I love the values you espouse in this article, especially the concept of Yes... and, which has been on my mind a lot lately.
Similar to the Tamil saying, in Chinese there is a saying 樹大招風 that means “the tallest tree attracts the wind”. I’ll leave the finer interpretation open to the imagination.
Thank you, BonMul (hard to figure out how to shorten that ;-) You probably already know but the 'Yes and ...' is a technique in improv of affirming the previous person's skit, no matter or especially how absurd, and adding onto it. I love the Tamil saying.
Yes, Tereza, I'm aware of its relationship to improv as someone in my household took some improv classes. That person tends to dwell on problems, and I have been emphasizing "yes and..." as a pattern for gratitude lately. Not getting very far, but there are a few cracks showing in the grim exterior.
And BonMul is a pretty cool name. I'll gladly take it!
Oh I like your technique! And I've also learned from reversing desertification texts that tall trees attract the rain, and can bring land that's been pillaged back to life. So stand tall!
"Just look at the anti-BDS laws in 35 States that make it illegal for them to do business with or invest in any company boycotting Israel"
I came across this little gem from a journalist on the Joe Rogan podcast. It has really shaped my worldview since, and I think it is a self-contained little ball of awakening for any who care to see it. The implications of this are just as enormous as murdering tens of millions with a bioweapon IMHO.
It's certainly a denial of sovereignty, isn't it? I remember there was something proposed (or passed?) in California that would impose penalties on individuals who espoused BDS. I remember a schoolteacher losing her job because she wouldn't take the loyalty oath. That's when I realized that Israel controlled the US (or as Tirion says, the same people control both.)
Everything makes a lot more sense when one realizes that it's the same group of people who control the US, the UK, The Ukraine and Israel (and elsewhere), regardless of what window dressing (such as the pretenses of democracy, free speech and the rule of law) has been put in place to convince us otherwise.
Now there are not many things that stump me but this truly did.
It don't surprise me... more like... thanx... it fits in totally.
Yes there is a difference between admiration jealousy envy hate and desperation.
And there is a bit of everything in everything.
The Rothschilds if we stay here hate us... they hate every part of our existenz and do anything to harm Humanity... especially creating wars and blaming it on us... see Israel & Hamas.
They hate us because they envy us... we have something they never have... we have love creativity and love of life.
The Jews by their indoctrination are like the Rotschilds... they are living in a materialistic Prison of their own making (Indoctrination) and trying to control us, which they can't... and that makes them jealous of us so they learn in their secret societies to play pranks on us because they really envy us.
We have love... they only love what they can control.
I have great admiration for Humanity because we been held back by those people the Rothschilds the Jews Freemasons who play pranks like Greta Thundberg upon Humanity to derail us... to stop us becoming what they don't want us to become.
It all fits in Hand in Glove.
They have all the money on which they control us, yet it is all an Illusion and we can change the world in one day.
This is what they are afraid of.... they are afraid of Truth... because one day of Truth and their spell is broken... their power gone... bye bye.
Ukraine and Israel are Rothschild wars... and war is over if we want it.
This poem I wrote for a Burning world in hope the message gets through.
This world is all we have... and if its gone so are we.
The Heidi Berry song was eerily synchronistic with Elizabeth Nickson's book on MK Ultra, that I'm reading. It got a little too creepy. Just the context I'm sure and the dripping walls.
That may be a distinction to be drawn between envy and "jealousy as currently used in the US"; but the traditional meaning of jealousy is a feeling one has for one's own things (not others' things) as in "he guarded his land/time/wife jealously".
You're right! Natalie makes that distinction that jealousy is when someone else has what you rightfully believe to be yours. She says that wanting what someone else has is greed or coveting. But even if the definition of envy is disputed, there needs to be some word for "If I can't have it, no one should" because it's definitely a human emotion ;-)
so, do you reject the idea that the left/right division and subsequent ideologies are manifestations of peoples core personalities? I realize there are always exceptions, but in my experience this is a useful paradigm most of the time.
or do you think these distinctions arise out of experience and externalities?
I'm not really wedded to either but I do find it interesting...
Excellent question, Hollis, and thank you for sparking this excellent reply by Guy (which doesn't rhyme ;-) Guy, I'm so pleased that you continue to engage with my ideas on this One Mind thing. I'm really enjoying the chance to go deep into the details on that.
To answer Hollis in short, I don't reject any ideas other than superiority. Is it a useful paradigm? That's a good question. And I'm assuming the paradigm is 'that the left/right division and subsequent ideologies are manifestations of peoples core personalities.'
For Guy, my neologism on SIN is Seeing INferiority. To translate, 'let he who sees no inferiority throw the first stone.' That would make sense because you'd have to see the person you were stoning as beneath you, since you'd never do that to someone you saw as your equal. I don't ever find you to be looking SINfully, Guy, you're not someone who judges other people.
