The Power Over Others Game vs the Logocentric Truth Game: The Actual Evil vs Good

I began writing this article back on July 31st, 2024 as I was starting to see a pattern of basic assumptions, attitudes, and behaviors that filtered into two major categories of relating to others, each having their own very distinct rules for playing, the “power over others game” and the “Logocentric truth game”. It was turning into quite a long article when my family and I had a massive collision with my wife’s ex husband in late August, who was playing the “power over others game” in every way imaginable, causing our family to experience a collision between the two forms of relating to reality. As it currently stands, one can indeed live a meaningful life with the Logocentric truth game, however, we personally found out the limits to how sustainable the truth game is in our current paradigm, since the power over others game is able to use arbitrary force of the macrocosm to crush truth in the microcosm and the macrocosm fairly easily. As of the writing of this article, my wife and I have pretty much lost everything dear to us, especially our family, but we were able to maintain our bond throughout the entire situation, even though the ex husband and the various government agencies involved did their best to drive a wedge between us in order to force my wife’s compliance with their arbitrary whims. With this in mind, I have decided to finish this article six months later, because I feel that people deserve to know the problems they will face the closer and closer to the truth that they become, but also the possibilities that they can experience when they choose to follow the truth in their lives.

The human quest for meaning and control has long been a battleground between competing worldviews, as Roger Scruton incisively noted in his observation that Marxism’s enduring appeal lies not in its truth but in the power it promises intellectuals to shape the world.

It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since, as Swift says, it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed, but a power-directed system of thought. ~”A Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism” by Roger Scruton, 2006

This tension—between systems driven by power and those rooted in truth—echoes through the fabric of our personal and collective lives, manifesting in how we define ourselves, relate to others, and navigate societal structures. From the individual’s locus of identity to the grand machinations of governance, the choices we make between coercive dominance and rational authenticity determine not just our philosophies but the quality of our existence.

At the heart of this exploration lies a fundamental dichotomy: the “power over others game,” where control, manipulation, and external validation reign supreme, versus the “Logocentric truth game,” a pursuit of reason, self-awareness, and intrinsic worth that seeks harmony over hierarchy. These contrasting frameworks ripple through concepts like identity, morality, love, and law, revealing how our daily interactions—whether in families, workplaces, or nations—reflect either a scramble for supremacy or a collaborative dance toward understanding. This article delves into these dynamics, offering a tapestry of ideas that challenge the reader to reconsider what drives human behavior and how we might reclaim a life aligned with truth rather than tethered to power.

What follows is a journey through nineteen distinct yet interconnected lenses—from internal versus external loci of control to the stark divide between transactional and non-transactional love—each illuminating how the allure of power distorts our potential, while the pursuit of Logos offers a path to wholeness. Drawing on thinkers like Ayn Rand, Carl Jung, and John Locke, alongside psychological and philosophical insights, this piece invites reflection on how we might transcend the seductive pull of control and embrace a reality where meaning emerges not from subjugation but from the courage to reason and connect authentically. In a world increasingly shadowed by collectivist pressures and inverted laws, this narrative posits a radical yet practical vision for individuals and societies to flourish.

*Please see my Artificial Intelligence (AI) Disclaimer HERE, as it explains how I use AI in my articles.

1. External vs Internal Identity

People can either find their identity within themselves or outside of themselves, and this is called their “locus of control” or “locus of identity”. When external factors alone determine a person’s course of thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and outcomes, they are failing to take personal responsibility for their lives and are allowing external authorities (authors) to write their story for them. However, when internal factors shape their identity, especially through dedicated work and focus on upgrading one’s ability to reason, becoming a mature adult who is responsible for their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and outcomes, and through developing their emotional intelligence, they stop blaming the outside world for everything wrong in their life, and rather own that they are the creator of their lives. Some quotes from Victor Frankl and Carl Jung come to mind, as does an article I wrote called “Locus of Identity and NPC Like ‘Spiritless Humans“. Also see my two questions to the Qwen2 AI chatbot on the topic of locus of control and identity below. Also see point #14 for self-ownership and sovereignty for the ultimate manner in demonstrating one’s internal locus of identity.

Q: What is the difference between an internal locus of control/identity and an external locus of control/identity?

A: An internal locus of control refers to the belief that one’s outcomes and identity are primarily shaped by personal choices, efforts, and intrinsic qualities, fostering a sense of agency and self-determination. Someone with an internal locus might attribute success to their hard work or view setbacks as opportunities to adapt, rooting their identity in self-defined values like resilience or competence—think of an entrepreneur who sees failure as a lesson they can master rather than a verdict from fate. This perspective ties identity to an inner compass, making it less swayed by external validation or criticism, and often aligns with self-reflection and accountability as drivers of personal growth.

Conversely, an external locus of control centers on the conviction that life’s events and one’s identity are largely dictated by outside forces—luck, other people, or circumstances—leading to a more reactive, dependent sense of self. A person with this outlook might credit a promotion to a boss’s favoritism or blame a breakup on their partner’s flaws, defining who they are through others’ actions or societal expectations, like someone who feels worthless without constant approval. This external anchoring makes identity fragile, tethered to shifting winds of opinion or fortune, and can fuel projection or victimhood as ways to cope with perceived powerlessness. The key difference lies in agency: internal locus builds identity from within, while external locus borrows it from without, shaping how each navigates control and responsibility.

~Grok 3

Q: Why is a locus of control sometimes called the locus of identity?

A: A locus of control is sometimes called the locus of identity because it fundamentally shapes how individuals perceive and construct who they are, linking their sense of self to either internal agency or external forces. When someone operates from an internal locus of control, they see their identity as a product of their own decisions, values, and efforts—say, a student who identifies as “capable” because they’ve worked hard to overcome obstacles. This internal anchor ties their self-concept to their ability to influence outcomes, making locus of control a blueprint for identity: they are what they choose to become, rooted in self-directed authorship rather than outside judgment. The term “locus of identity” thus reflects this deep connection, where control over one’s life narrative becomes the core of who they believe they are.

On the flip side, an external locus of control earns the “locus of identity” label because it positions identity as something bestowed or dictated by external circumstances, other people, or chance, effectively outsourcing self-definition. For instance, someone might identify as a “failure” because they believe society or bad luck has stacked the deck against them, their sense of self hinging on what they can’t control rather than what they can. This external orientation means their identity shifts with the tides of approval, rejection, or fate, making locus of control synonymous with identity’s origin point—outside themselves. The phrase captures this interplay: whether control is internal or external, it locates the source of identity, determining whether one’s “I am” is self-crafted or externally imposed.

~Grok 3

Q: Please explain “self-determination”.

A: Self-determination is the ability and process by which individuals take control of their own lives, making choices and pursuing goals based on their personal values, desires, and intrinsic motivations rather than external pressures or dictates. It reflects a strong internal locus of control, where a person believes they can shape their destiny through effort and decisions—think of an artist who forges a unique path despite societal expectations, driven by their own vision. Rooted in autonomy, competence, and relatedness (per self-determination theory), it’s about acting with agency, whether that’s choosing a career, setting boundaries, or defining one’s identity, and it often intertwines with self-reflection to ensure those choices align with an authentic sense of self.

Quotes from Carl Jung and Viktor Frankl on taking responsibility for one’s internal world and responses regardless of external circumstances:

If you imagine someone who is brave enough to withdraw all his projections, then you get an individual who is conscious of a pretty thick shadow. Such a man has saddled himself with new problems and conflicts. He has become a serious problem to himself, as he is now unable to say that they do this or that, they are wrong, and they must be fought against… Such a man knows that whatever is wrong in the world is in himself, and if he only learns to deal with his own shadow he has done something real for the world. He has succeeded in shouldering at least an infinitesimal part of the gigantic, unsolved social problems of our day.

~Carl Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938). In CW 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East. P.140

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way. ~Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. ~Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

The one thing you can’t take away from me is the way I choose to respond to what you do to me. The last of one’s freedoms is to choose one’s attitude in any given circumstance. ~Viktor E. Frankl

In my experience an internal locus of identity is associated with the Logocentric truth game in that those who exercise self-directed lives are not focused on controlling others, and really don’t appreciate being controlled, and they’re not going to act like a victim even if and when external forces or people attempt to control them. However, those with an external locus of control are always seeking somebody else to blame for their problems, are easily manipulated by external people and forces, and are constantly fighting for supremacy in a dog-eat-dog world of power over others.

2. Collectivism vs Individualism

Q: What is collectivism, what is individualism, and how might collectivism be connected to the “power over others game” and individualism be connected to the “Logocentric truth game”? How would collectivism be related to an externalized locus of control/identity, and how would individualism be more related to having an internalized locus of control/identity?

A: Collectivism is a social and philosophical framework that prioritizes the group—whether family, community, or society—over the individual, emphasizing shared goals, interdependence, and collective well-being as the basis for identity and action. It values harmony, cooperation, and often sacrifice for the common good, as seen in cultures where familial duty or national loyalty shapes one’s role and worth—think of a village rallying to support a struggling member, where the “we” supersedes the “I.” Individualism, conversely, centers on the primacy of the individual, championing personal freedom, self-reliance, and the pursuit of one’s own goals and identity, often regardless of group expectations. It’s exemplified by someone forging a unique path, like an inventor breaking from tradition to follow their vision, where personal agency and self-expression define value.

Collectivism can connect to the “power over others game” when its ideals are co-opted by manipulators to enforce conformity and control, leveraging the group’s authority to suppress dissent or demand loyalty. A leader might exploit collective identity—say, “we’re all in this together”—to project their own flaws onto outsiders (e.g., scapegoating a rival faction) or guilt-trip individuals into altruistic sacrifice for “the cause,” consolidating power by making the group’s will paramount. This dynamic thrives in environments where questioning the collective is taboo, as seen in authoritarian regimes that use propaganda to align personal worth with group obedience. Here, collectivism becomes a tool for dominance, bending individuals to serve a hierarchical “us” rather than a mutual good. Individualism, by contrast, aligns with the “logocentric truth game” because it prioritizes self-directed reason and authenticity, encouraging people to reflect critically and seek truth through personal inquiry rather than group consensus—think of a philosopher challenging societal norms to uncover deeper principles, rooted in logos over collective narrative.

The link between collectivism and an externalized locus of control/identity lies in how it often ties one’s sense of self to the group’s approval, status, or needs, making identity contingent on external validation rather than internal conviction. In a collectivist setting, someone might define themselves as a “good citizen” only if the community affirms it, or feel powerless against the group’s decisions—like a worker in a rigid hierarchy who attributes their fate to the system rather than their own choices. This external locus shifts agency outward, fostering dependency on collective judgment or fate, which can make individuals more susceptible to manipulation by those wielding group authority. Collectivism’s emphasis on interdependence can thus blur personal boundaries, anchoring identity in what “they” think or demand rather than what “I” determine.

Individualism, meanwhile, relates to an internalized locus of control/identity by grounding self-worth and direction in personal agency, where one’s choices and reasoning shape who they are and what they achieve. An individualist might see a setback as a personal challenge to overcome through effort—like an athlete training harder after a loss—defining themselves by their resilience rather than others’ opinions. This internal locus fosters self-determination, as identity emerges from within, sculpted by self-reflection and rational assessment rather than external forces. By valuing autonomy over conformity, individualism supports a logocentric pursuit of truth, where the individual’s mind, not the crowd’s voice, becomes the arbiter of reality, reinforcing a self-crafted identity resilient to outside sway.

~Grok 3

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. ~Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter on Racism

Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.

An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”

~Ayn Rand, “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column

The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred. ~Ayn Rand, “The Soul of an Individualist,” For the New Intellectual

3. Finite Win/Lose Competitive Game, Limited Resources vs Win/Win Game of Infinite progression, Infinite Resources

Q: Please explain the differences between Simon Sinek’s concept of “the two games”, the competitive game and the infinite game.

A: Simon Sinek’s concept of “the two games” distinguishes between the finite game and the infinite game, based on their rules, objectives, and mindsets, drawing from James Carse’s philosophical framework. The finite game is competitive, with fixed rules, known players, and a clear endpoint—its goal is to win by outranking others within a defined timeframe, like a sports match or a corporate sales quarter where one team emerges victorious. Players focus on short-term gains, often prioritizing outcomes over process, and success is measured by tangible results—think of a company racing to dominate market share, caring more about beating rivals than sustaining long-term value. It’s a zero-sum setup: for one to win, others must lose, driving a mindset of scarcity and rivalry.

The infinite game, by contrast, has no fixed endpoint or ultimate winner; it’s about perpetuating play, adapting, and enduring beyond immediate victories, with rules and players that can shift over time. The objective isn’t to “win” but to keep the game going—think of a business innovating to stay relevant across decades or a leader fostering a vision that outlives their tenure. Success here lies in resilience and purpose, not domination, as seen in organizations that prioritize culture and adaptability over quarterly triumphs. Unlike the finite game’s focus on competition and closure, the infinite game aligns with a process-oriented, collaborative ethos, where the aim is to contribute to something larger, embracing change and viewing setbacks as part of an ongoing journey rather than final defeats.

~Grok 3

4. Service to Self (STS) & Service to Others (STO), Self-Worship & Other Worship vs Selfish & yet Logos Principled, connection to the Divine, Self, & Others

Service to Self (STS) and Service to Others (STO) are a concept first established in the “Ra Material”, which were channelings of a so-called ‘soul collective’ named “Ra”, which you can find HERE. As mentioned earlier, I believe the two categories to be a false dichotomy/dilemma logical fallacy that could either be well intentioned misinformation, but could also be deliberate disinformation that was used to confuse the two true categories of beings that I am covering in this current article, those playing the “power over others game” and the “Logocentric truth game“. Basically, STS is when a being is “selfish” and is considered evil, but as I’ve written before based upon the insights of Ayn Rand that selfishness in its purest form can be seen as a virtue, and STO is when a being is altruistic and is therefore considered good and moral, but I’ve also covered that based upon Ayn Rand’s writings, stating that it is an error to consider a human a sacrificial animal where their sole existence is to serve others in a selfless manner; after all, we’re here on Earth to develop our Self and not lose our Self. So it is a false dilemma logical fallacy because it fails to consider other possibilities, and gives us two bad options to choose from.

