not stupid or crazy are ones who do not have religious or spiritual beliefs. Some people who believe such things think that spirituality is narcissism. I can see no more glaring narcissism than theirs.

Then there is the claim that religion leads to fanaticism. Probably the most fanatical people I knew were Soviet Communists, and they did not believe in God. I have also seen fanaticism – as well as in some cases exceptional cruelty – in people who called themselves skeptics. Christ teaches mercy and humility, which these ideologies do not. This means that Christianity is far less likely to lead to cruel, fanatical or destructive behavior than these ideologies.

So then there are people claiming that Christians are brainwashed. They understand the transmission mechanism; they do not understand how it came about. Any ideology can be transmitted through generations. This includes anything from Communism to Islam. What these people do not understand is how – and why – something originated. Christianity began during the Roman Empire, which had advanced philosophy and science. The people who became Christians were not sheep; they were frequently fed to the lions. Yet Christianity outlasted the Roman Empire. Clearly we are seeing something far more viable working here than mere brainwashing.

Then there is the claim that religion is something archaic, and that progress means moving away from religion. Once again, that is completely wrong. Roman Empire had advanced science and engineering. They moved toward Christianity instead of away from it. There is such a thing as scientific and technological progress; but I do not see social progress or progress in thought. Societies change in different directions at different times, as does thought. Both the Western civilization and China have had periods of relaxed social attitudes and periods of stringent social attitudes. Philosophy of the Greeks and the Romans was quite advanced, but it gave way to Christianity and Islam. The idea that we are moving away from religion toward feminism or psychology or anything of the sort contradicts the most basic historical facts. In fact, religion is light years ahead of psychology. Psychology states that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. Religion says that all sinners can be redeemed – which is a much more humane, a much wiser and a much more rational standpoint.

I of course got attacked a lot when I had that experience in 2000. Most of what came my way, I found ways to deconstruct, but it was not an easy task. Some was wrong beliefs that people had, and some was personal nastiness. You can deconstruct falsehoods, and you should. You can deconstruct abuse, and you should. You do not however deconstruct Jesus.

Right now in the world, there is a lot to deconstruct. We see fascist trends in psychology claiming, cruelly and in violation of all reason and all sense, that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do, however hard they work and whatever work they do on themselves. We see wrongful trends in feminism viciously attacking beauty and love and those who have or value love and beauty. We see postmodernism and avant garde making a huge mess of the culture and pushing ugly cultural products while viciously attacking real art and real poetry. We see corruption in courts, using a racket disorder called Parental Alienation Syndrome to take children away from mothers reporting abuse. We see New Agers teaching cruelty and lack of compassion, claiming that everyone is responsible for everything that happens to them and that if I were to rape you and kill you it would be your fault. We see self-esteem movement rewarding low standards and punishing people who have higher standards and thus find it harder to feel good about themselves. We see a rise in militantly racist and misogynistic ideologies. All of these things are wrong.

What is not? Once again, Christ. Most things can be taken apart, but you do not take apart someone who walks upon water. And in my own life, He has been working a change in my character. I find myself monitoring every action and every thought that I get and finding most of them sinful, even ones that I did not think were sinful before. So I work to change from within. I work to become honest for real, including honest with myself. I work to become more careful and more considerate and attentive. I work to take resposibility. I work to become humbler. I work to become understanding and compassionate. Most of these things I either did not see as virtues or did not consider relevant to my own purpose; but Christ shows me to the contrary.

This is the way in which Christ saves. He works to change you from within. He shows you where what you are doing is wrong – even at levels at which you would not expect – and what wisdom and righteousness and love actually mean. And then, inspired with the wisdom of Christ, you improve your own life and those of others.

At the church I attend, there is an older Aboriginal woman who lost her daughter to domestic violence. When she prays or preaches fireworks go off. She says that Jesus turned her from a victim into a victor. She admits to having felt like a social outcast, but she is full of confidence and courage now. The psychologists want to teach women who've been through things like domestic violence to be strong in themselves. They are wrong. They should be teaching them to be strong in Christ. Here, the woman will be on the right side of the greatest power in the universe. And that will allow her to have genuine courage and genuine strength, as does this woman, as opposed to the bad attitude and venal conduct that we see in many women who've been through the system.