For Hollis, assuming that you're not seeing people as inferior either, how is that paradigm useful to you? I can imagine one way might be not trying to change them. It might save you some frustration but ideologies can be fixed beliefs whether they're nature or nurture.
I like Guy's idea of us being drops of the same sea that manifest in the unique way that a snowflake does. But I'm not sure sibling differences refute that we're formed by our environments--looking also at the wide variations between my daughters or my brothers and me. The family that your #1 sister was born into, Guy, was 33% different than yours, because it included you. Your #2 sister had a family 50% different than yours. Etc. No two siblings are ever born into the same family, it's a river you can't step in twice.
It's not whether we're born with individual personalities that I reject but whether those personalities are better or worse. If left/ right ideologies are neutral terms, it would be consistent with what I think is possible. Haidt's study looked at right-wing ideology as fear-based and left as based on compassion. Then he blames the left for being anti-Israel as a racist regime. So it seems like his sense of superiority cuts both ways.
I'm familiar with Haidt's work but not on the Israel comment so I will leave that out for now. I think I understand where U are coming from Teresa; in rejecting his hypothesis as it relates to a sense of superiority. in my mind tho, the left/right personality theory helps me understand others not in black and white, good vs bad dichotomies, but in more compassionate, human terms. in other words, when I was younger I used to think that a persons political beliefs were solely tied to their own morality (i.e. conservative are greedy and selfish and liberals are kind and compassionate). obviously as I grew up I changed my understanding on this kind of thinking. now I can see that a persons beliefs might be much more complex and nuanced containing personality, experience, environment, culture etc.
on a slightly different note, since the October attacks in Israel I have notice a deluge of content solely drenched in emotion and very little based on reason and rationality. I've had to really check myself and try to forgive others for (understandably) reacting strongly to these events...
yes, Peterson is an interesting example of someone who is very smart yet gets hijacked by intense emotion. I've really enjoyed some of his lectures and his talent for communicating complex ideas, but then turn around on Twitter and post the most hyperbolic rants (although that's might be a larger criticism of Twitter than anything; it's a toxic platform that can take the most enlightened individual and turn them into a raving lunatic, haha).
I hope you don't mind, I'll jump in with my observation on this. Indirectly I've been exploring it in my substack and Tereza and I have had some interesting discussions that touch on this.
For me a difficulty that has arisen in my recent 'spiritual' practices of inner investigation — looking 'SINfully' to capture Tereza's neologism/TLA, is that the core personality is far different than what is popularly understood. Jung made that observation in his essays on personality.) And I think William Blake in his psychology also comments on that.
Tereza's 'core personality', if I've understood her correctly, is a manifestation of an unbounded 'identity', so not an identity, and an individual's core identity would be a kind of subset of 'one-mind' (noos?) suggesting that there isn't actually a core at all. At least not how we understand core in this context. And that aligns with Jung's collective unconscious and the implications of some of Gautama's teachings that aren't popular in how Buddhism in its various manifestations has evolved.
This would suggest that what we have loosely, and likely incorrectly ascribed as 'core' is in large part a 'systems' problem: in broad sweeps our social structures will tend to foster certain characteristics. It is to be well acknowledged that this is not solid! It is clear that there is something unique about each of us subsets of the one-mind that there is not guarantee that even within a completely dysfunctional narcissistic-mother poisoned childhood will create similar outcomes! The five of us are very different, two mostly recovered, one well functioning albeit not healed, one as woke and deluded as it is possible to be, and another still in mid-stage of recovery 1.0 from every addiction possible to imagine.
In recent months, as I've been really looking at this internally, and how that has been made manifest in convidiana, is that the one-mind manifests trauma splits uniquely. like how ice crystals are made, perhaps. And each crystal is its own fractal-structure that creates a lens that keeps our vision from seeing without the malformations that the refractory nature of crystals 'automatically' creates.
There are broad sweeps of personality, here, and yet the basic structure of the human crystaline substrate will keep us seeing within a certain range possibilities.
It is when we each individually begin to notice that our seeing has been distorted that the possibility of there being no left or right comes to exist and with that suffering will reduce or end. Beginning with the person's suffering who has managed to not see through the crystaline glass darkly, so-to-speak.
The thinkers I respect the most all point out the same thing: correct seeing is step one. That is accomplished by slowing down the mind enough to see that the mind is confused about most things and is not really in charge or as powerful as it thinks it is. Then the possibility of proper seeing, mostly from the heart and the physical body, not just the eyes, happens. Then suffering ends personally and with that it reduces automatically into the community.
honestly tho, you had me at William Blake and Carl Jung.
I do believe that the environment/culture/system we live in can interact with our mind in a sort of self repeating feedback loop, constantly generating and regenerating ideas and viewpoints more than our inherent personalities...