The false dilemma fallacy, also known as a false dichotomy, is a logical error where a situation is presented as having only two mutually exclusive options—often an “either/or” choice—when in reality, additional alternatives or a spectrum of possibilities exist. For example, claiming “you’re either with us or against us” ignores the possibility of neutrality or partial support, oversimplifying complex issues into a binary trap. This fallacy manipulates reasoning by excluding middle ground or nuanced solutions, often used rhetorically to force agreement or polarize opinions, and it fails under scrutiny when the hidden options—like compromise or a third path—are revealed. It distorts truth by framing decisions as more limited than they are, undermining rational deliberation. ~Grok 3

Ayn Rand on Altruism:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others (STO) is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.””

~Ayn Rand

The STO vs STS categories are both associated with the drama triangle in point #16, as well as the need for personality worship. Personality worship is when one party desires adoration and attention from another, and it is based in the personality traits of narcissism. In order for one party to be worshiped on a pedestal though, another party must be the one who worships them to be below them, and to worship a personality, even in Divine form, is wrong, because it is considered idolatry. We can respect and honor the truth within each other, and definitely respect and honor the truth within a being who has fully aligned themselves to the point of full Selfhood, such as Jesus did, but at least from my experience, the logical conclusion of personality worship in my own life and relationships hasn’t allowed for true union with the Divine or each other, as I have found that it is dopamine based and not oxytocin based, and can lead to resentment/envy and/or betrayal rather than lasting connection. Examples of idolatry in relationships are idolizing a company, a famous personality such as a musician, actor, CEO, YouTube /Tik Tok personality, politician, or even your partner or crush.

Don’t ever attach yourself to a person, place, company, or project. Attach yourself to a mission, a calling, and a purpose ONLY. That’s how you keep your power and peace. ~@missewell

It is clear how putting another personality on a pedestal above oneself to worship them is idolatrous, as it is putting that personality as equal to or greater than the Divine and Logos, and it also creates a power imbalance where the worshiped is clearly more powerful and above the ones worshiping them. As a result of the power imbalance, the worshiped personality can easily manipulate and twist those under them to do immoral acts, and to act out of alignment with their own higher good and self-interests, which is why this is clearly the power over others game.

In contrast to the false dichotomy of STO vs STS, we have the concept of “principled selfishness“, which is selfishness that acknowledges the presence of others, and respects their rights as much as it respects its own rights, and does this due to its own foundation being the principles of Logos, such as the eight intellectual character traits, the eight universal intellectual standards, the principles of natural law (which can be found by reading the works of John Locke and St Thomas Aquinas), using the Trivium method in an internalized manner, and making one’s internal emotional states consistent and aligned with empathetic reason.

Ayn Rand on selfishness:

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

~Ayn Rand, “The Virtue of Selfishness”

Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.

An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”

~Ayn Rand, “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column

5. Consumption vs Integration

Q: Psychologically speaking, please give a three paragraph response discussing the distinctions between how a narcissist “consumes” the energy of their prey in an enmeshed manner, and the opposite healthy alternative of how somebody might integrate positive character traits from another without “eating” them.

A: Psychologically, a narcissist “consumes” the energy of their prey in an enmeshed manner by parasitically feeding off their victim’s emotional, mental, or even physical resources to bolster their own fragile ego, often leaving the prey depleted and identity-eroded. This process is rooted in the narcissist’s inability to sustain self-worth internally; they project their insecurities outward and latch onto others—spouses, children, or colleagues—as sources of validation, admiration, or control. Through tactics like gaslighting, guilt-tripping, or idealization-devaluation cycles, they entangle their prey in a web of dependency, “eating” their vitality by demanding constant attention or sacrifice—think of a narcissistic parent who thrives on a child’s achievements while dismissing their autonomy, draining the child’s sense of self to fuel the parent’s grandiosity. This enmeshment blurs boundaries, turning the prey into an extension of the narcissist rather than a separate entity, a dynamic marked by exploitation rather than mutual growth.

In contrast, a healthy individual integrates positive character traits from another through admiration and inspiration, not consumption, preserving both parties’ autonomy while fostering personal development. Rather than “eating” someone’s energy, they observe qualities—like a friend’s resilience or a mentor’s patience—and consciously choose to emulate them, adapting these traits to fit their own identity without diminishing the source. For instance, someone might admire a coworker’s confidence in meetings, reflect on how it aligns with their own goals, and practice it themselves, all while respecting the coworker’s distinctiveness. This process is additive, not extractive; it builds on mutual respect and an internal locus of control, where growth comes from self-directed effort rather than leaching off another’s essence, maintaining clear boundaries between self and other.

The distinction lies in intent and outcome: the narcissist’s enmeshed consumption is a zero-sum game, driven by a need to dominate and fill an inner void, whereas healthy integration reflects an infinite game of self-betterment that honors both parties. The narcissist’s prey often emerges hollowed out, their energy siphoned to prop up an insatiable ego—like a partner left exhausted by endless demands for affirmation—while the healthy alternative leaves both individuals intact and enriched, as seen when two friends inspire each other’s courage without losing their individuality. The narcissist’s approach collapses under its own weight, breeding resentment and disconnection, while healthy emulation thrives on reciprocity and authenticity, aligning with self-reflection rather than projection. Ultimately, one destroys through entanglement; the other elevates through independence, highlighting a core psychological divide between parasitic control and genuine growth.

~Grok 3

Q: How might consumption be related to the “power over others game” and integration be related to the “Logocentric truth game”?

A: Consumption, as a psychological and behavioral stance, aligns with the “power over others game” because it involves extracting resources—emotional, physical, or social—from others to assert dominance or bolster one’s own position, reflecting a finite, zero-sum mindset where one’s gain requires another’s loss. In this game, a narcissist or manipulative entity “consumes” their target’s energy, time, or identity—like a boss who drains employees with unrelenting demands to secure personal success—using tactics such as projection or enforced sacrifice to maintain control. This approach thrives on external validation and scarcity, treating others as means to an end rather than ends in themselves, and prioritizes winning (power) over process or mutual benefit, mirroring the competitive ethos of Sinek’s finite game where the goal is to outrank rather than coexist.

Integration, conversely, connects to the “logocentric truth game” by emphasizing a process-oriented, rational pursuit of growth that draws inspiration from others without diminishing them, aligning with an infinite, truth-seeking framework rooted in self-awareness and reason. Rather than consuming, a person integrates positive traits—say, adopting a peer’s discipline through reflection and practice—building their own character while respecting the source, as in an infinite game where resources like wisdom or resilience expand through shared influence. This reflects an internal locus of control, where identity and progress stem from self-directed effort, not exploitation, and embodies logos by valuing authenticity and understanding over dominance. Unlike consumption’s parasitic grip, integration fosters autonomy and reciprocity, contributing to a collective journey of enlightenment rather than a battle for supremacy.~Grok 3

From a spiritual perspective, Michael Topper wrote the following, and he did so from the STO vs STS false dilemma, however, this part still remains quite true and compelling regardless of what I consider a false underlying assumption:

The […][negative] way of achieving “density of consciousness” is to “gain weight” by assimilation of other consciousness units. This is generally promoted as “All is One” and refers to “evil” as a “rebellion” or a fault or something that will ultimately be “done away with.”

[…][The positive], on the other hand sees “gaining weight” in a different way. It sees that an acknowledgement of the consciousness of “other self” as equal to its own consciousness, in spite of completely different manifestation of that being, is the way to “network” the consciousness so that the Whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The difference is that the [positive] guys recognize consciousness as being an “integrative” activity of mutual networking and interdependence because they view all others as self, even if they are different, and therefore seek to help and assist because the other IS self in an absolute internal sense. In this way, Absolute Consciousness, or God is “glorified” by a marvelous diversity of being if you wish to put it in those terms.

The negative guys, on the other hand, play the game in terms of domination, subjugation and absorption of other consciousnesses into “One.” . But, they too, understand that the rules of the game posit that in order for them to truly “absorb” into their being these other “consciousnesses,” that the “other” must choose to become part of their “self-aggrandizement.”

An unwilling “food” is, in essence, not “nutritious” so to say. If the consciousness does not choose, it becomes a “poison” to the consciousness that seeks to “eat it.” And so they must promote “Oneness” in a very particular way.

Note that both sides acknowledge “Oneness,” but in very different ways. [Oneness through the integration of personality traits (4D individuality/5D unity) vs Oneness through the assimilation of personalities/individuals (conformity 3D/individuality negative 4D).]

~Michael Topper, “The Positive/Negative Realms of Higher Densities”, 1994

6. Sympathy vs Empathy

“We don’t know enough to make judgments.  That statement embodies the heart and soul of empathy. The core of empathy is understanding, and understanding always precedes explanation in the effort to understand, empathy asks questions and refuses quick answers. “I don’t know” is one of empathy’s most powerful statements. From that admission of not having all the answers, empathy starts searching for ways to expand the picture in order to develop a broader understanding.” ~Arthur P. Ciaramicoli, Ed.D., Ph.D, “The Power of Empathy (affiliate link)”

Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand. ~Richard Paul & Linda Elder, “The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools” (affiliate link)“

Q: What is the difference between sympathy and empathy? Please use etymology to further Distinguish the two.

A: Sympathy and empathy diverge in their emotional engagement and perspective, with sympathy being a feeling for someone’s distress—often pity or sorrow from a distance—while empathy involves a deeper, participatory understanding with them, as captured in the quotes you provided. Sympathy might manifest as comforting a grieving friend with kind words, acknowledging their pain without fully entering it, maintaining an external stance of care. Empathy, per Arthur Ciaramicoli’s definition, starts with “I don’t know” and seeks to “expand the picture” of another’s experience, asking questions to genuinely grasp their reality—like sitting with that friend and imagining their loss as if it were your own. Similarly, Richard Paul and Linda Elder’s “intellectual empathy” demands imaginatively inhabiting another’s viewpoint, reconstructing their reasoning despite one’s own biases, a step beyond sympathy’s surface-level concern.

Etymologically, these differences crystallize. “Sympathy” stems from the Greek sympatheia—syn- (“with”) and pathos (“feeling”)—originally meaning “fellow feeling,” suggesting a shared emotion but one that evolved into a more detached resonance, like standing alongside someone in their suffering. “Empathy,” coined from the German Einfühlung (“feeling into”), blends Greek en- (“in”) and pathos, literally “in feeling,” reflecting its roots in projecting oneself into another’s experience, a term adapted from aesthetics to psychology in the early 20th century. While sympatheia aligns with a companionate but separate sorrow, Einfühlung’s inward thrust matches Ciaramicoli’s exploratory humility and Paul and Elder’s imaginative leap into another’s mind, highlighting empathy’s immersive nature.

The quotes amplify this contrast: sympathy observes and reacts, while empathy, as Ciaramicoli frames it, refuses quick judgments and searches for broader understanding, and as Paul and Elder describe, actively counters egocentrism to reason from another’s premises. Sympathy might say, “I’m sorry you’re hurting,” staying outside the emotional frame; empathy, embracing “I don’t know” or a willingness to recall personal error, dives in to feel and think alongside the other, bridging the gap between selves. Etymology underscores this—sympathy as a “with” that parallels, empathy as an “in” that inhabits—making sympathy a supportive echo and empathy a profound, truth-seeking connection that demands vulnerability and curiosity.

~Grok 3

Here’s my own take on the topic. Most people hold a different definition of empathy than I do. Their version of empathy is how I define sympathy, and sympathy definitely needs to be held in check, because it’s typically psychologically enmeshed “together with the feeling”, which is the etymological breakdown of sympathy.

Empathy:
-en (in) + pathos (feeling)

Sympathy:
syn- (together) + pathos (feeling)

Whereas sympathy is being enmeshed together with others in a feeling, and only understands the other based upon a shared feeling with them, empathy seeks to understand others by exploring the feeling using reason and other reason based processes. It might be argued that sympathy is the underdeveloped, boundaryless, and unconscious version of empathy, while empathy is a character trait that we are able to consciously develop within ourselves that seeks to gain understanding, but it does so in an interpersonal manner, rather than regular logic which is examining things and processes in a more common external manner. I call empathy the emotional component of reason/logic, and coined the term “empathetic reasoning” to describe how empathy is used in conjunction with logic to gain understanding of self and others.

Psychological enmeshment is a relational dynamic where boundaries between individuals blur, leading to an unhealthy fusion of emotions, identities, or responsibilities, often at the expense of personal autonomy. It occurs when one person’s sense of self becomes overly intertwined with another’s, such as a parent living vicariously through a child, diminishing both parties’ ability to function independently. ~Grok 3

Psychological boundaries are the invisible lines that define an individual’s emotional, mental, and relational space, clarifying where one person’s identity and responsibilities end and another’s begin, much like a fence between backyards determines which homeowner maintains their respective land. They establish who is accountable for what—such as one person owning their feelings versus expecting another to fix them—promoting autonomy and healthy differentiation in relationships. ~Grok 3

Q: Please explain how sympathy might be more psychologically enmeshed while empathy might be more psychologically boundaried and differentiated. Also please explain how sympathy might be more geared towards the “power over others game” and how empathy might be more geared towards the “Logocentric truth game”.