At another church I attended, the preacher said that we must be dangerous people for God. He was absolutely correct. We are living in a world in which fascist ideologies have decided that some people are dangerous to society and that this justifies their permanent demonization, dehumanization and evisceration. I hope that I be dangerous to people who think such things; I hope that more people be dangerous to people who claim such things and make tons of money from sowing misery and confusion. These people claim to be serving society; but they are undermining what made it great or even possible at all. According to their logic, their ancestors were narcissists and sociopaths, since they did not like the way their societies ran and left them to seek freedom across the Atlantic. According to their logic, the most significant contributors to the world are narcissists, as the definition of the disorder includes seeking great success or having original ideas, meaning that most people who achieve great success or have original ideas are narcissists. According to their logic, America's business and political culture – including its great founders and its great industrialists and entrepreneurs - is composed of sociopaths and narcissists; and if they think that they as psychologists are exempt from this they are wrong. Original psychologists made claims that were against what society believed at that time, meaning that they were narcissists and sociopaths by definition. I have had it with this hysteria, and so should everyone else. I hope that people see through the ideological poison such as what these people perpetrate and come to actual wisdom.

Many of the things that I mentioned – self-esteem psychology, personality psychology, Third Wave feminism, use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in courts, and teaching strength in self rather than strength in God – are done in the name of science and in many cases at taxpayer expense. Far more effective than any of these things in affectuating personal betterment and solving social problems is experience of Christ. So I ask Christ to attend other people, including the feminists and the skeptics, and impart them of what He has shown me. If He could work what this has worked in the situation of a militant atheist such as one I used to be, then He could solve the problems of anyone else.

So this is where it stands. A militant atheist from a Communist background has come to Christ. I did not do this by being a sheep. I did this as an intellectual rebel who was availed of truth that I did not expect and did not anticipate and that was completely against what I had been taught. I certainly hope that Christ does the job on many others as well. There are certainly enough people who found wisdom and courage in Christ and are doing genuinely good things.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Qualities And Their Potentials

When a good person experiences suffering, she will want to keep others from suffering similar things. When a bad person experiences suffering, he will want to make others suffer similar things.

Sometimes the position of the latter is not altogether evil. In some cases he wants people to understand things that he understands and that they do not. If someone has been through war, he may want to make people who are used to peace have a sense of perspective. Even in less difficult situations it often benefits for people to see how life is experienced by someone else; and it benefits more for them to have an external perspective.

It most certainly is beneficial for people to understand one another. And that means among other things teaching good people what bad people are like. When a lady who was a wonderful person was saying that she was a bad person, I told her that a bad person would not care what kind of a person he is. Some places set unrealistic standards for character and behavior, and it takes seeing someone who is genuinely bad for people in those situations to realize how good they are.

Now I do not claim to be a good person – although some do – but I definitely know some very good people, and some of them have been attacked by others. Often a quality can be seen as good from one perspective and bad from another. A person who's kind to others can be seen as either good or naïve. A person who's not always good to others can be see as either mean-spirited or perceptive. Both qualities can work for good or for ill. A kind person can do good, but naivete can lead people to misjudge character and make frequently bad mistakes. A meaner kind of person can be bad to be around, but he may see what others do not and do the dirty work that others would not.

Sometimes the two make a good team. One practices soft power and the other practices hard power. We see this in politics, where the diplomats act nicely while the military does not. We see Jesus revealing Himself to Paul, who seemed to be not a very nice person, and Paul used his intellect and obsessive focus to become a great moral teacher of Christ.

Sometimes people see potential virtues as flaws. A person who is an engineer or a manual worker may see potential people skills as deception or manipulation. A businessman or a lawyer would see such qualities as intelligence. Similarly, a jock type may see academic intelligence as being arrogant or effeminate. In fact you want such qualities in a scientist or an engineer. The correct solution is to nurture the qualities into positive manifestation and directing them toward endeavors where they stand to do good.

The rightful solution is to see the qualities for what they can be and guide them toward what they can be. That is the case whatever the attitudes of others around the person. Often people have a negative attitude toward potentially positive traits and attack them or snuff them out in those around them. This is a bad idea. A quality that is not valued in one place may very well be valued in another place. The correct solution, once again, is to see the qualities for what they can become and guide them toward that direction.

Sometimes doing such things can be socially disruptive. People are often attached to their beliefs, and when they believe potentially positive qualities to be negative qualities they are not likely to be good to people who have them. If such a person does good, this refutes their beliefs, and that can violate their sense of right and wrong. Also there are many people who want a Confucian type of arrangement in which the son does what the father does, and if he does not then he is seen as bad for society. However society actually benefits when people contribute the most of what they have to give; and this is the case with people who have people intelligence but are born among those who see such things as deception or manipulation as much as this is the case with people who have academic intelligence but are raised by salesmen.