Another interesting essay. And the distinction between envy and jealously is well articulated. How is your thinking about the connection between resentment and envy? By your cited definition I am hard pressed to see the difference. Peterson and my favourite Buddhist-psychologist Michael Stone both re-iterate that resentment is about the most pernicious of all stances that the 'personality' can take. The AA world often castigates resentment as the single biggest reason for selfish and addictive behaviours and that the very first glimmer or wedge of resentment is comparison — the exact thing you have wisely observed within yourself as being a 'SIN.'
And I have a question. You wrote "I think Haidt’s book should be called ‘The Self-Righteous Mind’ since the social experiment Darren cites relies on subjective qualifiers that turn the data into value judgments, **much like Jordan Peterson’s study**."
You mention Peterson's study. However, I have no idea what 'study' you are referring to. Personality types? If that's it, that's not Peterson's study, unless you mean him referencing it, which he does often.
NB: You may find my last essay interesting. It is a long look at words. You show up in at as well. And the last part is my disagreement with Maajid Nawaz's argument that technology is the evil thing, even if he isn't a Luddite. And I suggest why he's wrong, beyond his argument being an example of the post hoc propter hoc logical fallacy. And I suggest a method that addresses the duality subject-object 'problem' that he and Peterson and most others suggest is insoluble. Hint: there is something about a Taoist version of Zen in the proposed solution.
Re: Jordan Peterson's study, it's the one I talked about in the Maajid episode (https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/yuval-bibi-and-maajid) that he did with a grad student when he was a professor. If you go to the embedded video, it's at the 40 min mark that he talks about us living in a postmodern neo-Marxist age that's animated by envy, ala Cain.
He says, "The first question was, 'Was there a coherent set of ideas that could be identified as politically correct?" And the second is whether that set of ideas correlated with another. They found there were two domains of ideas that hung together: 'a liberal compassionate inclusiveness' and an 'authoritarian willingness to use force or compulsion.' He describes this as a 'materialist dialectic.'
Then he looks at "who's most likely to be possessed by it? The biggest predictor was low verbal intelligence." And he measures this by whether people see world dynamics in terms of power and oppression. "That's a radical simplification that's attractive to people who aren't verbally sophisticated." The next biggest predictor was being female, after that having a feminine temperament, and the final is "Having taken a course that was propagandistic on the politically correct side."
As with the 'unvaxxed people are dying' studies, the devil is in the methodology and wording, which I would love to see. But I don't need to in order to see the gaping holes in the 'neutrality' of this study. Are we really supposed to believe the 'right', proponents of a strong police and military, are against the use of force and compulsion? Does money count as compulsion?
He's already defined himself as superior to these people by saying they're 'possessed' by it and courses that teach it are 'propagandistic.' So all of his proof points are circular, he defines what he doesn't agree with as politically correct and then tests for it using his definition and defines anyone who disagrees with him as lacking verbal intelligence.
Oh and I'm looking forward to reading your article! I'm saving it for after I finish the playlist of the last one but I have some painting to do that should take me through the end. Really enjoyed the Glassworks and Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Macy Gray. And Raising the Dead goes so well with your poem!
Hola, Guy! 'Funny' that you bring up resentment because Natalie does a whole schtick on it, complete with her self-confessed very bad French accent. I forgot to link the transcript, which is here: https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/envy and it's under Part IV: Justice where she's wearing cat ears and talking about Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. She says:
"So the question is, what happens psychologically to people who are oppressed and who lack the power to overthrow the oppressor? Well in that case frustrated vindictiveness builds over time to become this deep bitterness that Nietzsche gives the French name, "ressentiment". Resentment in English.
"Oui. Eh... eh… Oui. Absolument. Naturellement. I don't speak French, I just enjoy making vaguely French noises. Ment, bas, quatre, eh, eh oui. 🇫🇷
"I don't like the English but I like the French even less. Because they're always dressed so well, and they speak a sexier language than me. Stop it!!! This is your final warning comprendez-vous? Good wine though, I'll give them that. 🍷 So there's a German word "neid", which means envy. So why is Frederick using this French term, ressentiment?
"Nietzsche must have said ressentiment because he thought it was something different than envy. I think the difference is resentment– and I'm just gonna use the English word so I don't sound like an asshole– resentment is born not just of wanting what someone has, but of a permanent frustration of the desire for revenge. It's born of weakness, inability to get revenge.
"Now revenge itself implies weakness, at least a temporary weakness. We say "revenge is best served cold", but actually, revenge is only served cold. If it's served hot, if someone slaps you and you slap them back immediately, that's retaliation not revenge. Revenge is only a possibility when you can't retaliate immediately, so you become vindictive, you start plotting and scheming. But if you're too weak, too impotent to have any hope of revenge, then you become resentful. So Nietzsche's argument is that a person who's too weak to get material revenge, can instead get psychological revenge by creating a new morality. In Frederick's words: "The beginning of the slaves' revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment itself turns creative and gives birth to values".
