Miguel Conner, Gnosticism and the Evil Question |446|

Seriously, unless you break this up into manageable paragraphs with line breaks, it's almost unreadable. Certainly, I couldn't read it. Which is a pity, because it looks interesting.
Yeah. I was going to do a hit piece on him until I seen it was a copy paste of someone else's work.
So I just commented on the work... and left out that academic nut-kick which is still deserved for the form he left it in.
Yeah.
A hit piece.
Slam as hard as possible anything that reared its head as something anyone might agree was slammable.

I was going to rip apart the author as one who vacillates or is in a swirl trying to pull another or others into the same swirl using words which could not be quickly verified as properly used (properly used within the context it was used).
And that compressing the form into one ball (no paragraphing or outline or emphasis of relative importances) the author attempts to make the whole piece into a kind of a mind bomb.

But

When I seen it was from that particular author and was a bad copy/paste...
Well on the probability the author was writing to his type of people I decided just to ignore the content (sort of) and forgive the form (sort of) and comment on the possibility that the author indeed was consumed by the cosmic joker into a repressive life (or lives) and any significance within his being-ness (for his own point of viewing) is negated (turned to ashes). No longer reachable for him as he was, because it is one of his past lives.

Kind of sad that.
 

Alex

Administrator
First, well done for surviving these 'episodes.' It cannot have been easy. You must be made of tough stuff. Respect.

It's interesting to note that even meditation can precipitate severe breakdowns in some people. Perhaps this is the importance of paradigms and traditions: They give direction on how to do things safely, or at least minimize risk. For example, many Buddhist and Hindu systems strongly advise against the novice (and not just the novice) paying too much attention to PSI and various other extended consciousness phenomena. Certain strains of Christian prayer practice also give guidance on how to interpret strange happenings - often suggesting a scaling back of ones regimen when they occur.

Unlike Baccarat, I see holding on to value judgements like 'good' and 'bad' to be absolutely essential here. Otherwise, what possible reference points can we have? And without reference points, how can we possibly know where we are and how to act? I suppose this is true in both a spiritual and geographic way.
agreed. also seems like we're making it a little bit more complicated than it is... don't we all know right and wrong?
 
agreed. also seems like we're making it a little bit more complicated than it is... don't we all know right and wrong?
Also agreed, relative morality is anti human and does not factor into our experience as human beings. Just try and test it out on your own children and see how it goes. There really is nothing relative about what is true good and evil.
The fact is some people believe in the practice evil as a release from the confines of any rules, be it man made or intrinsic morality. We know very well what levels of evils are capable for humans but when we consider it as a ritualistic practice or a belief in the power of evil we shy away from this fact. But trust me some people do believe in this "way" of freedom or liberation from morality either legally imposed or naturally imposed. Satanist are ridiculous.
 
agreed. also seems like we're making it a little bit more complicated than it is... don't we all know right and wrong?
I have known some folks that some might label "psychopaths" and I can assure you that their POV as to what is "right" or "wrong" is not anywhere near what I believe you mean by the "we all know right and wrong" paradigm. When you consider that if powerful folks "share similar views" and that many of these (maybe all) happen to be psychopaths, you understand why our wold has become what it is today...
 
Yes, this is why armies have to train us hard to overcome our natural inclinations to not shoot people.
Exactly, and as a result we have the phenomena of pstd , with veterans killing themselves in record numbers. Depending on your distance to death of course. A pilot on a b2 killling thousands may not suffer the same trauma as a soldier sticking his bayonet through someones ribs and looking into the victims eyes.

The rampant pstd began when the military swapped out the general circular target for a human shaped one. Just shoot don't think!
 
agreed. also seems like we're making it a little bit more complicated than it is... don't we all know right and wrong?
Right, wrong, good, evil, cat, dog... these are all possible results of a neural network trying to identify a pattern from some data. The result is a probability that is truncated into a decision to apply one of these labels to the pattern.

A word is a label applied to the fat part of a bell curve of probability which is itself a node in a network. The importance of this node is determined by its connectivity.

For example, the word "CUP" is a node connected to all sorts of instances of cup-like things. One instantiation of a CUP like my coffee mug can have that label applied to it if it falls sufficiently close to the fat part of the bell curve.