Conformity And Feminism

One question that has been on my mind has been, can conformity pressures be for the better? I suppose that if correct qualities are being encouraged, they can. However in many cases what we see is potentially good qualities being attacked.

If you are raised in a macho culture and you have scientific or artistic inclinations, you get attacked. If you go to a school where most kids want to be salesmen or lawyers and you have academic interests, you are seen as a freak, a loser or worse. In these situations, potentially good qualities get devalued or even demonized. This results in any number of potential high contributors becoming victims, rebels or even criminals. And that has very negative effects on the country.

One correct line against conformity pressures has been taken by feminists. They have righfully seen that girls are under intense pressure to abide by the media standard of beauty, and that the girls who do not meet that standard are devalued. They are correct to say that this is wrong. A girl who does not mee the media beauty standard can have any number of other potentially positive qualities; and having such girls having it drilled into their heads that they are worthess is wrong.

However the feminists have made major mistakes of their own. They decided that beauty as such is the problem. It is not. They are confusing a value with the misuses of the value. Most things that have appeal to people can be used for wrong. That does not make such things wrong in themselves. Money can be used for wrong, but that does not mean that money is wrong. Intelligence can be used for wrong, but that does not mean that intelligence is wrong. The same is the case with beauty.

So they have decided that beautiful girls are the problem. That is just as wrong as workers wanting to slaughter the propertied class. Beauty, once again, is not the problem. Vicious coercion toward a media standard of beauty is the problem. Disrespect for other positive qualities that women may have is the problem. Michelangelo and John Keats are not responsible for the actions of teenagers who do not know what they are doing or parents who have much less of an excuse of ignorance for the wrong things that they do.

Some of these women have decided that girls who are beautiful do not have other positive qualities. They think that beauty is incompatible with such things as intelligence, strength, spirituality or being a good person. They obviously have not met very many Russian women. Many of them are beautiful, intelligent, strong and good people. Much more so than any number of women in America who hide behind feminism to be bad people.

Then there is the claim that such women are arrogant. I think that just about anyone is capable of arrogance. Some attractive women are arrogant, and some are not. I know any number of beautiful women who are absolute sweethearts. And I know any number of unattractive women who are arrogant and mean. The Japanese women tend to be very humble and also attractive. Whereas there are many women in Third Wave feminism who are very arrogant and think that they are better than everyone else because they have what they think to be an enlightened ideology and that everyone else is a bigot, a misogynist, a sociopath or a brainless bimbo.

As for the claim that beautiful women are narcissistic and as such bad for society, that is completely wrong. By that standard, most Americans are descended from narcissists. Most Americans are descended from immigrants. Immigrants are people who did not like where they were and moved to another place where they thought they would have a better life. According to the beliefs of such people, these people were narcissists or even sociopaths. However without them America would not have existed, and a feminist would be a punching bag for a European peasant living until age 30 and having her sons drafted into the military and her daughters into domestic servitude.

In many cases, the solutions for social problems are worse than the social problems themselves. We see this, once again, with Third Wave feminism just as much as we see with such things as Communism and Nazism. The interest in advancing the benefit of the girls who do not meet the media beauty standard is correct. Much of what the Third Wave feminists have done is however even worse than the problems against which they correctly militated.

As somebody who has loved a number of women who were beautiful, intelligent and kind, I consider it my duty to stand for their interests. And that is as much against the people who think them to be freaks as it is against people who attack them for being beautiful. The correct solution is to see all potentially positive traits for what they are and guide them into correct expression. That is the case with beauty; that is the case with intellect; that is the case with good personal qualities; that is the case with everything that is good.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Money And Misuses Of Money

In a movie, a man from New York moves to the country to buy a house from his wife's relatives. The house turns out to be haunted. The man confronts the relative under the claim that he wanted his money. The response is, “The money makes the world go round, home boy.”

The man from New York made a wrong argument. The problem is not that his relative wanted money, but that he sold him a defective product. This has implications for many other situations.

In seeing wrong things done in the name of money, some people decide that the problem is with money. They are met with the correct argument that their lifestyle is based on money, and that in attacking money they are hypocrites. There is however a correct way to address this problem.

Money is not the problem. Wrong ways to make money are the problem. We see confusion between a value and the misuses of the value. I have an education in economics from a conservative American university, and I am not against money. I am however against short-sigthed and destructive ways in which some people make money; and it is these, not money, that should be addressed.