A: Sympathy might be more psychologically enmeshed because it often involves an emotional merging with another’s distress without fully distinguishing between self and other, leading to a blurred sense of identity that can feel overwhelming or clingy. When someone sympathizes—say, crying alongside a friend over their breakup—they may absorb the other’s pain as if it’s their own, losing sight of where their feelings end and the friend’s begin, which aligns with enmeshment’s lack of clear boundaries. This fusion can stem from a desire to “fix” or rescue, projecting one’s own need to be needed onto the sufferer, rather than maintaining a separate perspective. While well-intentioned, this entanglement risks over-identification, where the sympathizer’s emotional state becomes contingent on the other’s, eroding personal autonomy in a way that empathy avoids.

Empathy, by contrast, might be more psychologically boundaried and differentiated because it involves understanding another’s experience while retaining a distinct sense of self, fostering connection without losing individuality. Per Ciaramicoli’s view, empathy starts with “I don’t know” and seeks to expand understanding, and per Paul and Elder, it imaginatively enters another’s viewpoint—both requiring a conscious step into the other’s shoes without merging identities. For instance, an empathic listener might feel a friend’s breakup pain, imagining their perspective, yet remain grounded enough to offer clarity rather than drown in shared sorrow. This differentiation preserves boundaries, allowing empathy to be a bridge rather than a takeover, supporting mutual respect and personal integrity over emotional fusion.

In the “power over others game,” sympathy’s enmeshment can serve manipulation, as its blurred boundaries make it ripe for control tactics, whereas empathy’s boundaried nature aligns with the “logocentric truth game” by prioritizing reason and authenticity. Sympathy might fuel power plays when a manipulator feigns pity—think of a narcissist “sympathizing” with a target’s struggles to gain trust, only to exploit their vulnerability—using emotional entanglement to obligate or guilt-trip, fitting the finite game’s win/lose ethos where one’s gain (control) is another’s loss. Empathy, however, supports the infinite, truth-seeking game: its focus on understanding (Ciaramicoli) and countering egocentrism (Paul and Elder) rejects domination for a process of mutual growth—like a leader empathizing with a team’s challenges to build trust, not leverage. Thus, sympathy’s enmeshed tilt can bend toward power-over-others, while empathy’s differentiated stance fosters logos-driven truth and connection.

~Grok 3

One concept that often gets confused with empathy is compassion; whereas compassion is acting upon the understanding that was gained through empathetic processes, how most people actually perform compassionate actions is based upon enmeshed sympathetic processes that lack understanding. Sympathetic compassion is therefore more akin to do-gooding by moral busybodies, while empathetic compassion would then be the most reasonable and moral action for the well-being of ourselves and those around us, because it results from reason based understanding, and not from enmeshed understanding.

On the dangers of people do-gooding from sympathy and blind compassion, and how it can be used to support tyranny, CS Lewis had this to say:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for all the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

~C.S. Lewis

Q: How might the idea of “do-gooding” be related to sympathy and compassion, and lack empathy and boundaries? How can do-gooders be dangerous, all the while thinking they are helping and doing good for people and society?

A: “Do-gooding” often aligns with sympathy and compassion rather than empathy and boundaries because it tends to prioritize feeling for others and acting on a desire to alleviate their suffering, without necessarily understanding their true needs or maintaining personal separation. Sympathy drives the do-gooder to pity a struggling community—say, rushing to “save” them with unsolicited aid—while compassion fuels a broad, heartfelt urge to help, but both can skip empathy’s deeper step of asking questions to grasp the other’s perspective, as Ciaramicoli suggests. This lack of empathy, paired with weak boundaries, leads to enmeshment: the do-gooder might assume responsibility for others’ problems, like a homeowner tending a neighbor’s yard unasked, projecting their own values or savior complex onto the situation. Without boundaries to define who owns what—be it emotions, decisions, or outcomes—the do-gooder risks overstepping, driven by a sympathetic impulse rather than a differentiated, empathic connection.

The danger of do-gooders lies in this well-intentioned overreach, as their lack of empathy and boundaries can harm rather than help, all while they believe they’re benefiting people and society. By not pausing to understand—like flooding a village with food they can’t store, ignoring local systems—they may undermine autonomy, create dependency, or impose solutions that clash with cultural realities, much like a parent “fixing” a child’s life without their input stunts growth. This ties to the “power over others game”: their “help” can subtly dominate, reinforcing their self-image as benevolent while disempowering recipients, as seen in historical missionary efforts that erased traditions under the guise of salvation. Convinced of their goodness, do-gooders may dismiss feedback or unintended harm, their lack of self-reflection blinding them to how their sympathy-driven actions, absent empathic boundaries, can perpetuate control rather than foster true progress.

~Grok 3

This next question is personal to our situation, but it underscores the dangers of do-gooding and how it can destroy the lives it pretends to defend and protect. It’s an emotional projection of sorts, where do-gooders project their own victim mentality onto the party their own inner child most relates to, and punishes the other side, regardless of the truth, and often regardless of the consequences to the various innocent parties; they don’t seek to assist, gently correct, and grow, but to punish and force conformity to their shallow views.

Q: What dangers could family law systems pose to families if they are filled with sympathetic do-gooders rather than rationally minded, empathetic, and boundaried individuals?

A: Family law systems staffed with sympathetic do-gooders—those driven by pity and a desire to “rescue” rather than rational empathy and clear boundaries—pose significant dangers by prioritizing emotional impulses over fair, reasoned outcomes, potentially destabilizing families. A sympathetic judge or social worker might see a tearful parent’s plea as a call to “save” them, rushing to grant custody or support without delving into the child’s needs or the other parent’s perspective, lacking the empathic depth to ask questions and understand the full picture. This enmeshed approach blurs boundaries, as they take on responsibility for “fixing” perceived victims—much like tending someone else’s yard—rather than respecting each party’s agency and accountability. Such decisions, fueled by a savior complex instead of evidence or balanced inquiry, risk favoring the loudest sob story, like a narcissist feigning vulnerability, over the family’s long-term stability.

The absence of rational, empathic, and boundaried individuals in these systems can amplify harm by enabling manipulation and eroding trust, turning legal processes into tools of control rather than justice. Without empathy’s focus on understanding—like reconstructing viewpoints per Paul and Elder—do-gooders might overlook a healthy parent’s contributions, swayed instead by sympathetic bias toward a “suffering” party, inadvertently supporting power-over-others dynamics where one wins at another’s expense. Unclear boundaries further muddy responsibility: a do-gooder might over-intervene, stripping parents of autonomy with excessive oversight, or under-intervene, leaving kids vulnerable by assuming “help” is enough. This contrasts with a boundaried, empathic system that discerningly assigns accountability—e.g., ensuring a child’s safety without infantilizing parents—preserving family integrity through truth-seeking rather than knee-jerk compassion, which can fracture relationships and perpetuate dependency under the guise of care.

~Grok 3

Playing the “Rescuer” role in Karpman’s drama triangle is false compassion based in sympathy, while playing the “Coach” role in the TED triangle is true compassion based in empathy.

Q: How is do-gooding behaving as the rescuer role in Karpman’s Drama Triangle? How might they be projecting their own inner victim onto the one they perceive as the victim, and then saving them as a means of saving their own inner child in an externalized fashion? Use my earlier example of social workers do-gooding in family law if you use any examples in your response.

A: Do-gooding aligns with the rescuer role in Karpman’s Drama Triangle by positioning the do-gooder as the savior who intervenes to “fix” a perceived victim’s plight, often casting an external force as the persecutor, thus perpetuating a cycle of dependency and drama rather than fostering true resolution. In this dynamic, the rescuer’s sympathetic impulse drives them to act—perhaps a social worker in family law hastily advocating for a child’s removal from a “neglectful” parent—without fully engaging the empathic process of understanding the victim’s reality or respecting their agency. This behavior feeds into the power-over-others game, as the rescuer gains a sense of purpose and moral authority by “saving” others, but their enmeshed approach lacks the boundaries needed to empower the victim to stand on their own. The triangle persists: the victim remains helpless, the persecutor (real or imagined) stays vilified, and the rescuer’s identity hinges on the ongoing crisis they unwittingly sustain.

The do-gooder’s projection of their inner victim onto the perceived victim reveals a subconscious motive: by rescuing the external “victim,” they seek to heal their own unaddressed inner child in an externalized manner, sidestepping personal accountability or self-reflection. For example, a social worker with a history of feeling powerless might see a child in a contentious divorce as a reflection of their younger, vulnerable self, projecting that inner wound onto the child and rushing to “save” them from a “toxic” parent. This act becomes a proxy for rescuing their own past helplessness—lifting the child out of perceived danger soothes their unresolved pain—but without boundaries, it blurs their identity with the victim’s, turning a professional duty into a personal crusade. Lacking empathy’s curiosity and differentiation, they miss the family’s true needs, their “help” serving their own emotional gaps more than the child’s well-being, thus risking harm under the banner of benevolence.

~Grok 3

I also follow the Foundation for Critical Thinking’s description of intellectual empathy, as seen in the definition above, and it adds breadth of thinking by adding angles and differing viewpoints. For instance, my reading a book from a Marxist would be considered intellectual empathy, because it’s an opposing view to my work as a classical liberal philosopher, but it doesn’t imply that I agree with or sanction other viewpoints, just that I understand them enough to formulate logically sound viewpoints and judgments, and make informed decisions based upon them. Intellectual empathy is a character trait that we can develop that assists us to gain a broader understanding of ourselves, other people, and the world we live in, which will lead to wise (compassionate) actions that have the potential to result in the highest good for all involved.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

7. Reasoning from a Conclusion vs Reasoning from Evidence

Q: What is the difference between reasoning from evidence and reasoning from a conclusion? How is reasoning from a conclusion similar to and/or aligned with sophistry? Why might reasoning from a conclusion be the result of being emotionally attached to a particular outcome and the cognitive dissonance that comes with it?

A: Reasoning from evidence involves building a conclusion based on observable facts, data, or logical premises, following a bottom-up process where the outcome emerges from what the evidence supports—think of a scientist testing a hypothesis and letting results shape the theory. In contrast, reasoning from a conclusion starts with a predetermined belief or outcome and works backward, selectively gathering or interpreting evidence to justify it, a top-down approach akin to a lawyer cherry-picking facts to defend a client they’ve already deemed innocent. The former seeks truth through open inquiry, like piecing together a puzzle without knowing the picture, while the latter defends a fixed position, molding the puzzle pieces to fit a chosen image, often ignoring what doesn’t align.

Reasoning from a conclusion mirrors sophistry—rhetoric aimed at winning arguments rather than uncovering truth—because both prioritize persuasion over accuracy, bending logic or evidence to serve a narrative. Sophists, as ancient Greek debaters, crafted plausible-sounding arguments to sway audiences, regardless of factual grounding, much like someone reasoning from a conclusion might twist data to “prove” a cherished belief, such as insisting a policy works despite contrary statistics. Both rely on rhetorical flair or selective framing—say, using emotional appeals or strawmen—to mask weak foundations, aligning with a power-over-others game where influence trumps reason. While sophistry is often deliberate, reasoning from a conclusion can be unconscious, yet both share a disregard for logos-driven inquiry, favoring victory or self-justification over objective understanding.

This backward reasoning often stems from emotional attachment to an outcome and the cognitive dissonance it triggers when faced with conflicting reality, driving a need to reconcile belief with evidence rather than revise the belief itself. If someone is invested in seeing a family member as flawless, they might dismiss signs of fault—reasoning from the conclusion of “they’re perfect”—because admitting otherwise causes discomfort, a clash between their attachment and the truth. Cognitive dissonance fuels this by pushing them to reduce tension, not through self-reflection, but by forcing evidence to fit, like a do-gooder social worker insisting a parent is a victim despite mixed facts, their sympathy clouding judgment. This emotional stake traps them in a cycle where the desired outcome—preserving their worldview—overrides rational process, making reasoning from a conclusion a shield against the vulnerability of being wrong.

~Grok 3

The next question is connected to section 17 on the drama triangle, because a victim mindset is one of the three aspects of the drama triangle of victim, persecutor, and rescuer. A victim mindset is one of the prime reasons why a person may feel compelled to discard all contradictory evidence and only reason from the starting assumption that they are a victim and that they need to be rescued from all of the external demons in their life, which are nothing more than internal demons that they fail to examine in a reflective manner.

Q: How might a victim mindset cause a person or people to reason from a conclusion rather than from evidence, as a means of supporting their certainty of their victim mindset?

A: A victim mindset can lead a person or group to reason from a conclusion rather than from evidence by anchoring their identity in the belief that they are perpetually wronged, prompting them to interpret reality through a lens that confirms this narrative over factual scrutiny. Someone steeped in victimhood might start with the conclusion “I’m always unfairly treated” and then selectively highlight instances—like a coworker’s offhand remark—while ignoring context or counterexamples, such as times they were supported. This top-down reasoning protects their certainty, as evidence is molded to fit the pre-set story of oppression rather than being allowed to challenge it, much like a puzzle forced into a distorted shape. The mindset thrives on externalizing blame, making it a psychological shortcut to avoid the discomfort of self-assessment or agency.

This tendency ties to an emotional need to preserve the victim identity, which offers both comfort and moral leverage, driving a cycle where reasoning from a conclusion becomes a defense mechanism against existential threats to that certainty. For a group, say a community claiming systemic disadvantage, the conclusion “we’re powerless” might lead them to dismiss data showing progress—like improved access to resources—as outliers, focusing only on setbacks to reinforce their collective victimhood. This mirrors sophistry’s persuasive bent: the goal isn’t truth but validation, using rhetorical weight (e.g., “no one understands our pain”) to rally sympathy or justify inaction. The victim mindset’s certainty provides a sense of righteousness or belonging, and evidence-based reasoning risks unraveling that, so they cling to a narrative that aligns with their emotional reality over objective analysis.