"So while master morality says that "good" is: power, riches, health, strength, and "bad" is the opposite; slave morality, the morality of resentment says "blessed are the poor, the meek, the sick, the powerless". This is the "good" of slave morality, and its opposite is not the "bad" but a new concept, the "evil." And what is evil? Well, everything that master morality says is good. Power. Wealth. Conquest. Sexual satisfaction. 🐈
"He's talking about Christianity here, he's not talking about Judaism. But Frederick thinks of Christianity as the spiritual revenge of the Jews against the Romans, an inversion of the Empire's values. But he also thinks that slave morality is fundamentally dishonest, it's like the fox and the grapes. "Not-being-able-to-take-revenge is called not-wanting-to-take-revenge, it might even be forgiveness" - Nietzsche
"Slave morality says that weakness is righteous. Submission to people you hate is called "obedience", having to wait is called "patience." Inability to satisfy sexual desire is called "chastity", "purity", and so on. And while master morality is born of saying yes to yourself, as a powerful "noble beast of prey"; slave morality is born of saying no to the master and everything he has that you can't."
I will consider this in some depth. All I see as a distinct difference, though, is a pile of words elaborating resentment that could equally be applied to envy. Except maybe the envious are even weaker than the slave because unlike the slave they are in position to act with their own power and do not because their mindstate has perverted their vision and they don't see their access to agency. Hmmm.
Chomsky often castigated university students who acted powerless. 'You are part of a privileged class, (ie not slaves, although I think Chomsky under values the power of debt slavery here). You have access to information and power so do something other simper like privileged brats.' Yes, that is my paraphrase.
I think that Natalie's point is that Nietzsche would have used the German word for envy if that's what he meant. That he was borrowing a French word shows that there wasn't one in German that expressed just what he meant. But resentment would be against someone who'd taken something away from me, so that what they have is in direct relationship to what I don't have. When I envy someone for having a large audience and maybe take a snide joy in their audience being taken away, it isn't like they'd taken that audience from me or that I'll get the audience they lost. It's just the green eyed goddess envy that snickers.
It is a nice idea to see good in people but the insider cult is a real thing that goes back many centuries. Russel Brand, seriously, seems to be a handler for the insider cult. There is a video of him squelching Katy Perry from saying more to an interviewer simply by tapping a gawdy belt buckle he was wearing that aid 'Obey'. She instantly changed her body language to silent and compliant. It looked like a DID victim being controlled.
"In looking up the OBEY sign, it and the five-pointed star are by Shepard Fairey, who designed their wedding invitation. He also created the Obama Hope poster, for whatever you think of those connections. In 2011 in Copenhagen, Shepard was called ‘Obama Illuminati’ and beaten up outside a club."
It wasn't a belt buckle but a small sign that at first I thought was a key chain. In the posed photo of them after the Oscars, he's holding it down by his leg. Without question, signaling or product placement, and I'd say the former. I talk about this more in https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/hollywood-and-pedosadist-cults where Miles Mathis has a very interesting piece of Fairey: http://mileswmathis.com/obey.pdf. I write:
"Miles includes two photos of OBEY products. One says OBEY Propaganda. The other is the OBEY triangle, exactly as Liz Crokin described as code for sex with young boys. In fact, it’s even more graphic with a penis and balls clearly evident in the ‘Andre the Giant’ stylized face. The triangular slice of ‘pizza’ seems likely related. Once you see these things, you can never unsee them. And do I need to point out his name is ‘Fairy Shepard’? Rounding up the lambs and leading them to slaughter."
Miles suggests that Russell is actually gay. I don't think he was KP's handler, I think the reverse is more likely. But if you believe he was part of, or a target of all this, it seems like it should be all the more reason to support him in having walked away and see his current canceling as the retaliation for that.
I love the values you espouse in this article, especially the concept of Yes... and, which has been on my mind a lot lately.
Similar to the Tamil saying, in Chinese there is a saying 樹大招風 that means “the tallest tree attracts the wind”. I’ll leave the finer interpretation open to the imagination.
Thank you, BonMul (hard to figure out how to shorten that ;-) You probably already know but the 'Yes and ...' is a technique in improv of affirming the previous person's skit, no matter or especially how absurd, and adding onto it. I love the Tamil saying.
Yes, Tereza, I'm aware of its relationship to improv as someone in my household took some improv classes. That person tends to dwell on problems, and I have been emphasizing "yes and..." as a pattern for gratitude lately. Not getting very far, but there are a few cracks showing in the grim exterior.
And BonMul is a pretty cool name. I'll gladly take it!
Oh I like your technique! And I've also learned from reversing desertification texts that tall trees attract the rain, and can bring land that's been pillaged back to life. So stand tall!
In Japan, children are taught that "the nail which sticks out is the one that gets hammered"!
https://search.brave.com/search?q=the+nail+that+sticks+out+gets+hammered&source=web
"Just look at the anti-BDS laws in 35 States that make it illegal for them to do business with or invest in any company boycotting Israel"
I came across this little gem from a journalist on the Joe Rogan podcast. It has really shaped my worldview since, and I think it is a self-contained little ball of awakening for any who care to see it. The implications of this are just as enormous as murdering tens of millions with a bioweapon IMHO.