We see a similar thing with beauty. Feminists attack beauty because there are some people who use beauty for wrong. The problem, again, is not with the value but with the misuses of the value. That unscrupulous plastic surgeons exploit women's insecurities to convince already attractive women that they cannot be beautiful unless they keep coming back for more treatments does not damn beauty; it damns the plastic surgeons. That some parents and school cultures attack girls whom they do not consider attractive does not damn beauty; it damns them.

We see the exact same thing with money. Once again, money itself is not the problem. The problem is the wrong way in which some people make money. If you are making quick buck by destroying what you have not created and what you cannot re-create, then you are doing a wrong thing. This does not damn money. It damns the people who do such a thing.

There are many ways to make money that are good. A person who makes money by computerizing the world is doing a right thing. A person who makes money by feeding people is doing a right thing. A person who makes money by building houses is doing a right thing. A person who makes money by producing valuable thought is doing a right thing. But the person who makes money by burning rainforest in order to make ranches that become useless in two years is doing a terrible thing, as is the person who poisons the air and the oceans when there are many better ways to provide for people's energy needs.

The correct argument therefore is not the one against money. The correct argument is the one against wrong ways in which money is made. Similarly, the feminists are confused about beauty. The problem is not with beauty but with misuses of beauty. A value is itself innocent of its misuses. The problem is the misuses of the value and not the value itself.

Is money a bad thing? No, it is not. However there are any number of ways to make money that are destructive. In wars, the victors at first get money by looting; but over the long run they lose money as there becomes less and less money to loot. And when people make money by doing wrong things, they are likewise destroying wealth in the long run. The rainforest turns into a wasteland, and rich and beautiful environments that people have not created and cannot re-create turn into mud plain.

The correct argument therefore is not one against money, but against wrong ways to make money. And when this correct argument is made, the people who make it are less likely to be labeled as hypocrites and more likely to actually make a correct influence in the world. Do not militate against money. Militate against wrong ways to make money. And that will result in a much more effective argument than what we see from any number of people who militate against capitalism.

Friday, October 06, 2017

Cynicism And Christ

The cynical worldview portrays anything good as yet another, sneakier way to do evil. There are some situations in which this approach is justified, but there are many situations in which it a completely wrong thing to do. This kind of thinking attacks anything that is good – sometimes viciously. And that creates a worse world.

There are certainly many things masquerading as good that are not good at all. But there are also things that are genuinely good. When dealing with someone who has a cynical attitude, it takes extreme amounts of patience to have anything to do with them. Any number of people, when faced with such things, are likely to give up and do something else. In my case, there were situations in which I wound up heart-broken. The cynical person would keep finding ways to portray anything I did or said as a way to do wrong; and even when I genuinely loved such a person I got attacked. I finally had had it with such people, and after a while I left them alone even when I actually loved them.

Now I was never a cynic, but I did have a negative attitude. It took amazing amounts of patience on the part of Christ to bring me around toward His ways. For me to become a Christian is about as likely as it is for a Nazi woman to marry a Jewish man. I come from Jewish atheists, including a grandmother who was a Communist, and Christianity was one of the last things that I was likely to believe. However Christ has proven Himself to me again and again; and as persistent as I had been in dealing with the cynics, He has been much more persistent with me as well as much wiser and much more effective in what He did.

Looking back at it I find a number of people who had positive intentions toward me whom I thought to be doing the wrong thing. In some situations I was nasty to them, and I recognize now how wrong that behavior had been. Goodwill is a precious commodity and should be respected. That is even the case when it comes from a place that you regard wrongfully as being hostile or from a place from which you would not expect it to come.

Now any number of cynics are, as Clinton said, disappointed idealists, and any number of them want to be proven wrong. However they set the standard so high that no human being can meet it, and in any number of cases wanting to be proven wrong turns out to be a game. They would look for anything to pick on, and they would demand impossible standards. Nobody would meet these standards; so they will say that they have been right all along.


So that when you are dealing with a cynic, be careful for this behavior. They will pick on anything. You have to be perfect to get through to them; and the only perfect being is Jesus Christ. It took Jesus Christ to get me to turn around. It may take a lesser being for many others; but in some cases the job is too hard for anyone except Him.

Values, Bullying And Rebellion

A person is more likely to do something if it is presented as something he values than if it is presented as something that he does not. If cleanliness is associated with thoroughness and excellence, which are virtues, then a person is more likely to pursue it than if it is associated with anal retentiveness, which is a flaw. It therefore makes sense to explain such things in a way that is positive and reasonable rather than in a way that is bullying or controlling. And if one explains such things in a way that is bullying or controlling, then one risks alienating the person against them for a long time.