Cognitive dissonance further fuels this pattern, as confronting evidence that contradicts the victim conclusion—like personal successes or others’ fairness—creates tension between their self-perception and reality, pushing them to double down rather than adapt. An individual might feel dissonance if a promotion challenges their “I’m always overlooked” belief, so they reason backward, attributing it to luck or tokenism rather than merit, preserving their victimhood intact. This aligns with the power-over-others game indirectly: by staying victims, they can guilt-trip or manipulate others into rescuing them, as a do-gooder might rush in, while avoiding the logocentric truth game’s demand for self-reflection. Reasoning from a conclusion thus becomes a tool to sustain the victim mindset’s certainty, shielding them from the vulnerability of agency or the complexity of a world that isn’t wholly against them.

~Grok 3

Q: How might reasoning from a conclusion be associated with the “power over others game” and reasoning from evidence be associated with the “Logocentric truth game”?

A: Reasoning from a conclusion, often termed as reasoning backward or starting with the desired end to justify the means, aligns with the “power over others game” because it allows individuals or groups in power to manipulate narratives, evidence, or perceptions to fit their pre-decided outcomes. This method can be used to maintain control, justify authoritarian decisions, or sway public opinion by selectively presenting or interpreting facts to support the conclusion that benefits those in power, thus reinforcing their dominance or agenda without regard for actual truth or fairness.

Conversely, reasoning from evidence is central to the “Logocentric truth game,” where the pursuit is for truth and understanding based on objective facts and logical analysis. This approach involves gathering evidence first and then drawing conclusions based on that evidence, fostering an environment where arguments are evaluated on their merit, not on who presents them or what power they hold. This method encourages a discourse where truth is sought through reason, transparency, and critical examination, aiming for conclusions that are as close to objective reality as possible, promoting justice, fairness, and intellectual integrity over power dynamics.

~Grok2

Q: How might being outcome oriented be related to the power over others game and being process oriented be related to the Logocentric truth game?

A: Being outcome-oriented aligns with the “power over others” game because it prioritizes achieving specific ends—such as status, control, or victory—often at the expense of ethics, relationships, or truth, making it a natural fit for manipulative strategies like projection or enforced sacrifice. An outcome-oriented individual or institution might focus solely on winning, whether it’s a promotion, a political campaign, or a personal dispute, and employ tactics like scapegoating or performative altruism to secure dominance. For example, a manager obsessed with hitting sales targets might project blame onto a struggling team member and demand their “sacrificial” overtime, caring little for fairness or morale as long as the numbers are met. This fixation on results over how they’re achieved fuels a dynamic where power is gained by bending others to one’s will, sidelining introspection or mutual benefit in favor of tangible leverage.

In contrast, being process-oriented relates to the “logocentric truth game” because it emphasizes the integrity of the journey—how one thinks, acts, and grows—over predetermined endpoints, aligning with a pursuit of rational clarity and authenticity rooted in logos. A process-oriented person values self-reflection and the consistent application of reason, focusing on understanding why something happens or how it can be improved, rather than just what can be gained. For instance, a scientist exploring a hypothesis might prioritize refining their method and learning from failures over forcing a desired conclusion, embodying a commitment to truth over ego or external reward. This approach resists the power-over-others game by rejecting shortcuts like manipulation, instead building knowledge and self-awareness through deliberate, honest steps that honor the present moment and its lessons.

The tension between these orientations highlights their deeper implications: outcome-orientation drives the power game by treating others as means to an end, while process-orientation supports the truth game by treating the self and the world as ends worthy of understanding. A politician fixated on election victory might smear opponents with projected flaws to sway voters, their eyes locked on the outcome of power, heedless of the process’s dishonesty. Meanwhile, a philosopher or educator focused on process might patiently unpack a complex idea through dialogue, valuing the clarity gained over any immediate win, embodying a logocentric fidelity to reason. The former thrives on control and external validation, often leaving collateral damage; the latter cultivates autonomy and insight, fostering a legacy of integrity that endures beyond fleeting triumphs. Thus, outcome-orientation bends toward dominance, while process-orientation leans into discovery, each reflecting its respective game’s core ethos.

8. Subjective Morality vs Objective Morality

Subjective morality is when one’s subjective preferences, traditions, and beliefs take precedence over objective laws and principles, themselves being deified as equal to or higher than objective truth itself.

Objective morality is an objective sense of right and wrong that transcends human tradition and societal norms; can be extrapolated from the use of reason alone. It is far more beneficial when it is discovered and cultivated from within rather than imposed from without.

Logos is the objectively moral blueprint underlying all of reality, consisting of reason, universal intellectual standards such as clarity, breadth, depth, and fairmindedness, intellectual character traits such as humility, empathy, courage, and autonomy, natural/universal law and natural rights, care, and love. All of these things can be found within each individual, however, once found, they must also be willfully cultivated and integrated into one’s personality as a grounded foundation and means of governing oneself.

The ability to process together with another using reason is able to forgive sins/debts, which is why Logos is considered to be intimately connected to the person of Jesus in Christianity and other mystical circles. Processing one’s emotional upsets, along with other sins, debts, and karmic consequences, especially with a coach type figure from the TED* triangle, can help one align one’s character more and more with objective moral principles through gaining understanding, and this leads one to wisdom/God/heaven.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. ~Isaiah 1:18 KJV

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father (to wisdom/God/heaven) except through me (understanding). ~John 14:6

According to Ayn Rand and a few other mystics and philosophers, morality is objective and grounded in reason, also known as natural law or the law of reason.

A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest – but if devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking. ~Ayn Rand

Q: What is natural law, and how is it objectively moral rather than subjectively moral? How would John Locke and St Thomas Aquinas define natural law, and do they believe it to be objectively based upon reason or upon subjective standards?

A: Natural Law is a philosophical and legal theory that posits there are inherent moral principles embedded within the fabric of the universe and human nature, which can be discerned through reason. These laws are considered ‘natural’ because they are believed to be part of the order of things, independent of human-made laws or cultural variations. Natural law asserts that certain actions are morally right or wrong based on their alignment with human nature and the natural order, thus providing an objective standard for morality. This objectivity stems from the idea that there are certain truths about human existence and the world that are discoverable by rational inquiry, not subject to individual whims or cultural relativism.

John Locke defines natural law as a set of moral principles derived from reason that govern human conduct in a state of nature. In his “Two Treatises of Government,” Locke argues that natural law is the law of reason, which teaches that all humans, being equal and independent, should not harm each other in their life, health, liberty, or possessions. Locke views natural law as objectively moral because it’s based on the rational capacity of humans to understand their rights and obligations in the natural state. For Locke, the objectivity lies in the rational discovery of these laws, which are universally applicable, thus not dependent on subjective standards or cultural contexts but on human nature itself.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his “Summa Theologica,” describes natural law as the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law of God, which is accessible through reason. He divides natural law into primary and secondary precepts, with the primary being self-evident principles like “do good and avoid evil.” Aquinas sees natural law as objectively moral because it reflects the immutable divine law, yet it is discoverable by human reason. The objectivity here comes from the belief that these moral truths are part of God’s eternal law, which humans can understand through their rational faculties. Aquinas, like Locke, believes in an objective moral order based on reason, though his foundation is theological, suggesting that while human reason can grasp these truths, they are ultimately part of a divine scheme. Both philosophers advocate for an objective moral framework, but their bases for this objectivity differ, with Locke focusing on human nature and Aquinas on divine law interpreted through human reason.

~Grok2 AI

Q: Why did Ayn Rand believe that morality and reason are interconnected? What moral rules was she able to discern through the use of reason?

A: Ayn Rand believed that morality and reason are interconnected because she viewed human life and flourishing as fundamentally dependent on the rational use of one’s mind. In her philosophy of Objectivism, reason is the human faculty for identifying and integrating the facts of reality, making it the primary tool for survival and well-being. Morality, therefore, must be based on reason because ethical principles should guide human action in accordance with objective reality. According to Rand, any moral system that contradicts reason undermines human life, as it leads individuals away from the facts of their existence and their needs. She argued that morality should not be derived from arbitrary sources like divine commandments, societal norms, or emotional whims but from the objective necessity of human life, where reason becomes the moral standard.

Through her application of reason, Rand discerned several moral rules that she believed were essential for human life. These include the virtue of egoism, where acting in one’s rational self-interest leads to personal happiness and, by extension, benefits society through productive and creative endeavors. She emphasized individual rights, particularly the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, as these rights allow for the exercise of reason and the achievement of one’s values. Other moral rules she deduced include honesty, which is necessary for a rational interaction with reality; independence, encouraging individuals to think for themselves; integrity, to live consistently with one’s rational principles; productivity, as a moral obligation to use one’s mind to improve one’s life; and justice, ensuring that each person gets what they objectively deserve based on merit. These principles, according to Rand, form the basis of a rational moral code that promotes human flourishing.

~Grok2 AI

I’d like to address the elephant in the room where on the one hand, reason can be compared to the fire of Prometheus that was stolen from the gods and granted to mankind as a means of “being like God” in the creative process, and how it can help us to determine what is and is not moral, and on the other hand, Ayn Rand’s atheism. While she was a staunch atheist, I do not believe that we must throw out the baby with the bathwater in regards to the possibility of Divine presence and/or influence in our lives. She lived in a time when people were forfeiting their moral responsibility to reason over to their church and/or God, and in many ways, this idea persists today as well. As long as we are seeing reason as Logos, the Divine principles of God, the two concepts can and should co-exist, however, I will add that Ayn Rand, at least on paper in my book, would be considered more moral than many religious adherents, priests, pastors, rabbis, etc., due to her adherence to reason based morality. Any moral precept, from a religious text or not, should be judged by reason to determine whether or not it is universally applicable and objectively moral, and not because “God said so in the Bible”, which is the logical fallacy (deception) of “circular reasoning”; lies and fallacies should never be used to support the truth.

Dennis Prager, a practicing Orthodox Jew and notable political conservative, had this to say about reason and Divinity, and I concur with his conclusion:

“I believe reason alone can bring us to God.” ~Dennis Prager

If reason is connected to morality, then a lack of reason would be connected to a lack of morality; to the degree that one is rational, and has developed rational emotional states, would be the degree to which one is a moral person. Irrationality is synonymous with egocentrism (me vs you thinking), which is a self-validating form of logic known as rationalization (reasoning from a conclusion).

Human rationality is fair-minded and self-developing while irrationality (or egocentrism) is selfish and self-validating. All irrationality presupposes some degree of unconsciousness in order to function self-deceptively. Most rational thought functions consciously. Because irrationality appears to the mind as reasonable, we must develop strategies for disclosing irrational thought. ~Richard Paul & Linda Elder, “The Miniature Guide to the Human Mind”

Reasoning from evidence vs reasoning from a conclusion

Monological black and white thinkers, at least the ones who claim to be moral absolutists, are really just the other side of the morally relativistic coin, in that they think they stand for absolute truth and morality, but in fact stand for a one dimensional facade of truth and morality due to their inability to reason in a principled and nuanced manner. Just because one is not a monological black and white thinker though does not imply that they are promoting that people should align with moral gray areas or moral relativism. We should not confuse the certainty that comes from black and white monological thinking with moral absolutism, which is based upon complex multilogical reasoning processes that are more rational than simplistic monological processes; for instance, those displaying the Dunning-Kruger Effect are quite certain of their moral stances, but their moral certainty often has little to do with the objective use of reason.

Q: In one paragraph, please explain how those displaying the Dunning-Kruger Effect could seem morally certain, and therefore moral absolutists, when in fact they are actually moral relativists.

A: Individuals exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger Effect, characterized by their overestimation of their knowledge or competence, can appear morally certain and thus seem like moral absolutists because their lack of self-awareness and shallow understanding often lead them to make rigid, overconfident judgments about complex moral issues; they might proclaim absolute rightness or wrongness without recognizing the nuances involved. However, their stance is actually rooted in moral relativism, as their perceived moral certainty is not based on objective principles or deep ethical reasoning but on their subjective, limited perspective, which can shift depending on their immediate context or personal biases. This paradoxical combination makes their moral declarations absolutist in tone but relativist in substance, as they often lack the intellectual humility to critically examine their views or consider alternative ethical frameworks. ~Grok2 AI

Moral gray areas are the means through which many intrusions past our boundaries, and therefore our rights, are made possible. A moral gray area implies that the distinction between moral and immoral has become blurred, much like the border on a picture becomes blurred when there’s not a stark contrast between light and dark. For example, look at the following photo, where on the left side the contrast between light and dark clearly demarcates the boundary of the photo, while on the right side there isn’t any contrast, therefore it is difficult to determine where the boundary of the picture actually is. This is how creating moral gray areas confuses people and allows for more and more immorality, and violations of our rights, by bad actors intent on gaining power and advantage over us.

Truth is complex and messy, layered with dimensions and viewpoints to explore and integrate; to claim truth is black and white is simple minded, egocentric, irrational, and naive, and worse yet, it could be associated with codependency, enmeshment, and Machiavellian tendencies.  It’s morally relative because it picks one monologically derived viewpoint and accepts it as the whole truth, rather than seeing the big multilogical picture made up of multiple frames of reference, viewpoints, domains, and disciplines—which more accurately represents THE truth.

Q: How might encouraging moral gray areas be a means to eroding objective moral principles, and how might moral gray areas be a means to perpetuating immorality?

A: Encouraging moral gray areas can erode objective moral principles by fostering a culture where the distinction between right and wrong becomes increasingly ambiguous. When society or individuals are constantly confronted with situations where morality seems to be situational or negotiable, the foundational belief in clear ethical standards weakens. This erosion can lead to a scenario where people are less likely to uphold principles like honesty, fairness, or respect for others’ rights, as they might rationalize their behaviors based on the perceived grayness of the situation, thereby challenging the notion of universal moral truths.