But there are always tails on the probability curve resulting in ambiguous overlap. Who determines where to draw the dashed line separating the tails from the concept? Is it 3 sigma? 6 sigma?

For example, my coffee mug and someone who donates to their child's soccer team and a hard plastic device for protecting male genitalia have some overlap in the word "CUP" which could be instantiated as an athletic supporter. So at the six sigma tail of the word "CUP" is a connection to a soccer dad.

When you say, "don't we all know right and wrong?" you could say, "don't we all have neural networks trained on similar data resulting in probability curves that are similar enough that we can agree XX% of the time on how to label a particular event? Child molesters fall pretty near the middle of the bell curve on the label "evil" and a child giving a flower to his mother falls pretty near the middle of the bell curve on the label "good".

But of course we could come up with other scenarios that don't sit near the middle of one of these bell curves and that's called good TV.
 
I have known some folks that some might label "psychopaths" and I can assure you that their POV as to what is "right" or "wrong" is not anywhere near what I believe you mean by the "we all know right and wrong" paradigm. When you consider that if powerful folks "share similar views" and that many of these (maybe all) happen to be psychopaths, you understand why our wold has become what it is today...
Known as political ponerology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ponerology

edit: Bernhard Guenther has actually done some work on "evil". Perhaps he would be a good subject for the Skeptiko show?

https://veilofreality.com/2014/02/07/marianne-williamson-and-the-elephant-in-the-living-room/
 
Last edited:
Right, wrong, good, evil, cat, dog... these are all possible results of a neural network trying to identify a pattern from some data. The result is a probability that is truncated into a decision to apply one of these labels to the pattern.

A word is a label applied to the fat part of a bell curve of probability which is itself a node in a network. The importance of this node is determined by its connectivity.

For example, the word "CUP" is a node connected to all sorts of instances of cup-like things. One instantiation of a CUP like my coffee mug can have that label applied to it if it falls sufficiently close to the fat part of the bell curve.

But there are always tails on the probability curve resulting in ambiguous overlap. Who determines where to draw the dashed line separating the tails from the concept? Is it 3 sigma? 6 sigma?

For example, my coffee mug and someone who donates to their child's soccer team and a hard plastic device for protecting male genitalia have some overlap in the word "CUP" which could be instantiated as an athletic supporter. So at the six sigma tail of the word "CUP" is a connection to a soccer dad.

When you say, "don't we all know right and wrong?" you could say, "don't we all have neural networks trained on similar data resulting in probability curves that are similar enough that we can agree XX% of the time on how to label a particular event? Child molesters fall pretty near the middle of the bell curve on the label "evil" and a child giving a flower to his mother falls pretty near the middle of the bell curve on the label "good".

But of course we could come up with other scenarios that don't sit near the middle of one of these bell curves and that's called good TV.
[ORIGINALLY POSTED] Some of this is materialism... I thought we have graduated from this. The other part is that so many fail to consider the influence of their subconscious and IMO THAT is huge.

[CORRECTED HERE]
 
Last edited:
Known as political ponerology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ponerology

edit: Bernhard Guenther has actually done some work on "evil". Perhaps he would be a good subject for the Skeptiko show?

https://veilofreality.com/2014/02/07/marianne-williamson-and-the-elephant-in-the-living-room/
YES - and I have Andrzej Łobaczewski's book and sometimes a book can put out theories that, over time, one can see, more and more...
that the theories have merit, seems to be the root of the reality. This then suggests, "the good people" have Stockholm Syndrome perhaps... and if this is the case, the hole we have collectively dug is seriously deep.

I acquired Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (by Łobaczewski) 4 or 5 years ago and it has been a hard read for me... because its seems so right on and thus, really, really sad for us all. has been a hard read for me...
 
Hi... ok, I now see that I have misinterpreted, but when I read the post, parts of it seemed to point to "brain mechanics" as the culprit. I probably shouldn't have posted as I had a "not so good" night of sleep and read your post just after I woke.

I just re-read the post and I believe the word "node" is what I reacted on. In re-reading the post, I can see that it is the mind. I will correct my post and, apologies.

Note: I have come to really appreciate so many of your posts that I was surprised by the one above. It's clear now my surprise was due to my incorrect interpretation. In fact, I agree with your post completely. I can be a dummy (too often).
 