It's certainly a denial of sovereignty, isn't it? I remember there was something proposed (or passed?) in California that would impose penalties on individuals who espoused BDS. I remember a schoolteacher losing her job because she wouldn't take the loyalty oath. That's when I realized that Israel controlled the US (or as Tirion says, the same people control both.)
Everything makes a lot more sense when one realizes that it's the same group of people who control the US, the UK, The Ukraine and Israel (and elsewhere), regardless of what window dressing (such as the pretenses of democracy, free speech and the rule of law) has been put in place to convince us otherwise.
Greta Thundberg a Rotschild...
Now there are not many things that stump me but this truly did.
It don't surprise me... more like... thanx... it fits in totally.
Yes there is a difference between admiration jealousy envy hate and desperation.
And there is a bit of everything in everything.
The Rothschilds if we stay here hate us... they hate every part of our existenz and do anything to harm Humanity... especially creating wars and blaming it on us... see Israel & Hamas.
They hate us because they envy us... we have something they never have... we have love creativity and love of life.
The Jews by their indoctrination are like the Rotschilds... they are living in a materialistic Prison of their own making (Indoctrination) and trying to control us, which they can't... and that makes them jealous of us so they learn in their secret societies to play pranks on us because they really envy us.
We have love... they only love what they can control.
I have great admiration for Humanity because we been held back by those people the Rothschilds the Jews Freemasons who play pranks like Greta Thundberg upon Humanity to derail us... to stop us becoming what they don't want us to become.
It all fits in Hand in Glove.
They have all the money on which they control us, yet it is all an Illusion and we can change the world in one day.
This is what they are afraid of.... they are afraid of Truth... because one day of Truth and their spell is broken... their power gone... bye bye.
Ukraine and Israel are Rothschild wars... and war is over if we want it.
This poem I wrote for a Burning world in hope the message gets through.
This world is all we have... and if its gone so are we.
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/the-burning-world
Nice poem, Fritz. And who's that handsome couple in the photo?
After 20 posts denying the conspiracy, I finally got to one that gave the deets: https://europerenaissance.com/2022/04/28/what-a-coincidence-that-press-promoted-greta-thunberg-is-a-blood-relative-of-the-rothschild-clan/.
That is me and my ex wife on top of the Great wall of China... thnx
Found this one.
https://principia-scientific.com/what-a-coincidence-greta-thunberg-is-related-to-the-rothschild-clan/
And this one
Greta Thunberg’s handler, Luisa-Marie Neubauer, is a Rothschild
https://www.winterwatch.net/2022/02/greta-thunbergs-handler-luisa-marie-neubauer-is-a-rothschild/
Coincidentally the Reemtsma Family had a Cigarette Brand called ROTH-HÄNDLE
Funny how things add together...
Thank you...
It is a pleasure when you can work with people instead of fighting against.
We are the resistance in this war.
There is a great great book by Marilyn Ferguson called "The Aquarian Conspiracy".
Coincidentally my wife gave it to me.
It is about transformation and how we all work together in order to bring transformation / change even if we never met.
I used the cover on this article... it is a great book.
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/quo-vadis-humanity
Also there is a song from Heidi Berry (I love) up in the Air... originally a Bob Mould / Husked Du song.
I love it when things stack up.
By the way... I am Aquarius... Fire Horse... Scorpio Rising...
The Heidi Berry song was eerily synchronistic with Elizabeth Nickson's book on MK Ultra, that I'm reading. It got a little too creepy. Just the context I'm sure and the dripping walls.
Did you know... the K in MK Ultra spells "Kontrolle".
The CIA is based on the Gestapo.
Instead of MC Mind Control they use the German word MK Mind Kontrolle.
It comes from the Nazis...
The CIA is a direct Offspring of the Nazis.
And it has the roots in Jewish Satanism.
Religion and Government are two forms of Mind control
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/planetary-mind-control-religion-and
This subject is close to my heart and I written a few articles about it.
P.S. Heidi Berry was my singing teacher for a while... lovely lady... great person
The song "Up in the Air" is original a Husker du song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6htcuZQelNk
That may be a distinction to be drawn between envy and "jealousy as currently used in the US"; but the traditional meaning of jealousy is a feeling one has for one's own things (not others' things) as in "he guarded his land/time/wife jealously".
You're right! Natalie makes that distinction that jealousy is when someone else has what you rightfully believe to be yours. She says that wanting what someone else has is greed or coveting. But even if the definition of envy is disputed, there needs to be some word for "If I can't have it, no one should" because it's definitely a human emotion ;-)
OK: it's up to you, Tereza. You can invent the new word!
nice essay.
so, do you reject the idea that the left/right division and subsequent ideologies are manifestations of peoples core personalities? I realize there are always exceptions, but in my experience this is a useful paradigm most of the time.
or do you think these distinctions arise out of experience and externalities?