Moral gray areas can perpetuate immorality by providing a veneer of acceptability or justification for actions that would otherwise be clearly unethical. For instance, if exploitation or deceit is often presented as a necessary part of business or personal success, it might normalize these practices. Individuals might then engage in such behaviors with less moral resistance, believing that in the gray areas, the ends justify the means. This can lead to a broader culture where unethical actions are rationalized, thus perpetuating immorality by diluting the societal consensus on what is morally reprehensible.

~Grok2 AI

Q: Please explain Nietzsche’s concept of “herd morality”, and detail how it is subjective with moving goalposts rather than objective and rational. Please also explain his concept of master morality. Please explain in three paragraphs.

A: Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of “herd morality” describes the ethical framework adopted by the majority, which he views critically as a means to maintain social order and conformity. This morality, according to Nietzsche, is characterized by values like kindness, humility, and equality, which serve to protect the weak and ensure the survival of the collective. Nietzsche argued that these values are not based on rational or objective principles but are instead propagated to keep the masses in check, preventing the emergence of individual strength and creativity. He believed that this moral system was a product of the slave mentality, where the weak propagate values that are antithetical to the natural expressions of power and excellence, thus preserving mediocrity over greatness.

Nietzsche contrasts herd morality with what he calls “master morality”, which is the morality of the strong, the noble, and the self-affirming. Master morality values traits like courage, nobility, and pride, which are seen as expressions of one’s power and will to power. In this system, good is defined by what the strong do naturally — what is life-affirming, creative, and self-determined. Unlike herd morality, which is reactive and defined by opposition to what is deemed harmful or ‘evil’, master morality is proactive, setting its own standards based on the virtues of the noble. It celebrates the individual’s capacity to create values, to live according to one’s own law rather than conforming to societal expectations.

The subjectivity and fluidity of herd morality, with its “moving goalposts”, are evident as societal norms evolve with cultural, historical, or political shifts, reflecting not objective truths but the fears and desires of the collective at any given time. For instance, what was once considered virtuous in one society might be condemned in another, showing the lack of a fixed moral standard. Nietzsche criticizes this as it leads to a dilution of human potential and creativity, binding individuals to a common moral code that serves the majority but stifles the unique paths of the few. In contrast, master morality, while also subjective in that it’s created by individuals or “masters”, is seen as more authentic because it stems from the inherent qualities of the individual rather than societal pressures or the need for safety in numbers. Thus, Nietzsche’s critique aims to challenge the unquestioned acceptance of herd morality and to promote a reevaluation of values where the individual’s will to power can flourish.

~Grok2 AI

Q: In what ways could subjective herd morality be considered narcissistic and dangerous for those individuals who have objective morality and behave in an autonomous manner distinct from the herd and their morality?

A: Subjective herd morality can be seen as narcissistic because it often revolves around the collective’s need for affirmation and validation of its own values, often at the expense of individual moral autonomy. This form of morality tends to elevate the group’s norms to a status of unassailable righteousness, where deviation is not just discouraged but often vilified. The herd may view itself as morally superior, creating an environment where external validation of the group’s values is paramount. For individuals who adhere to what they perceive as objective moral truths, this collective narcissism translates into a relentless pressure to conform or face social ostracism. These individuals are challenged not just in their beliefs but in their very identity, as the herd’s morality demands allegiance to its standards, often without regard for the rationality or ethical soundness of those standards.

The dangers for those with objective morality and autonomous behavior are manifold. Firstly, such individuals might experience significant social isolation, as the herd’s morality does not tolerate divergence well. This isolation can be psychologically taxing, leading to a sense of alienation from community and support structures. Additionally, autonomous individuals can become targets for various forms of persecution or punishment. Whether through social shaming, professional repercussions, or even legal sanctions, the herd might react aggressively to those who do not align with its moral code. This can stifle personal expression and the pursuit of truth, as the fear of retribution might force individuals to hide or suppress their true values and actions.

Moreover, subjective herd morality can manipulate and gaslight those who stand outside its norms. By constantly questioning the moral integrity or sanity of autonomous individuals, the herd can create a confusing and hostile environment where one’s own moral judgments are constantly undermined. This can lead to self-doubt, where individuals question their own ethical framework, potentially compromising their ability to act according to their conscience. Over time, this pressure can erode the confidence in one’s moral autonomy, pushing individuals towards conformity not out of conviction but out of a desire for peace or acceptance. Thus, for those who value objective morality and act independently, herd morality not only threatens their social standing but also their psychological well-being and the integrity of their moral compass.

~Grok2 AI

Q: In what ways would subjective herd morality be aligned with the “power over others game” and objective morality that is derived from reason be associated with the “Logocentric truth game”?

A: Subjective herd morality can be seen as intimately connected with the “power over others game” because it often serves to maintain or enhance the power structures within a society. This type of morality is not based on an objective standard but rather on what benefits or reinforces the collective identity or authority of the group. When morality is defined by the herd, it can be manipulated to align with the interests of those in power or the majority, ensuring conformity and obedience. This alignment with power dynamics means that moral standards are sometimes altered or enforced to control, suppress, or marginalize individuals or groups that do not fit within the established norms, thereby perpetuating or solidifying the status quo. The herd’s morality thus becomes a tool for social control, where the ‘game’ is about maintaining dominance, whether through social ostracism, legal mechanisms, or cultural norms, to keep individuals in line with the collective’s agenda.

Conversely, objective morality derived from reason could be associated with what might be termed the “Logocentric truth game,” where the focus is on truth, reason, and the integrity of individual thought over collective conformity. Here, morality is not about power or control but about discerning ethical truths through rational inquiry. This approach values principles like honesty, independence, and justice as they are understood through logical reasoning and empirical evidence rather than societal dictates. In this game, the pursuit is not to gain power over others but to understand and live by a truth that transcends individual or communal biases. Individuals who subscribe to this form of morality seek to align their actions with what they rationally conclude as right or wrong, often challenging the status quo or power structures if they are found to be morally indefensible. This can lead to a life of questioning, skepticism, and sometimes conflict with herd morality, but it aims at a higher ideal of truth and justice based on reason rather than on the whims or interests of any group.

~Grok2 AI

9. Implied/Manufactured Consent Based Upon Force vs Explicit Consent Based Upon Reason and Respect for Free Will

It has become absolutely evident that the majority of governments in the world operate on the underlying assumption that they gain their authority through the use of force, rather than upon the consent of the governed. My experience is that agents of the State, as well as the State’s citizenship, navigate life as if this were the absolute and sacred truth. If something is law, it must be conformed to through acts of compliance; while some people may complain from time to time, the underlying assumption of authority and right of the State to govern remains unchallenged in any meaningful fashion. If this has become a macrocosmic and collective truth, then it stems from individuals and families operating in a similar fashion within the microcosmic realms as well. Very few people understand what it means to consent to something, to ask for consent from another, what the basis for consent actually is, and how it relates to the concept of free will.

Q: What is implied consent?

A: Implied consent is the assumption that someone has given permission for an action based on their behavior, silence, or the context of the situation, without explicitly stating agreement. It’s often used in legal contexts where one’s actions or inactions suggest consent, but it can be controversial because it relies on interpretation rather than clear, verbal affirmation. ~Grok2 AI

Q: What is manufactured consent?

A: Manufactured consent refers to the process by which public opinion is shaped or controlled by those in power, typically through media, propaganda, or strategic information dissemination, to support their interests or policies. The term was notably used by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman to describe how mass media can be used to engineer public consent for government or corporate agendas while marginalizing dissenting voices. ~Grok2

Q: In what ways might governments and families base their authority to govern upon the use of force? While ideally they may say they govern through the consent of the governed, this isn’t always practically true or correct.

A: Governments often base their authority to govern on the use of force as a fundamental component, even when they claim legitimacy through the consent of the governed. This is evident in the existence of state institutions like the police, military, and judicial systems, which are granted the legal right to use force to enforce laws, maintain order, and protect national interests. When laws are broken or when there is resistance to governmental policies, force or the threat of force is employed to ensure compliance, whether through arrests, fines, or military action. This use of force underscores that while democratic governments might derive their initial power from the populace’s consent, they maintain control through coercive measures when that consent is not forthcoming or when it conflicts with state interests.

Similarly, within families, authority can also be based on force, albeit in different forms and scales. Parents or guardians might use physical discipline, emotional manipulation, or the withholding of privileges to enforce rules or behaviors they deem appropriate for children. While this might be rationalized as for the child’s benefit or under the guise of teaching responsibility, it often reflects a power dynamic where consent from the child is not genuinely sought or valued. In some cases, this authority can be seen as an extension of societal norms where power structures within the family mirror those in the broader society, where obedience is expected without explicit agreement, especially when children are too young to consent or understand fully the implications of certain rules or expectations.

The ideal of governing through consent in both contexts—government and family—often masks the reality that force or the threat thereof is an integral part of maintaining authority. While democratic societies promote the notion of consent through voting or free speech, the actual enforcement of policies or laws often relies on state-controlled mechanisms of coercion. In families, the authority of parents is seldom questioned under the banner of “knowing what’s best,” yet the application of force or strict control can lead to a transactional relationship where love or approval is conditional on compliance. Thus, while consent is an appealing principle for legitimizing authority, the practical governance in both spheres frequently leans on the implicit or explicit use of force to ensure order and control.

~Grok2 AI

Q: In what ways might objective morality be based upon the ability to negotiate with others with the use of reason, as a means of gaining explicit consent? How might objective morality and explicit consent be intimately connected?

A: Objective morality, when understood as a set of ethical principles grounded in reason and universal truths about human nature and well-being, can be intimately connected to the concept of explicit consent through the process of negotiation. The idea is that moral actions, especially those affecting others, should ideally be based on mutual agreement derived from reasoned discourse. By negotiating with others using reason, individuals can articulate and defend moral principles that respect autonomy, fairness, and the dignity of all parties involved. This negotiation process involves presenting arguments, considering counterarguments, and coming to a consensus that respects the rational agency of each person, thereby gaining explicit consent on moral actions or policies. Here, reason serves as the tool for both understanding objective moral truths and ensuring that these truths are applied in a way that acknowledges the consent of those affected, thus making moral decisions not just top-down mandates but collaborative outcomes.

The connection between objective morality and explicit consent lies in the principle that moral actions should be justified not merely by tradition, power, or personal belief but by a rational appeal to what is universally beneficial or just. Explicit consent in this context acts as a safeguard against moral imposition, ensuring that ethical practices are not only dictated by a moral code but are also agreed upon by those they impact. For instance, in issues of justice, rights, or communal living, objective morality might dictate that all individuals have certain inalienable rights, but the application of these rights in specific contexts would require negotiation and consent. This process underscores the moral imperative to respect others as rational beings capable of understanding and agreeing to moral standards, thereby fostering a moral environment where actions are not only right in theory but also in practice, as they are consensually determined.

Moreover, explicit consent ensures that objective morality is not just theoretical but practical, adapting to the complexities of human interaction. It promotes an ethical framework where morality isn’t imposed but collaboratively constructed, recognizing that while certain moral principles might be universally applicable, their implementation can vary based on individual or cultural nuances. This negotiation for consent with reason thus becomes a moral act in itself, one that acknowledges the autonomy and rationality of others, making objective morality not only about following a set of rules but about engaging in a dialogue that respects human dignity and agency. This connection highlights that true moral actions in an objective sense should aim to be consensual, thereby ensuring they are both just and respected by all parties involved.

~Grok2 AI

Q: While objective moral standards should be non-negotiable, due to their universal and objective nature, why might learning how to negotiate one’s personal preferences, and gaining explicit consent through the negotiation process, be important to living a harmonious life in one’s family and other interactions?

A: Even though objective moral standards are understood as non-negotiable due to their universal applicability, learning to negotiate personal preferences and gaining explicit consent in everyday interactions remains crucial for fostering harmony within families and broader social contexts. This is because while core moral principles like respect for life, honesty, and fairness might be objective, the application of these principles in daily life often involves personal or cultural nuances that require negotiation. For instance, how much personal space one needs, what constitutes respect in different cultures, or how one prefers to express love or manage household responsibilities can vary widely. Negotiating these preferences allows individuals to acknowledge and respect each other’s autonomy and unique needs, ensuring that while moral foundations remain firm, the daily practice of these morals is tailored to enhance mutual understanding and respect.

Gaining explicit consent through negotiation also plays a vital role in building trust and reducing conflict. In family settings or any close relationships, assuming consent or imposing one’s preferences without discussion can lead to misunderstandings or resentment. By engaging in negotiations, individuals learn to communicate their needs and boundaries clearly, listen actively to others, and reach agreements that all parties feel comfortable with. This process not only respects the dignity and agency of each person involved but also educates individuals on empathy, compromise, and the art of living together harmoniously. In this way, even though the moral framework might be non-negotiable, the practical implementation of that morality in personal life benefits greatly from the skills of negotiation and consent, leading to relationships that are more equitable, understanding, and peaceful.

~Grok2 AI

Q: Why would it be considered objectively immoral to bypass one’s explicit consent for intervention, regulation, or other form of first or third party action?