Hi... ok, I now see that I have misinterpreted, but when I read the post, parts of it seemed to point to "brain mechanics" as the culprit. I probably shouldn't have posted as I had a "not so good" night of sleep and read your post just after I woke.

I just re-read the post and I believe the word "node" is what I reacted on. In re-reading the post, I can see that it is the mind. I will correct my post and, apologies.

Note: I have come to really appreciate so many of your posts that I was surprised by the one above. It's clear now my surprise was due to my incorrect interpretation. In fact, I agree with your post completely. I can be a dummy (too often).
lol its okay.. I know materialism has become a dirty word here, but I'm not offended by it. Any understanding of consciousness will involve some mechanisms. What we intuitively rebel against is the notion that consciousness is ONLY JUST a mechanism.

If the universe were a perfect mechanism there could be nothing new. If the universe were the opposite - a formless void - there'd be nothing to talk about. It is the interaction between the mechanism and the formless void that is novelty, creation, adventure.

I think the degree to which a being is conscious is a function of both the complexity of the mechanism as well as the "surface area" of that mechanism's boundary with the Void.

Imagine an object floating on the surface of water (or the "Spirit of God moving over the waters" of creation or Jesus "walking on water"). The water represents the Abyss - the Formless Void. The region above the surface of the water represents structure or Logos or mechanism - a patterned alternation of boundaries and spaces. A plastic ball floating on the water could represent the low-level of consciousness of an atom: relatively low ratio of surface area to volume. A porous sponge floating on the water has a high ratio of surface area to volume and that is a lot of opportunity for the mechanism to interact with the Void. A small sponge would be a like an insect brain and a very large sponge would be like a human brain.

Imagine a pair of gears churning. The boundary between one gear and another gear represents a very small surface area with the Void - a low degree of uncertainty in the mechanism. There is a small non-zero probability that a gear tooth will break off and the gear will skip.

Now imagine a transistor which truncates an analog voltage into a digital 1 or 0. There is a small non-zero probability that the switch will flip incorrectly. Now imagine a neuron with its action potential required to fire or not fire off to the next neuron. There is some degree of uncertainty whether it will fire or not. Now imagine the behavior of that neuron is tied to the behavior of the micro-tubules forming it which are switching their di-poles all the time and are subject to quantum uncertainty. That is a mechanism with a lot of surface area with the Void.

Any pattern considered to exist "objectively" can be thought of as a mechanism and as such could be rolled into the tent of "materialism". What people forget is that all patterns have boundaries arbitrarily set by the subjective choice of the observer. Boundary = Free Will. So there is no "objective pattern". Rather there are patterns that many subjective observers can agree are useful.
 
lol its okay.. I know materialism has become a dirty word here, but I'm not offended by it. Any understanding of consciousness will involve some mechanisms. What we intuitively rebel against is the notion that consciousness is ONLY JUST a mechanism.

If the universe were a perfect mechanism there could be nothing new. If the universe were the opposite - a formless void - there'd be nothing to talk about. It is the interaction between the mechanism and the formless void that is novelty, creation, adventure.

I think the degree to which a being is conscious is a function of both the complexity of the mechanism as well as the "surface area" of that mechanism's boundary with the Void.

Imagine an object floating on the surface of water (or the "Spirit of God moving over the waters" of creation or Jesus "walking on water"). The water represents the Abyss - the Formless Void. The region above the surface of the water represents structure or Logos or mechanism - a patterned alternation of boundaries and spaces. A plastic ball floating on the water could represent the low-level of consciousness of an atom: relatively low ratio of surface area to volume. A porous sponge floating on the water has a high ratio of surface area to volume and that is a lot of opportunity for the mechanism to interact with the Void. A small sponge would be a like an insect brain and a very large sponge would be like a human brain.

Imagine a pair of gears churning. The boundary between one gear and another gear represents a very small surface area with the Void - a low degree of uncertainty in the mechanism. There is a small non-zero probability that a gear tooth will break off and the gear will skip.

Now imagine a transistor which truncates an analog voltage into a digital 1 or 0. There is a small non-zero probability that the switch will flip incorrectly. Now imagine a neuron with its action potential required to fire or not fire off to the next neuron. There is some degree of uncertainty whether it will fire or not. Now imagine the behavior of that neuron is tied to the behavior of the micro-tubules forming it which are switching their di-poles all the time and are subject to quantum uncertainty. That is a mechanism with a lot of surface area with the Void.

