I don't hate the world anymore

I don't think this is a correct assessment.
All actions are motivated by the desire for their good based on their model of what good should look like.

 

"Their" as in the action that produces a good outcome, or "their" as in the doer of the action?

 

Their as in the doer of the action.

 

Yes. I agree and I'm glad you brought it up because that point could have helped Tom and I's discussion. If someone does a bad thing, it is because they think it will produce good results for themselves. If someone spits in my face say, they get a good laugh out of it. That bad action produced a good reaction for them.

(I'm going to use the example of Ted Bundy as he is well know and did very bad things)

When Ted killed women his bad actions (killing women) produced good results for him. He felt powerful, important, strong, clever, and he got a lot of sexual gratification out of it. He may have known that his behaviour and actions were bad, but he did it anyways because he perceived the results as good.

So, if someone like Ted Bundy is confronted will love and acceptance, can an evolution in behaviour take place? Can he change his ways? Can he be re-imprinted to think that those results are not good for him? That they are morally and unquestionably wrong. This is essentially what I was trying to say earlier in the thread. I don't know the answers, but I'm willing to think deeply about it.

Why should someone like Ted Bundy be confronted with love? I think because love, understanding and acceptance leads to evolution of behaviour and can lead to positive re-imprinting of behaviour. Hate and anger will only ever devolve a person. That is my opinion. Will he accept love? Probably not, but it's at least worth trying for the sake of human psychological evolution.

Ps- This is what the movie 'A Clockwork Orange' was about. Kubrick was a big fan of Leary and his ideas on re-imprinting.

 

I think so. On a daily functioning level, conflict is easily avoided through empathetic response, but in the case of psychopathic personality, it requires devoted long and constant attention.

 

Eh... what more a credible means of explaining my reactionary side than to demonstrate it -eh?

 

I agree. However most would not like to devote human contact and perhaps empathy to such people. Which stunts psychological evolution.

Bundy grew up believing that his mother was his older sister. And as they were poor they shared a bed for many years. He was told his grandparents were his parents. He learned that his 'sister' was actually his mother while he was in high school.

Now, I'm not saying I sympathize with him or people who exhibit that kind of behaviour. I'm saying that he probably could have used compassion and empathy in his life. From who, I don't know. Empathy can have great effects on people.

 

I was thinking the same thing this morning but I have to tell you your bark is much worse than your bite.

 

It is not just empathy but focus or determination. Remember the manipulation of energies requires energetic investment.
I am saying the magic of virtue in any pursuit lies in perfect practice. No greater love than to give your life for a friend.

 

Are you going to trust your loved ones to his care to see if offering him love and compassion helped him evolve?

 

Sounds like a good Phd specialization. A Phd in Focused Energy Investment. 'Focusing on the pursuit of physical, psychological and spiritual evolution since 2010. The year we made contact.'

 

I was more suggesting that it was easier for you to make your fortune when you did because you didn't give a shit.

If I didn't give a shit about people, hell, I could sell heroin, use it to finance a collections company, that eventually finances a company that finances research of epigenetic modification processes that become patented, and in effect allow me to sue people who eat organic fruit for becoming healthier.

or some such.

which would be pretty fucking arch evil, but if it worked, would be VERY successful.

 

I knew what you are talking about.

But the longer I am around the more I realize that it is best to live within your conscience.

And although not caring for people would make getting money faster, in the long run. it is just not worth it.

I firmly believe you can be a good person and succeed.

 

But you didn't have to do it.

Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true.

You cannot use yourself as an example when you did not have to take that path.

 

Neat. Y'all are both arguing good points. Dave from logic, ua from the emotion that comes from experience. Best two posts I've read in a while.

 

Well I was talking about what I believe.

It is also the fact that making money is a skill that anyone can learn.

Money is not evil. It is neutral.

Now admittedly you can never know the totality of any person

But that is no different than saying that all people who have wealth are bad people.

That is an excuse.

Just becase you don't believe it, does not make what I said true.

Everything is not black or white.

The all idea of wealth being bad is just as ridiculous as me saying if you are poor you are a sorry ass person becase you cannot provide for your family.

 

Anyone, yes, but not everyone, and that is where you seem to get lost.

The systems we live in, work only because there are the poor that do most of the menial work, allowing others (like yourself) to focus on making money off of those efforts.

Yet, you say that very thing... lol

 

I agree and and have no problem with what you said.

The poor do most of the work. But that is their choice.

I know some of my employees think I am a bastard and should be paying them more.

But I do not have a gun to their head. They are free to work for anyone.

I do believe everyone does have an obligation to provide for their family.

But I was giving one extreme in this post, and well and most of my posts.

You can split hairs on anything, anyone says.

I am asking people to want more. That is all.

 

That's the point though, it isn't a choice that everyone can make, and if they did, then people like you wouldn't be able to make the choices that you do.

To say that you aren't holding a gun to your employees heads, you are right, you are holding the gun to their children's heads....

"Shut up and take what I pay you, or you can go find another job. Oh, there aren't any other jobs? Awww, too bad for you... I guess if you want to feed your children, you are just going to have to accept what pittance I offer you from what I make off your efforts."

Edited to add,... "Oh by the way, if you don't feed your children, you are a sorry assed person."

 

We all have choices.

I pay higher than the market rate for my employees. Meaning they make more from me than they would working for someone else doing the same job.

I am not holding a gun to anyone's children's head. That is a ridiculous argument.

You are talking away the employees personal responsibility for their actions and choices.

But I understand your logic.

It is so easy to blame others for our own personal choices.