I'm not really wedded to either but I do find it interesting...
Excellent question, Hollis, and thank you for sparking this excellent reply by Guy (which doesn't rhyme ;-) Guy, I'm so pleased that you continue to engage with my ideas on this One Mind thing. I'm really enjoying the chance to go deep into the details on that.
To answer Hollis in short, I don't reject any ideas other than superiority. Is it a useful paradigm? That's a good question. And I'm assuming the paradigm is 'that the left/right division and subsequent ideologies are manifestations of peoples core personalities.'
For Guy, my neologism on SIN is Seeing INferiority. To translate, 'let he who sees no inferiority throw the first stone.' That would make sense because you'd have to see the person you were stoning as beneath you, since you'd never do that to someone you saw as your equal. I don't ever find you to be looking SINfully, Guy, you're not someone who judges other people.
For Hollis, assuming that you're not seeing people as inferior either, how is that paradigm useful to you? I can imagine one way might be not trying to change them. It might save you some frustration but ideologies can be fixed beliefs whether they're nature or nurture.
I like Guy's idea of us being drops of the same sea that manifest in the unique way that a snowflake does. But I'm not sure sibling differences refute that we're formed by our environments--looking also at the wide variations between my daughters or my brothers and me. The family that your #1 sister was born into, Guy, was 33% different than yours, because it included you. Your #2 sister had a family 50% different than yours. Etc. No two siblings are ever born into the same family, it's a river you can't step in twice.
It's not whether we're born with individual personalities that I reject but whether those personalities are better or worse. If left/ right ideologies are neutral terms, it would be consistent with what I think is possible. Haidt's study looked at right-wing ideology as fear-based and left as based on compassion. Then he blames the left for being anti-Israel as a racist regime. So it seems like his sense of superiority cuts both ways.
I'm familiar with Haidt's work but not on the Israel comment so I will leave that out for now. I think I understand where U are coming from Teresa; in rejecting his hypothesis as it relates to a sense of superiority. in my mind tho, the left/right personality theory helps me understand others not in black and white, good vs bad dichotomies, but in more compassionate, human terms. in other words, when I was younger I used to think that a persons political beliefs were solely tied to their own morality (i.e. conservative are greedy and selfish and liberals are kind and compassionate). obviously as I grew up I changed my understanding on this kind of thinking. now I can see that a persons beliefs might be much more complex and nuanced containing personality, experience, environment, culture etc.
on a slightly different note, since the October attacks in Israel I have notice a deluge of content solely drenched in emotion and very little based on reason and rationality. I've had to really check myself and try to forgive others for (understandably) reacting strongly to these events...
That's a beautiful way of defining a person's beliefs. I wish you could talk to Jordan Peterson!
yes, Peterson is an interesting example of someone who is very smart yet gets hijacked by intense emotion. I've really enjoyed some of his lectures and his talent for communicating complex ideas, but then turn around on Twitter and post the most hyperbolic rants (although that's might be a larger criticism of Twitter than anything; it's a toxic platform that can take the most enlightened individual and turn them into a raving lunatic, haha).
Interesting question.
I hope you don't mind, I'll jump in with my observation on this. Indirectly I've been exploring it in my substack and Tereza and I have had some interesting discussions that touch on this.
For me a difficulty that has arisen in my recent 'spiritual' practices of inner investigation — looking 'SINfully' to capture Tereza's neologism/TLA, is that the core personality is far different than what is popularly understood. Jung made that observation in his essays on personality.) And I think William Blake in his psychology also comments on that.
Tereza's 'core personality', if I've understood her correctly, is a manifestation of an unbounded 'identity', so not an identity, and an individual's core identity would be a kind of subset of 'one-mind' (noos?) suggesting that there isn't actually a core at all. At least not how we understand core in this context. And that aligns with Jung's collective unconscious and the implications of some of Gautama's teachings that aren't popular in how Buddhism in its various manifestations has evolved.
This would suggest that what we have loosely, and likely incorrectly ascribed as 'core' is in large part a 'systems' problem: in broad sweeps our social structures will tend to foster certain characteristics. It is to be well acknowledged that this is not solid! It is clear that there is something unique about each of us subsets of the one-mind that there is not guarantee that even within a completely dysfunctional narcissistic-mother poisoned childhood will create similar outcomes! The five of us are very different, two mostly recovered, one well functioning albeit not healed, one as woke and deluded as it is possible to be, and another still in mid-stage of recovery 1.0 from every addiction possible to imagine.
In recent months, as I've been really looking at this internally, and how that has been made manifest in convidiana, is that the one-mind manifests trauma splits uniquely. like how ice crystals are made, perhaps. And each crystal is its own fractal-structure that creates a lens that keeps our vision from seeing without the malformations that the refractory nature of crystals 'automatically' creates.
There are broad sweeps of personality, here, and yet the basic structure of the human crystaline substrate will keep us seeing within a certain range possibilities.