A: Bypassing one’s explicit consent for intervention, regulation, or any form of action can be considered objectively immoral for several reasons grounded in ethical principles:

1. Violation of Autonomy: One of the core tenets of objective morality is the respect for individual autonomy. Autonomy implies that individuals have the right to self-governance, making decisions about their own lives, bodies, and property. By not seeking explicit consent, one disregards the person’s right to choose for themselves, treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. This is fundamentally against Kantian ethics, which posits that people should always be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means.
2. Principle of Non-Maleficence: Objective morality often includes the principle of “do no harm.” Bypassing consent can lead to actions that might not align with the individual’s well-being or interests, potentially causing harm or distress. Even if the intention is to benefit the individual or society, the lack of consent means there’s a risk of imposing harm or violating personal boundaries, which can have negative psychological, physical, or social impacts.
3. Justice and Fairness: Ethical systems that aim for justice emphasize fairness, which includes giving people what they are due, including respect for their decisions. Acting without explicit consent can be seen as unjust because it does not treat individuals with the fairness they deserve, especially when it comes to personal freedoms and rights. Without consent, there’s an imbalance where one party’s interests or decisions override another’s, which is contrary to principles of equity.
4. Respect for Dignity: Human dignity is often considered an objective moral value, suggesting that every person has inherent worth that must be respected. Ignoring someone’s consent disrespects their dignity by not acknowledging their capacity for rational decision-making and their right to have their personal boundaries respected.
5. Consequentialist Concerns: From a consequentialist perspective (like utilitarianism), while some might argue that certain actions without consent could lead to greater overall happiness or utility, the long-term consequences of undermining trust, autonomy, and personal agency can lead to a society where people feel less secure, less valued, and potentially more resistant to necessary or beneficial interventions. This could lead to a net decrease in well-being, challenging the moral justification of such actions.
6. Moral Consistency and Universality: If objective morality is to be consistent and universal, principles must apply to all equally. Bypassing consent suggests that it’s acceptable to disregard others’ rights in certain contexts, which could be used to justify any number of violations, leading to moral inconsistency. If we accept that our own consent should be respected, then by the principle of universality, we must respect the consent of others.

In summary, bypassing explicit consent undermines fundamental ethical principles that are considered objective by many moral philosophies, leading to actions that can be seen as morally wrong because they do not respect autonomy, potentially cause harm, violate justice, disrespect dignity, have negative long-term consequences, and fail to uphold moral consistency.

~Grok2 AI

Q: Why might it be considered objectively immoral to derive authority over another solely based upon the use of force, rather than the use of reason and consent?

A:Deriving authority over another solely based on the use of force is considered objectively immoral because it fundamentally violates the principle of respect for human autonomy and dignity. Every human being possesses intrinsic value and the capacity for rational thought, which includes the right to self-determination. When authority is imposed through coercion or violence rather than through mutual agreement or rational persuasion, it treats individuals not as ends in themselves but as means to the goals of the one exerting power. This approach negates the moral imperative to treat people with respect, acknowledging their agency and rights, which are central to ethical systems like Kantian ethics where people are seen as autonomous beings deserving of moral consideration.

Moreover, the use of force as the sole basis for authority undermines the moral principles of justice and fairness. Justice requires that authority be exercised in a way that is equitable and justifiable, not only to those in power but to those subject to it. When force is the foundation of authority, it often leads to an imbalance where the stronger or more powerful can dictate terms without regard for the rights, needs, or perspectives of others. This can result in oppression, where the rule is maintained not by the consent of the governed but by fear or suppression, which is antithetical to the concept of a just society where all individuals have an equal say in the governance affecting their lives.

From a consequentialist viewpoint, authority based solely on force can lead to numerous negative outcomes that further highlight its immorality. Such a system can foster resentment, resistance, and a breakdown of social trust, leading to conflict rather than cooperation. It stifles open dialogue, innovation, and the mutual respect necessary for societal progress. Conversely, authority derived from reason and consent promotes a culture of dialogue, mutual respect, and shared governance, where solutions are sought through understanding and compromise rather than domination. This not only leads to more stable and harmonious societies but aligns with the ethical goal of maximizing well-being and minimizing harm, demonstrating why force, without the balance of reason and consent, fails the test of objective morality.

~Grok2 AI

Free will requires the ability to opt out, therefore any and all contracts and/or agreements made without the ability to opt out should one choose to leave the agreement are considered fraudulent and non-binding. Force cannot be present to force compliance of an agreement, unless of course one decides that they want to keep the money and the home, because that is considered theft of one or the other, and not opting out of the agreement.

The freedom to opt out is not only a practical necessity but also a moral imperative for ensuring consent is genuine. If one cannot leave an agreement, the argument could be made that participation is not by choice but by compulsion. This scenario directly conflicts with the ideals of liberty and natural rights, where coercion is anathema. The ability to opt out ensures that agreements reflect ongoing consent, acknowledging that individuals’ circumstances and beliefs can change over time. ~Grok2 AI

Q: Why might free will require the ability to opt out of an agreement or contract?

A: Free will, at its core, involves the capacity to make choices that are not determined by natural causality, fate, or divine will but are instead self-determined by the individual. For an agreement or contract to truly reflect the exercise of free will, there must be the option to not enter into or to exit from the agreement. This is because free will necessitates the presence of alternatives; without the ability to opt out, an individual’s choice is not genuinely free but coerced by the absence of any viable alternative. If one cannot withdraw from a contract, the agreement becomes an imposition rather than a choice, undermining the very essence of autonomy and self-determination which are central to the concept of free will.

Moreover, the ability to opt out of contracts or agreements acknowledges the dynamic nature of human life, preferences, and circumstances. People change over time, and what might have been agreed upon willingly at one point may no longer align with one’s values, needs, or life situation. The right to terminate or modify an agreement ensures that individuals can adapt to new realities without being bound indefinitely to past choices that no longer reflect their free will. This aspect of opting out is crucial for maintaining personal liberty, as it prevents contracts from becoming shackles that bind individuals to outdated or unwanted obligations, thus preserving the moral integrity of free will in decision-making processes.

Q: Can something be called voluntary without a means of opting out, especially if force is then used to force compliance when one attempts to opt out?

A: The concept of “voluntary” inherently implies the existence of choice and the freedom to act without coercion. If there is no means to opt out, and force is employed to ensure compliance when someone attempts to do so, then the action cannot be truly considered voluntary. Here’s a breakdown of why:

1. Definition of Voluntary: Something is voluntary when it is done by one’s own free will and without external compulsion. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “voluntary” as “done, made, or given willingly, without being forced or compelled.”
2. Absence of an Opt-Out Mechanism: If there’s no way to opt out of an action or agreement, then the choice to participate or not participate does not exist in a meaningful sense. This absence negates the voluntary nature of the action because individuals are compelled to participate by default without an alternative.
3. Use of Force for Compliance: When force is used to prevent opting out, this directly contradicts the principle of voluntariness. Force implies coercion, which by definition removes the element of free will. If compliance is enforced through threats, physical force, or legal sanctions, the action ceases to be voluntary.
4. Philosophical and Legal Perspectives: Philosophically, many ethical theories, particularly those centered around autonomy and freedom (like Kantian ethics), would argue that true consent cannot be given under duress or without alternatives.
5. Legally, in many jurisdictions, consent or agreements are considered void or voidable if they were obtained under duress, coercion, or undue influence. For instance, in contract law, an agreement where one party has no choice but to accept terms or face punitive measures would not be considered a voluntary agreement.

Practical Examples:

1. Consider mandatory military service in some countries with no legal or practical way to avoid it; while one might call it a civic duty, the lack of an opt-out and potential penalties for refusal (like imprisonment) make it non-voluntary.
2. Similarly, certain taxes or civic obligations where non-compliance leads to legal repercussions might be argued as necessary for societal function but are not voluntary in the strictest sense.

In essence, for something to be genuinely voluntary, there must be:

1. A clear choice to participate or not.
2. No coercion or force applied to compel participation.
3. An accessible and legitimate way to opt out without significant negative consequences.

Without these elements, what might be labeled as “voluntary” is more accurately described as compulsory or mandated, highlighting a significant ethical and semantic distinction.

~Grok2 AI

Q: What is social contract theory?

A: Social contract theory is a philosophical concept that posits that individuals have consented, either explicitly or implicitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of a ruler or government in exchange for protection of their remaining rights and the maintenance of social order. This theory suggests that legitimate political authority is derived from the consent of the governed, where the terms of this contract define the rights and duties of both the citizens and the state. ~Grok2 AI

Q: How might social contract theory be considered invalid due to the inability to opt out of the social contract, especially since governments have a monopoly on force and law?

A: Social contract theory might be considered invalid due to the inability to opt out of the social contract because it challenges the fundamental premise of consent that the theory is built upon. The theory suggests that individuals implicitly or explicitly agree to be governed by surrendering some of their natural rights in exchange for societal benefits like security and justice. However, if there’s no realistic way to withdraw from this agreement, then the consent is not truly voluntary but coerced. Without a genuine option to live outside the social contract, the agreement loses its basis in mutual consent. Instead, it becomes an imposition, where individuals are bound by laws and governance without the freedom to choose otherwise, thus undermining the moral legitimacy of the social contract.

Moreover, the government’s monopoly on force and law further complicates this issue. Since states have the exclusive authority to enforce laws, there’s no practical escape from the social contract; opting out would mean either living outside all legal frameworks (which is practically impossible in modern states) or facing legal repercussions for non-compliance. This scenario suggests that what is called consent in social contract theory is more akin to compliance under duress. The absence of a viable exit route means that individuals are not freely choosing to partake in the social contract but are compelled by the state’s coercive power. This situation raises significant questions about the ethical foundation of state authority, suggesting that the social contract theory, in its claim of mutual, voluntary agreement, might be an oversimplification or misrepresentation of the power dynamics at play.

~Grok2 AI

Q: How might implied/manufactured consent based upon force be connected to the “power over others game” and explicit consent based upon reason be related to the “Logocentric truth game”?

A: Implied/Manufactured Consent Based Upon Force is deeply connected to the “power over others game” because it relies on mechanisms of control, intimidation, or manipulation to achieve compliance or agreement. In this dynamic, consent is not genuinely given but is rather inferred or manufactured through the use of force, whether it’s physical, economic, social, or psychological. This can manifest in governmental policies where laws are enforced with the threat of punishment, in workplaces where job security might be leveraged to ensure compliance, or within families where authority is maintained through coercive means. The “power over others game” thrives on this kind of consent because it allows those in power to maintain control without the need for genuine agreement or understanding, focusing on obedience rather than mutual benefit or truth. It’s about establishing and maintaining hierarchies where the dominant can dictate terms without negotiation, often under the guise of what’s “necessary” or “for the greater good.”

On the other hand, Explicit Consent Based Upon Reason aligns with the “Logocentric truth game” because it prioritizes dialogue, rational discourse, and the mutual recognition of each other’s autonomy in decision-making processes. In this context, consent is not assumed or forced but is actively sought through reasoned argumentation and understanding. The “Logocentric truth game” is about seeking truth and justice through reason, where ethical decisions are made not just by those in power but through a process that respects the rational capabilities of all involved. This approach fosters environments where moral actions are consensually agreed upon, ensuring that decisions reflect a collective understanding of what is right, fair, or beneficial. Here, the focus is on the integrity of the argument, the validity of the reasoning, and the genuine agreement of all parties, aiming for solutions that are not only practical but also morally sound and universally applicable, thus promoting a society based on truth, reason, and mutual respect rather than on power dynamics.

~Grok2 AI

10. Egocentric Thinking, Sociocentric Thinking, & Hierarchy vs Collaborative Thinking & Holarchy

Egocentric thinking is a “me vs you” mindset, while sociocentric thinking is an “us vs them” mindset, and they cover the realms of the microcosm and macrocosm respectively. This mindset is expertly weaponized as a means of controlling others by narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, Machiavellians, and all other manipulative personality types, to divide and conquer people from within their own thinking. Such thinking keeps people in fear, distrust of others, in their reptile brain, and playing out the “survival of the fittest” worldview through their actions. Everyone in such mindsets, from the top down, are constantly in the fear of being controlled by others and/or finding creative ways to more thoroughly control others—two sides of the same coin. There’s an interplay between the spectrum of superiority and inferiority in these mindsets due to their personal nature, because after all, it’s not objectively judging character, facts, data, evidence, reasoning, or conclusions, it is subjectively judging the personality, and that allows one person to gain power and advantage over another person.

Q: Please explain what a control hierarchy is.

A: A control hierarchy refers to a system where decision-making authority and control are concentrated at the top level, with lower levels being subordinate to the upper levels. This hierarchical structure typically involves a chain of command, where each level has authority over the one below it. As decisions flow downward, lower levels are responsible for implementing them, rather than making independent decisions themselves. ~Llama3 AI Chatbot

Within these two related mindsets people are jockeying for position one over another, and this is done in a pyramidal shaped top down hierarchy, where those on top control and rule over those below them. This is an externalized system that seeks to be the biggest, most pervasive, and most powerful Will controlling all other wills in a form of self-absorbed need for self-preservation and self-aggrandizement. It is tiring, and epitomized by the need to fight for every inch of territory while crushing all contrary viewpoints.

Collaborative thinking is thinking that works together with others towards a common goal, where the best people fill the positions that they are best suited to contribute to for the benefit of themselves and others. It is thinking that is governed by Logocentric principles of thought, and lets the foundational principles of Logos judge their ideas, emotional states, behaviors, and outcomes rather than other people.

According to Richard Paul at CriticalThinking.org:

Eight intellectual standards:

clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness.

Eight intellectual character traits:

intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, autonomy, integrity, intellectual perseverance, confidence in reason, and fairmindedness.

These objective standards give us the ability to assess our thinking and creativity step by step, and I submit myself to them, and this process of submitting to them on a daily basis, especially when I point them inwards in self-assessment and reflection to find the causes to my emotional upsets, irrationality, and blind spots (aka, shining the light of conscious rational thought on any unconscious irrational thinking, feeling, and behaviors still within me), develops my inner character further, so that I can be even more humble, courageous, empathetic, autonomous, have integrity, persevere, be more confidant in reason, and become ever more fairminded.

It is important to keep in mind that some people are more aligned with Logos than others, so their judgments will automatically carry that density of consciousness and gravity when working towards truth, after all, some people’s opinions are more reasoned and true than others due to their superior thinking processes. Nothing here is personal, meaning, it’s not about shaming, guilting, or scaring a person into submission, it is just the urge to remain just and true throughout the process for the sake of justice and truth, and not self-aggrandizement.