When I was 12, I was in a summer camp, and kids were trying to get me to behave their way by telling me that if I did not I would get beaten up. This was precisely the wrong thing to do. It lead to a power struggle. Consideration is a virtue, but bullying is not. If you try to instill consideration through bullying, then consideration is identified with bullying, and what is in fact a virtue is seen as a part of the problem.

Similarly we see people attempting to get their way with their children by telling them that if they do not they will suffer consequences or die. That once again is precisely the wrong thing to do. The child sees bullying behavior and he correctly rebels against it. And even when one is right – as for example if one wants the child to work hard or to act ethically – these virtues are associated in the child's mind with the bullying behavior, and that sets off a struggle that leads to these virtues being fought against.

The correct solution is to use righful arguments. It is to explain why certain actions are rightful and why they benefit others and oneself. But if you are being a bully, you are doing precisely the wrong thing. Once again, you are identifying virtues with flaws, and that leads to these virtues being fought against because they are identified with bullying behavior. This results in rebellion on the part of anyone who correctly stands against bullying and aggression. And then the virtues themselves get a bad name, and we see the kinds of people who are naturally idealistic and rightfull against such things as bullying and aggression becoming rebels.

So we see any number of people raised in WASP culture deciding that the WASP culture is the root of all evil. It is in no way such a thing. There are many that are right with the WASP culture. However in any culture, if you are teaching your values through bullying and aggression, you will make rebels of people who are against bullying and aggression. And in America we have seen such people go to places such as the academia and foment youth revolts against the WASP culture under the names of such things as political correctness, Third Wave feminism and religion-hating ideologies. If you teach your values with violence, bullying and threats, you will associate your values in the child's mind with violence, bullying and threats. And then the youth who are against such things, identifying your values with this misconduct, will revolt against your values, even on matters on which your values are right.

In my case, I have had to search long, far and hard to figure out what actually is rightful and what is not. One example we see toward what I speak of is Nietzsche. He saw many things wrong and correctly named them, but he also attacked a number of things that were right. He spoke against “small considerations.” That is wrong. But when the real virtue such as consideration is taught as part of the same mindset as any number of actual wrongs that Nietzche correctly confronted, it is very easy to make the error of conflating it with these wrongs. So if you teach your values incorrectly, expect any number of people to revolt against these values.


The correct way to teach one's values, once again, is to explain why they are there. That way you are engaging the mind of the person, and you are making the mind your friend rather than your enemy. At which point the mind then picks up on these values and correctly applies them and communicates them to others. And then we run a much lesser risk of rebellion and a much greater chance of raising wholesome people who practice correct concepts of right and wrong.

Thursday, October 05, 2017

Treatment Of Rape And Wrong Sexual Urges

From what I've heard, it appears that the biggest trauma of rape is that of disempowerment. The woman feels like her body has been taken from her. I have suggestions on how this trauma can be effectively overcome.

One suggestion is to take martial arts. Martial arts not only teaches the person that she can defend herself; it also addresses the trauma directly. Martial arts builds a relationship of self-mastery with one's body. The person gains power over her body and thus becomes empowered over her body – even to a greater extent than she had been before the rape.

Another suggestion is inviting God into her life. Here one is in touch with a power far greater than that of the rapist, and this power is righteous and good. God gives meaning, wisdom and a workable concept of ethics, and He is far more powerful than any man. If the trauma is that of disempowerment, then being in touch with the most powerful force in the known universe stands to go a long way toward solving that problem.

Right now, the leading approach to helping women who have been victims of such things is teaching them self-esteem and strength in themselves. That may work for some, but in any number of cases this can be a self-defeating approach. The self is not the only, nor the best, source of strength, and a person who is strong only in herself may not be actually strong. Such a person is likely to be selfish and also not to have a broad enough perspective. Whereas if a person is strong in God, she identifies with something much greater than herself, which means that she is more likely to take risks, make sacrifices and act with genuine courage.

For people who experience sexual urges that they do not want, I can think of two approaches. One is practiced by Buddhist monks. They meditate on decomposing corpses in order to do away with their sexuality. If they can do away with their whole sexuality that way, then people who experience pedophilic or otherwise unacceptable urges should be able to use this meditation to do away with these urges. Another is simply to hit yourself if you get urges of that kind. That should use classical Pavlovian reinforcement to de-condition the urge.

Now certainly I would not expect government-run centers for helping women dealing with things such as rape to preach Christian religion. That would be seen as violating the separation of church and state. However both churches and martial arts outlets can do outreach to these women and get them involved in something that works in overcoming their trauma. And that should help in solving this problem.