It is when we each individually begin to notice that our seeing has been distorted that the possibility of there being no left or right comes to exist and with that suffering will reduce or end. Beginning with the person's suffering who has managed to not see through the crystaline glass darkly, so-to-speak.
The thinkers I respect the most all point out the same thing: correct seeing is step one. That is accomplished by slowing down the mind enough to see that the mind is confused about most things and is not really in charge or as powerful as it thinks it is. Then the possibility of proper seeing, mostly from the heart and the physical body, not just the eyes, happens. Then suffering ends personally and with that it reduces automatically into the community.
thanks for yer insight.
honestly tho, you had me at William Blake and Carl Jung.
I do believe that the environment/culture/system we live in can interact with our mind in a sort of self repeating feedback loop, constantly generating and regenerating ideas and viewpoints more than our inherent personalities...
Excellent...and I loved your video! THX
Hola, Tereza.
Another interesting essay. And the distinction between envy and jealously is well articulated. How is your thinking about the connection between resentment and envy? By your cited definition I am hard pressed to see the difference. Peterson and my favourite Buddhist-psychologist Michael Stone both re-iterate that resentment is about the most pernicious of all stances that the 'personality' can take. The AA world often castigates resentment as the single biggest reason for selfish and addictive behaviours and that the very first glimmer or wedge of resentment is comparison — the exact thing you have wisely observed within yourself as being a 'SIN.'
And I have a question. You wrote "I think Haidt’s book should be called ‘The Self-Righteous Mind’ since the social experiment Darren cites relies on subjective qualifiers that turn the data into value judgments, **much like Jordan Peterson’s study**."
You mention Peterson's study. However, I have no idea what 'study' you are referring to. Personality types? If that's it, that's not Peterson's study, unless you mean him referencing it, which he does often.
NB: You may find my last essay interesting. It is a long look at words. You show up in at as well. And the last part is my disagreement with Maajid Nawaz's argument that technology is the evil thing, even if he isn't a Luddite. And I suggest why he's wrong, beyond his argument being an example of the post hoc propter hoc logical fallacy. And I suggest a method that addresses the duality subject-object 'problem' that he and Peterson and most others suggest is insoluble. Hint: there is something about a Taoist version of Zen in the proposed solution.
Re: Jordan Peterson's study, it's the one I talked about in the Maajid episode (https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/yuval-bibi-and-maajid) that he did with a grad student when he was a professor. If you go to the embedded video, it's at the 40 min mark that he talks about us living in a postmodern neo-Marxist age that's animated by envy, ala Cain.
He says, "The first question was, 'Was there a coherent set of ideas that could be identified as politically correct?" And the second is whether that set of ideas correlated with another. They found there were two domains of ideas that hung together: 'a liberal compassionate inclusiveness' and an 'authoritarian willingness to use force or compulsion.' He describes this as a 'materialist dialectic.'
Then he looks at "who's most likely to be possessed by it? The biggest predictor was low verbal intelligence." And he measures this by whether people see world dynamics in terms of power and oppression. "That's a radical simplification that's attractive to people who aren't verbally sophisticated." The next biggest predictor was being female, after that having a feminine temperament, and the final is "Having taken a course that was propagandistic on the politically correct side."
As with the 'unvaxxed people are dying' studies, the devil is in the methodology and wording, which I would love to see. But I don't need to in order to see the gaping holes in the 'neutrality' of this study. Are we really supposed to believe the 'right', proponents of a strong police and military, are against the use of force and compulsion? Does money count as compulsion?
He's already defined himself as superior to these people by saying they're 'possessed' by it and courses that teach it are 'propagandistic.' So all of his proof points are circular, he defines what he doesn't agree with as politically correct and then tests for it using his definition and defines anyone who disagrees with him as lacking verbal intelligence.
Oh and I'm looking forward to reading your article! I'm saving it for after I finish the playlist of the last one but I have some painting to do that should take me through the end. Really enjoyed the Glassworks and Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Macy Gray. And Raising the Dead goes so well with your poem!
Lol!
Of course! Doh!
I'll relisten to it.
Hola, Guy! 'Funny' that you bring up resentment because Natalie does a whole schtick on it, complete with her self-confessed very bad French accent. I forgot to link the transcript, which is here: https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/envy and it's under Part IV: Justice where she's wearing cat ears and talking about Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. She says:
"So the question is, what happens psychologically to people who are oppressed and who lack the power to overthrow the oppressor? Well in that case frustrated vindictiveness builds over time to become this deep bitterness that Nietzsche gives the French name, "ressentiment". Resentment in English.
"Oui. Eh... eh… Oui. Absolument. Naturellement. I don't speak French, I just enjoy making vaguely French noises. Ment, bas, quatre, eh, eh oui. 🇫🇷
"I don't like the English but I like the French even less. Because they're always dressed so well, and they speak a sexier language than me. Stop it!!! This is your final warning comprendez-vous? Good wine though, I'll give them that. 🍷 So there's a German word "neid", which means envy. So why is Frederick using this French term, ressentiment?