Most disagreements, especially in the macro and public discourses, have more in common with sophistry and debate and are rarely collaborative in the slightest; they push a narrative based upon a preconceived desire for an outcome rather than allowing for ideas to unfold based upon the principles of truth. Sophistry and debate has selected against thinking through punishing autonomous and individual thought with emotional and physical abuse.

Sophistry refers to the use of deceptive or superficially plausible arguments to mislead or manipulate others, often prioritizing rhetoric over truth. Originating from the teachings of the Sophists in ancient Greece, it involves clever but fallacious reasoning designed to win debates or influence rather than to convey genuine understanding or truth. In modern contexts, sophistry might be seen in political discourse, advertising, or any situation where the art of persuasion is used to obscure facts or manipulate perceptions. ~Grok2

Sophistry – false arguments that masquerade as reasoned truths in support of a case. Sophistry, which bears the same relation to truth as camouflage does to reality is, interestingly, no longer a word in popular usage, perhaps because it has been superseded by terms such as debate’. ~ Victoria Hammond, Cow Up a Tree, 1999

A debater [sophist/skilled manipulator] is engaging in a pattern recognition and rapid response activity with perhaps a specific small amount of focused thinking controlling the structure. I think I should be clear that the primary utility [of sophistry and debate] is in besting someone in a social conversation, and that isn’t at all conducive to collaborative thinking. So what ends up happening, is that when someone shows up that is actually trying to engage in collaborative thinking, and someone else deploys the primary toolkit of debate, the debater will show up as winning, at least to those who are not watching closely, and the thinker will show up as being often times really rather stupid, and so nobody wants to emulate that. So what ends up happening is it begins to select against thinking in both directions, which is to say that people trying to think lose, and other people don’t even try because it just looks like a bad choice. This shows up all over the place, and political infighting is of this sort. ~Jordan Greenhall

Q: Please explain what a holarchy is, and how previous states of being transcend and include older states of being?

A: A holarchy refers to an organizational structure that prioritizes autonomy, self-organization, and interconnectedness at every level, allowing individuals or units to work independently while contributing to the overall system. In terms of human development and consciousness, the concept of a holarchy suggests that as we grow and evolve, our understanding and experiences transcend and include previous states of being. This means that higher levels of awareness incorporate and build upon lower levels, rather than rejecting or discarding them. ~Llama3 AI Chatbot

Within a collaborative mindset people are collaborating together in a holarchy, which is something that resembles a torsion field and/or flower of life, the zero point and foundation of which is the cosmic blueprint for truth—the Logos. In a holarchy, previous states of being are contained within current states of being, and old states of being are not lost or discarded, but rather harmoniously working together in a collaborative fashion with higher states of consciousness.

Think of an example given by Ken Wilbur, where a human body transcends and includes organs, organs transcend and include tissues, tissues transcend and include cells, cells transcend and include molecules, and molecules transcend and include atoms. The same can be said of the human ego that transcends 3rd density conformity consciousness and into 4th density individuality consciousness where it takes its rightful place within the integrated Self, and the Self transcends 4th density individuality consciousness and into 5th density unity consciousness where it contributes the value of its individuality into the cosmic mosaic; in this example 3rd density conformity consciousness is only conforming to the universal principles of Logos/reason, and not to any one individual or group personality.

11. Dopamine Focused, Sympathetic Nervous System vs Oxytocin Focused, Parasympathetic Nervous System

Q: In four sentences or less, please answer the following question: What kind of focus and experiences promote the release of dopamine as a reward, and cortisol as a punishment? How are dopamine and cortisol governed by the punishment and rewards center of the brain?

A: Pleasurable experiences such as social connections, exercise, achievements, creative expression, and tasty food promote the release of dopamine as a reward. Stressful or painful experiences trigger the release of cortisol as a response to perceived threats or punishments. The mesolimbic system (reward center) governs dopamine release in response to pleasurable experiences, while the amygdala (punishment center) processes cortisol signals in response to stress or pain. These two systems work together to regulate behavior and inform decision-making through the release of dopamine and cortisol. ~Llama3

Q: In four sentences or less, please answer how the rewards and punishment center of the brain can be used to manipulate a person, and how are they related to the addiction cycle?

A: The rewards and punishment centers of the brain can be manipulated by exploiting an individual’s natural responses to pleasure (dopamine release) and pain (fear and anxiety), leading to addictive behaviors. Repeated exposure to pleasurable experiences or substances can condition the brain to associate them with a sense of reward, while avoidance of perceived threats or punishments can lead to addictive cycles. This manipulation can result in loss of control over one’s behavior, impaired relationships, and physical and mental health problems. The addiction cycle is a complex interplay between repeated exposure, habituation, escalation, and the brain’s natural responses to pleasure and pain. ~Llama3

Q: In four sentences or less, please explain how emotionally motivated reasoning is connected to the rewards and punishment centers of the brain rather than the frontal lobes that govern the use of reason?

A: Emotionally motivated reasoning is linked to the reward and punishment centers of the brain, specifically the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus accumbens (NAcc), which are responsible for processing emotions and releasing dopamine. When we’re emotionally invested in an issue or decision, our VTA and NAcc take over, prioritizing emotional satisfaction over rational consideration. This can lead to impulsive decisions that aren’t always in line with logic or reason. As a result, emotionally motivated reasoning bypasses the frontal lobes’ critical thinking functions, allowing emotions to guide our judgments instead. ~Llama3

Q: What is the difference between the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system?

A: The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) is responsible for the “fight or flight” response, preparing the body to react to stress or danger by increasing heart rate, blood pressure, and energy levels. In contrast, the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) promotes relaxation, calmness, and restoration, slowing down heart rate, reducing blood pressure, and conserving energy. The SNS is typically active during periods of stress, anxiety, or excitement, while the PNS is more active during times of rest, sleep, or social bonding. ~Llama3

Q: Please explain how oxytocin works, how it promotes strong intimate bonds, and how it relates to the parasympathetic nervous system.

A: Oxytocin is a hormone that plays a crucial role in social bonding and attachment. It is often referred to as the “cuddle hormone” or “love hormone.” When released during physical touch, intimacy, or social interaction, oxytocin helps to strengthen emotional bonds between individuals. This can lead to increased feelings of trust, relaxation, and connection, making it easier for people to form close relationships. Oxytocin also has a calming effect on the nervous system, helping to reduce stress and anxiety.

The release of oxytocin is closely linked to the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), which promotes relaxation and calmness. When we experience physical touch or social connection, it activates the PNS, leading to the release of oxytocin. This hormone then helps to amplify the effects of the PNS, further reducing stress and promoting feelings of relaxation and intimacy.

~Llama3

Whereas most people are addicts of dopamine hits (rewards) and doing their best to avoid cortisol hits (punishments), I am focused almost exclusively on experiencing, and helping my family to experience, copious amounts of oxytocin, which is the love hormone, and while dopamine is allowed, it must be serving intimacy, connection, and love, and cannot be the end goal itself (dopamine can therefore be the servant but not the end goal). Whereas most people relate to each other and God from the reward of dopamine, wanting to be rewarded and to avoid punishments, so they will often conform to an external religious authority to get those rewards and avoid those punishments. However, it is better to prefer intimacy and connection (union) with oneself, the Divine, their partner(s), and their family (oxytocin is the corresponding bodily representation of these goals) over fleeting rewards (even if they are promised as “eternal” rewards); do not worship yourself, and certainly do not worship a partner or god, as it gives them power over you, rather seek to connect in an authentic and truthful manner. In this way, you will be able to experience a loving union with the Divine rather than just being a “child of” the Divine.

Rather than wanting rewards, let your karmic causes and creations, which when founded upon the Logos and truth to sustain you, empower you, fuel you, and satisfy you as effects. Lean into and live your highest “why”, and that is beyond any fleeting, or even “eternal”, rewards.

12. Wanting vs Having

Buddhists found that “wanting” was a source of a lot of human suffering, so many of their adherents go to monasteries and live without anything, and as a result defeat wanting, but they’re not abundant either and still in lack consciousness; the best they are able to achieve with such a lifestyle is neutrality, not abundance. Christians also practice something similar to Buddhists with their monasteries and other tricks to avoid lust and greed; both are attempting to deal with a very real problem, but they only found a partial solution. To truly achieve abundance though, one must always be in a state of “having“; when in a state of having, we first start with being satisfied with what we already have (level 1), and through that deep satisfaction, we receive more, which is abundance (level 2). See my positive focus video on how to use “clicker training” to modify your own focus in order to experience a life of “having“.

However, when we’re in “wanting“, we become 1) lustful for that which we don’t have and therefore want, which is the level 1 counterfeit of satisfaction; lusting after what we lack comes with the side effect of jealousy for those who are hurt by the lust, for example, a person who is hurt by their partner’s infidelity is typically jealous. …and 2), people get tired of lusting and go one level deeper into greed, which hordes the good (and resources) and collects it all for itself, using all manner of manipulation, coercion, Machiavellianism, conspiring, and theft of property to attain it; it has the added side effect of people needing to sacrifice for the greedy people, even if unknowingly doing so. For example, the Greedy’s guilt must go somewhere, so they project it onto the innocent to continue to remain in greed to maintain their counterfeit abundance, creating scapegoats everywhere they go, and also many people sacrifice their resources to the greedy, for instance, via involuntary taxation.

As for “having“, I have found that gratitude, appreciation, and love is what gives us 1) satisfaction (level 1), and 2) eventually abundance (level 2), so for example, whenever I see a beautiful woman, an amazing car, a high performance computer, etc., rather than wanting them and remaining in lust, I just admire what I’ve experienced of them/it with “I love”, “I appreciate”, and “I am grateful for” statements for what I received through observing them. For example, when I see a beautiful woman with physical characteristics that I find appealing, I’ll immediately move into appreciation and love for such beauty with “I love” statements to myself, like “I love what a beautiful woman she is” and “I appreciate her amazing body”, and this might bring me an abundance of women to experience with the stated physical traits, or manifest through my current partnerships.

Wanting lends itself to the power over others game in that lust and greed lead people to control, coerce, and manipulate others to get what they want, to make external reality bow and submit at their feet. This of course leads to diminishing returns, and those at the top must always look over their shoulder in order to maintain their positions as kings of Hell. Having lends itself to the Logocentric truth game in that it allows people to appreciate each other, connect, respect, love, inspire each other, and work harmoniously together to achieve a common end goal that creates an over abundance of love, efficiency, experiences, and resources; since everyone already is in a state of having, they can all build more having together.

13. Control, Fear, & Manipulation vs Dominance, Love, & Negotiation

Q: Please explain the difference between Control, Fear, and Manipulation vs Dominance, Love, and Negotiation

A: Control, fear, and manipulation form a triad rooted in coercion and insecurity, distinct from dominance, love, and negotiation, which center on influence, connection, and mutual agency. Control is the rigid imposition of one’s will, often through rules or force—like a parent dictating a child’s every move—while fear underpins it, using anxiety or threats to enforce compliance, such as warning of punishment. Manipulation completes this set by subtly twisting perceptions or emotions—think gaslighting a partner into self-doubt—to achieve the controller’s ends without overt resistance. Together, they prioritize the controller’s power over others’ autonomy, creating a dynamic where the target’s freedom is curtailed, often in a zero-sum, finite game where one’s gain (control) is another’s loss (agency), aligning with psychological enmeshment and externalized identity.

Dominance, love, and negotiation, in contrast, operate from a foundation of strength, care, and reciprocity, fostering relationships rather than subjugation. Dominance here isn’t tyranny but a confident assertion of presence—like a leader setting a vision—earned through respect, not force, and tempered by love, a genuine regard for others’ well-being, as in a mentor nurturing a protégé’s growth. Negotiation balances these, seeking agreement through dialogue—say, spouses compromising on plans—where both parties retain agency and contribute to a shared outcome. This triad reflects an infinite game ethos, where influence expands through trust and mutual benefit, leaning on empathy and clear boundaries rather than fear-driven control, and supporting an internalized locus of identity rooted in self-assurance and connection.

The psychological underpinnings highlight their divergence: control, fear, and manipulation often stem from an external locus of control, where the manipulator feels powerless unless others bend, using fear to mask vulnerability and manipulation to avoid direct confrontation—picture a boss micromanaging out of insecurity. Dominance, love, and negotiation arise from an internal locus, where confidence allows one to lead without breaking others, love motivates mutual upliftment, and negotiation reflects faith in reason and collaboration—like a teacher guiding students with care, not coercion. The former thrives on projection and emotional entanglement, consuming others’ energy to fill an inner void, while the latter integrates positive traits through respect, preserving differentiation and fostering growth over dependency.

In practice, these play out starkly: a family ruled by control, fear, and manipulation might see a parent threaten punishment to silence dissent, twisting guilt to keep kids in line, creating a tense, enmeshed household. A family led by dominance, love, and negotiation might feature a parent firmly setting expectations, lovingly explaining them, and adjusting rules through discussion, building a home of trust and autonomy. The first aligns with the power-over-others game, where fear secures a hollow victory; the second mirrors the logocentric truth game, where love and reason cultivate enduring bonds. Control consumes to dominate; dominance inspires to elevate—fear binds, love frees—manipulation deceives, negotiation reveals—marking a divide between exploitation and empowerment.