Any pattern considered to exist "objectively" can be thought of as a mechanism and as such could be rolled into the tent of "materialism". What people forget is that all patterns have boundaries arbitrarily set by the subjective choice of the observer. Boundary = Free Will. So there is no "objective pattern". Rather there are patterns that many subjective observers can agree are useful.
WoW! I read this twice.... what excellent metaphors and then, this direct conclusion...

So there is no "objective pattern". Rather there are patterns that many subjective observers can agree are useful.
...like, consensus reality even?
 
...like, consensus reality even?
If we say that all is material, we imagine all boundaries to have an ontological fixedness independent of any observer and this metaphor is grounded in the sensory experience of hard objects and this mindset results in the systematization and digitization of everything and the denial of God, Consciousness, and free-will. This is the mindset of "Lord Business" who wants to super glue all the Legos together in the perfection of Taco Tuesday. This is the Architect of the Matrix who operates in the perfect mathematical precision that is intolerable to the red-pilled human mind.

On the other hand, if we say that all is mind, then we consider all boundaries to be illusory or fluid or "mere" creations of the observer and this is tied to the sensory experience of water or wind and this results in a lack of internal or external structures which might be a relief if you found your mental structures to be oppressive, but in the end the weakness of this mindset will result in the subject being assimilated by the first mindset. This is Unikitty's Cloud Cukoo land. This an equally invalid attempt to take a bipolar world and make it unipolar.

If we say that all is pattern, we unite subject/object mind/matter. There is no pattern without something to be observed and there is no pattern without an observer to draw little boxes around things and assign labels (before Adam could eat the fruit, he assigned names to the animals). The patterns we create are not useful unless they enable us to move towards our purpose (naming a bunch of animals was useless to Adam - "no helper was found" - it was only when he named that which was broken off from himself - his own externalized purpose - that he acquired a "help-meet" to help him meet his purpose). There is no pattern without a decision to draw boundaries and that decision is determined by the Will. So there is no Truth without Will. So "consensus reality" is an expression of the will. The Will to Truth is the Will to power. Adam's "helper" - his own externalized self-determined will - is who gave him the knowledge which made him like the gods.
 
agreed. also seems like we're making it a little bit more complicated than it is... don't we all know right and wrong?
We know right and wrong, yes Alex... we opinionate as right or wrong or somewhere neutral based SOLELY on personal aesthetics.

Some prefer dark - just as a temporary taste in gaming but quickly back to their "natural" aesthetic state... if they are in a native state.
But many have been so foiled up into enforcements from others that they "can't" figure out what they can like - safely.

These are the ones who have to go lightly with meditation. They don't have the horsepower to make a decision of their own stick just for themselves - let alone as effect for anyone else to experience.

Opinion:
The way out?
Well that would be through allowing help to exist 1st.
Then allowing a freedom to express where they have personally disagreed with themselves against their own judgment. Yes. The actual physical place they have personally disagreed with themselves - it has the time already tagged there.
And let those be exactly as they are. See them. OK them. And say good bye to them... leaving them exactly as they are. Exactly what they are - incident in a time frame.

If that is too hard then spend at least a week - maybe two NO NEWS, no upsetting friends, nothing that is not calm. Give yourself a break from it.

Then try personal honesty again:
Seeing then leaving a goodbye with each place where there was/is your own personal disagreement with you.
Let it be all as it is/was.

Then let you be exactly as you are, and as you are deciding to be as of each moment you care to decide about such.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
...The fact is some people believe in the practice evil as a release from the confines of any rules, be it man made or intrinsic morality.
I'm starting to come around to the idea that this is some kind of blocked energy issue. i.e. I can't get the good stuff the flow through me so at least I can release it in this negative way.
 

Alex

Administrator
I have known some folks that some might label "psychopaths" and I can assure you that their POV as to what is "right" or "wrong" is not anywhere near what I believe you mean by the "we all know right and wrong" paradigm. When you consider that if powerful folks "share similar views" and that many of these (maybe all) happen to be psychopaths, you understand why our wold has become what it is today...
IDK... I'm pretty open to a wide range of personal behavior / flexible morality that is not "evil".

For example, I don't think there's anything inherently evil about moving the line to induce more betting :) like a lot of things, I suspect thinking makes it so
 
Top