"Nietzsche must have said ressentiment because he thought it was something different than envy. I think the difference is resentment– and I'm just gonna use the English word so I don't sound like an asshole– resentment is born not just of wanting what someone has, but of a permanent frustration of the desire for revenge. It's born of weakness, inability to get revenge.
"Now revenge itself implies weakness, at least a temporary weakness. We say "revenge is best served cold", but actually, revenge is only served cold. If it's served hot, if someone slaps you and you slap them back immediately, that's retaliation not revenge. Revenge is only a possibility when you can't retaliate immediately, so you become vindictive, you start plotting and scheming. But if you're too weak, too impotent to have any hope of revenge, then you become resentful. So Nietzsche's argument is that a person who's too weak to get material revenge, can instead get psychological revenge by creating a new morality. In Frederick's words: "The beginning of the slaves' revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment itself turns creative and gives birth to values".
"So while master morality says that "good" is: power, riches, health, strength, and "bad" is the opposite; slave morality, the morality of resentment says "blessed are the poor, the meek, the sick, the powerless". This is the "good" of slave morality, and its opposite is not the "bad" but a new concept, the "evil." And what is evil? Well, everything that master morality says is good. Power. Wealth. Conquest. Sexual satisfaction. 🐈
"He's talking about Christianity here, he's not talking about Judaism. But Frederick thinks of Christianity as the spiritual revenge of the Jews against the Romans, an inversion of the Empire's values. But he also thinks that slave morality is fundamentally dishonest, it's like the fox and the grapes. "Not-being-able-to-take-revenge is called not-wanting-to-take-revenge, it might even be forgiveness" - Nietzsche
"Slave morality says that weakness is righteous. Submission to people you hate is called "obedience", having to wait is called "patience." Inability to satisfy sexual desire is called "chastity", "purity", and so on. And while master morality is born of saying yes to yourself, as a powerful "noble beast of prey"; slave morality is born of saying no to the master and everything he has that you can't."
Wow!
So much to unpack and digest here.
I will consider this in some depth. All I see as a distinct difference, though, is a pile of words elaborating resentment that could equally be applied to envy. Except maybe the envious are even weaker than the slave because unlike the slave they are in position to act with their own power and do not because their mindstate has perverted their vision and they don't see their access to agency. Hmmm.
Chomsky often castigated university students who acted powerless. 'You are part of a privileged class, (ie not slaves, although I think Chomsky under values the power of debt slavery here). You have access to information and power so do something other simper like privileged brats.' Yes, that is my paraphrase.
Gracias.
I think that Natalie's point is that Nietzsche would have used the German word for envy if that's what he meant. That he was borrowing a French word shows that there wasn't one in German that expressed just what he meant. But resentment would be against someone who'd taken something away from me, so that what they have is in direct relationship to what I don't have. When I envy someone for having a large audience and maybe take a snide joy in their audience being taken away, it isn't like they'd taken that audience from me or that I'll get the audience they lost. It's just the green eyed goddess envy that snickers.
It is a nice idea to see good in people but the insider cult is a real thing that goes back many centuries. Russel Brand, seriously, seems to be a handler for the insider cult. There is a video of him squelching Katy Perry from saying more to an interviewer simply by tapping a gawdy belt buckle he was wearing that aid 'Obey'. She instantly changed her body language to silent and compliant. It looked like a DID victim being controlled.
Seriously.
Hi, Jennifer! I talked about that in RB & the Illuminati: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/russell-brand-and-the-illuminati
"In looking up the OBEY sign, it and the five-pointed star are by Shepard Fairey, who designed their wedding invitation. He also created the Obama Hope poster, for whatever you think of those connections. In 2011 in Copenhagen, Shepard was called ‘Obama Illuminati’ and beaten up outside a club."
It wasn't a belt buckle but a small sign that at first I thought was a key chain. In the posed photo of them after the Oscars, he's holding it down by his leg. Without question, signaling or product placement, and I'd say the former. I talk about this more in https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/hollywood-and-pedosadist-cults where Miles Mathis has a very interesting piece of Fairey: http://mileswmathis.com/obey.pdf. I write:
"Miles includes two photos of OBEY products. One says OBEY Propaganda. The other is the OBEY triangle, exactly as Liz Crokin described as code for sex with young boys. In fact, it’s even more graphic with a penis and balls clearly evident in the ‘Andre the Giant’ stylized face. The triangular slice of ‘pizza’ seems likely related. Once you see these things, you can never unsee them. And do I need to point out his name is ‘Fairy Shepard’? Rounding up the lambs and leading them to slaughter."
Miles suggests that Russell is actually gay. I don't think he was KP's handler, I think the reverse is more likely. But if you believe he was part of, or a target of all this, it seems like it should be all the more reason to support him in having walked away and see his current canceling as the retaliation for that.
I don't really know what is going on currently. Thank you for explaining further.