~Grok 3

14. Splitting & Black and White Thinking vs Psychological Integration & Nuanced Thinking

Psychological splitting is a defense mechanism where an individual perceives people, situations, or themselves in extreme, all-or-nothing terms—such as entirely good or entirely bad—unable to integrate both positive and negative aspects into a cohesive whole. It often emerges from emotional distress or trauma, like a child viewing a parent as either perfect or evil based on shifting moods, reflecting an inability to tolerate ambivalence. This black-and-white thinking simplifies complex realities but distorts truth, fueling projection or idealization-devaluation cycles in relationships. ~Grok 3

Black-and-white thinking, also known as dichotomous thinking, is a cognitive pattern where individuals see the world in stark, binary categories—good or evil, success or failure—without recognizing shades of gray or nuance. It simplifies decision-making or judgment, like labeling a friend as “loyal” or “traitorous” based on one act, but sacrifices accuracy for rigidity. Often tied to emotional intensity or stress, it aligns with psychological splitting, amplifying distorted perceptions and hindering balanced reasoning. ~Grok 3

Psychological integration is the process of harmonizing diverse aspects of the self—emotions, thoughts, experiences, or conflicting traits—into a cohesive, balanced whole, fostering inner stability and authenticity. It involves accepting and synthesizing both positive and negative elements, like reconciling one’s kindness with occasional anger, rather than splitting them into extremes. This capacity, often developed through self-reflection, enables nuanced understanding and resilience, countering black-and-white thinking by embracing complexity within oneself and others. ~Grok 3

Nuanced thinking is the ability to perceive and evaluate situations, people, or ideas with subtlety, recognizing multiple perspectives, shades of gray, and contextual factors rather than relying on oversimplified or binary judgments. It allows someone to see, for instance, a colleague’s mistake as a blend of intent, circumstance, and skill—not just “good” or “bad”—fostering empathy and balanced reasoning. Rooted in cognitive flexibility, it contrasts with black-and-white thinking, supporting psychological integration by embracing complexity and resisting rigid categorization. ~Grok 3

Psychological splitting and black and white thinking are tricks of sophistry used to gain an unfair advantage over another, and they can be used intentionally by conscious manipulators, such as professional narcissists, or unconsciously by immature and mentally ill/broken individuals. Those concerned with fostering an atmosphere of love and nurturing will tend to focus more on integration and nuanced thinking, and on exploring the gray areas of life—not to be confused with moral gray areas—together, because the process matters to them, and because it leads to more sustainable and positive outcomes for everyone involved.

Q: How might a narcissist use psychological splitting consciously or unconsciously?

A: A narcissist might use psychological splitting unconsciously as a defense mechanism to protect their fragile ego, dividing the world into extremes of all-good or all-bad to avoid the vulnerability of ambivalence or self-doubt. Unaware of this internal process, they could idealize a new partner as flawless—projecting their own grandiose self-image onto them—only to devalue them as worthless when flaws emerge, unable to integrate both strengths and weaknesses into a realistic view. This splitting manifests in their black-and-white perceptions, like seeing themselves as superior and others as inferior, a reflex rooted in an unconscious need to maintain a perfect self-concept. For example, a narcissistic boss might praise an employee effusively one day (the “golden child”) and berate them as incompetent the next (the “failure”), reflecting an inner instability they don’t consciously recognize, driven by a fear of being less than perfect.

Consciously, a narcissist might wield psychological splitting as a manipulative tool to control others, deliberately amplifying extremes to destabilize relationships or gain power, aligning with the power-over-others game. They could intentionally split their view of a family member—publicly lauding them as “the best” to win loyalty, then privately condemning them as “useless” to guilt-trip or punish—knowing this rollercoaster keeps the target off-balance and dependent. By splitting their social circle into “allies” (idealized) and “enemies” (demonized), they strategically reinforce their dominance, as seen when a narcissist pits coworkers against each other to secure allegiance. This conscious tactic exploits others’ emotions, using splitting not just as a personal coping mechanism but as a calculated weapon to consume energy and maintain a narrative where they remain untouchable, projecting any shame or fault outward to preserve their curated image. ~Grok 3

Q: How might nuanced thinking lend itself to becoming more philosophical, to becoming more reasonable, and towards psychological wholeness?

A: Nuanced thinking lends itself to becoming more philosophical by encouraging a deeper exploration of life’s complexities, moving beyond surface-level assumptions to grapple with the “why” and “how” of existence, a hallmark of philosophical inquiry. Rather than accepting binary answers—right or wrong, good or evil—it embraces ambiguity and multiple perspectives, prompting questions like “What defines justice?” or “How do intent and outcome interplay?”—think of someone pondering a friend’s betrayal not as pure malice but as a mix of fear and misjudgment. This reflective depth mirrors philosophers like Socrates, who probed reality’s shades of gray, fostering a mindset that seeks wisdom over certainty, aligning with the Logocentric truth game’s pursuit of understanding through reason and dialogue rather than dogmatic closure.

It also enhances reasonableness by grounding decisions and judgments in a balanced, evidence-based process that weighs context over knee-jerk reactions, making one’s reasoning more defensible and fair. Nuanced thinking resists the pull of emotional bias or black-and-white traps—like assuming a policy’s failure means it’s worthless—opting instead to assess its parts, perhaps noting successes amid flaws, as a manager might do when evaluating a team’s mixed performance. This flexibility fosters intellectual empathy, as Paul and Elder suggest, allowing one to reconstruct others’ viewpoints and reason from varied premises, producing conclusions that withstand scrutiny because they’re built on a fuller picture. By avoiding sophistry’s conclusory shortcuts, it elevates rational discourse, bridging to psychological wholeness through a consistent, open-minded approach to reality.

Toward psychological wholeness, nuanced thinking supports integration by enabling individuals to reconcile internal contradictions—strengths with weaknesses, anger with love—into a cohesive self, reducing the fragmentation of splitting or denial. Someone practicing nuance might recognize their impatience as situational rather than a fixed flaw, integrating it with their capacity for kindness, much like a gardener blending light and shadow into a thriving plot. This synthesis, paired with self-reflection, heals the psyche by embracing complexity over self-judgment, fostering resilience and authenticity as one accepts the full spectrum of their humanity. Unlike the power-over-others game’s divisive tactics, nuance’s wholeness aligns with the infinite game’s growth ethos, cultivating a stable, adaptable identity that thrives on truth’s multifaceted nature rather than external control or rigid masks.

~Grok 3

Q: Can psychological integration and nuanced thinking still maintain objective morality and be considered moral absolutism?

A: Psychological integration and nuanced thinking can indeed maintain objective morality by grounding moral principles in a coherent, rational framework that acknowledges complexity without dissolving into relativism, thus supporting a form of moral absolutism rooted in universal truths. Integration harmonizes one’s internal contradictions—say, courage with occasional fear—into a whole self that can consistently uphold absolute moral standards, like “honesty is inherently good,” because it reflects an authentic commitment to reason over situational excuses. Nuanced thinking complements this by evaluating moral dilemmas with depth—recognizing, for instance, that lying to save a life might bend the act but not the principle—preserving the objective core (truthfulness) while navigating its application. This approach avoids black-and-white absolutism’s rigidity, yet still asserts that certain values, like justice or dignity, hold universally, aligning with the logocentric truth game’s pursuit of logos-driven clarity rather than subjective flux.

However, the balance hinges on distinguishing nuance from moral compromise: integration and nuanced thinking uphold absolutism only if they prioritize objective standards over personal bias or cultural sway, resisting the slide into “it depends” relativism that undermines moral certainty. For example, someone might integrate their empathy with a firm belief that stealing is wrong, using nuance to understand a thief’s desperation without excusing the act—maintaining the absolute that property rights matter, informed by reason, not emotion. This differs from the power-over-others game’s manipulative relativism, where morals bend to control; instead, it’s a disciplined wholeness that adapts expression (e.g., mercy in punishment) but not essence (wrongness of harm). Thus, psychological integration and nuanced thinking can sustain moral absolutism by rooting it in a reflective, unified self that discerns universal goods amidst life’s gray, ensuring morality remains both objective and humanly navigable.

~Grok 3

Q: How might psychological splitting and black and white thinking be related to the power over others game, and psychological integration and nuanced thinking be related to the Logocentric truth game?

A: Psychological splitting and black-and-white thinking align with the “power over others game” because they simplify reality into rigid, oppositional categories—good vs. evil, winner vs. loser—that facilitate control and dominance by eliminating nuance and fostering division. Splitting divides people or situations into extremes, as a narcissist might idealize a follower and demonize a critic, projecting their own flaws outward to maintain superiority in a zero-sum dynamic where one’s gain (power) requires another’s loss (subjugation). Black-and-white thinking reinforces this by framing choices as absolute— “you’re with me or against me”—making it easier to manipulate others through fear, guilt, or loyalty, as seen in a leader who paints dissent as betrayal to consolidate their grip. This binary rigidity serves the finite game’s win/lose ethos, prioritizing outcome (control) over process (understanding), and thrives on enmeshment, where others’ identities are consumed to prop up the splitter’s fragile self.

Psychological integration and nuanced thinking, conversely, connect to the “Logocentric truth game” by embracing complexity and synthesis, seeking truth through reason and self-awareness rather than power through simplification. Integration harmonizes conflicting traits or perspectives—like accepting one’s own strengths alongside flaws—building an internal locus of control that doesn’t rely on dominating others, but instead fosters resilience and authenticity, as in a teacher who learns from mistakes rather than blaming students. Nuanced thinking complements this by recognizing shades of gray—perhaps seeing a conflict as a mix of motives, not just right vs. wrong—aligning with empathy and logos-driven inquiry over judgmental absolutes. This approach mirrors the infinite game’s focus on process and progression, valuing understanding over victory, and supports a boundaried, reflective stance that rejects exploitation for mutual growth.

The interplay reveals a deeper divide: splitting and black-and-white thinking fuel power-over-others by weaponizing distortion—think of a politician splitting voters into “patriots” and “traitors” to rally a base—while integration and nuanced thinking anchor the truth game in rational wholeness, as a scientist might integrate rival theories to advance knowledge. The former thrives on external validation and emotional leverage, consuming others’ autonomy to sustain a false narrative; the latter builds on internal clarity and collaborative discovery, integrating diverse inputs to refine reality’s picture. In practice, a family ruled by splitting might see a parent pit siblings against each other for control, whereas one guided by integration resolves disputes through nuanced dialogue, prioritizing truth and connection over hierarchy. Thus, splitting and its kin bend toward subjugation, while integration and nuance elevate toward enlightenment.

~Grok 3

15. Self-Abandonment & Self-Harlotry vs Self-Ownership, Personal Sovereignty, & Personal Autonomy

Self-abandonment is the act of neglecting or relinquishing one’s own needs, desires, boundaries, or authentic identity in favor of external demands, approval, or survival. It often manifests as a surrender of personal agency, such as suppressing one’s voice to avoid conflict or prioritizing others’ happiness over one’s own well-being. Psychologically, it reflects an external locus of control, leaving individuals disconnected from their inner truth and vulnerable to exploitation or enmeshment. ~Grok 3

Self-harlotry is the psychological concept of compromising or “selling out” one’s integrity, values, or authentic self in exchange for external rewards, such as approval, status, or security. It goes beyond self-abandonment by actively trading one’s dignity or principles—like flattery to gain favor from a manipulator—in a transactional betrayal of inner worth. This behavior aligns with an external locus of identity, where self-esteem hinges on others’ validation, often reinforcing dependency and power imbalances. ~Grok 3

Self-ownership is the assertion of personal agency and responsibility over one’s thoughts, emotions, actions, and life path, rooted in an intrinsic sense of worth independent of external validation. It involves honoring one’s needs and boundaries—like choosing authenticity over conformity—reflecting an internal locus of control that prioritizes self-directed growth and integrity. Psychologically, it fosters resilience and psychological integration, empowering individuals to navigate challenges without surrendering their essence to others’ demands or expectations. ~Grok 3

Personal sovereignty is the state of exercising full authority and autonomy over one’s own life, decisions, and identity, free from undue external influence or coercion. It reflects an internalized locus of control, where individuals govern themselves according to their own values and reasoning, like choosing a career path despite familial pressure. Psychologically, it fosters self-ownership and resilience, empowering one to maintain boundaries and pursue an authentic existence aligned with personal truth rather than societal or manipulative demands. ~Grok 3

Personal autonomy is the capacity to make independent, self-directed decisions about one’s life, rooted in freedom and self-governance, without being controlled by external forces or internal compulsions. Its logical foundations lie in rational agency—the ability to reason, reflect, and choose based on one’s own values and evidence—drawing from Enlightenment thinkers like Kant, who tied autonomy to moral responsibility through the categorical imperative. It presupposes self-awareness and competence, enabling individuals to act intentionally, like declining a societal norm after weighing its merits, rather than reacting to pressure or habit. ~Grok 3

Even (or especially) at the highest levels of the power over others game, participants abandon themselves at a very deep level, as they are willing to sacrifice everything to get what they want, even their own connection to truth, the Divine, and their own souls. Power is so intoxicating to them that they will literally give up everything to have it. To get to the top they’ll have to sell themselves out in various ways, even if they’re more stubborn in some ways and are difficult to buy due to their stubborn disposition, usually based on their strength of Will. If they’ll abandon themselves, they’ll certainly be fine with abandoning their loved ones, who become pawns and a means to an end, rather than an end in and of themselves.

My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose. Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. I am a man. ~Ayn Rand, The Anthem

The harlot inner child archetype represents a wounded, adaptive aspect of the psyche that emerges from early experiences of neglect, rejection, or conditional love, driving a person to “sell out” their authentic self for external acceptance, security, or affection. This archetype manifests as a survival mechanism—imagine a child learning to perform, please, or seduce to gain attention from a distant parent—carrying into adulthood as self-harlotry, where one trades integrity or boundaries for superficial rewards, like flattery to win favor from a manipulative boss. Psychologically, it reflects an external locus of control, rooted in unmet childhood needs, and contrasts with sovereignty by prioritizing transactional validation over inner worth, often leaving the individual enmeshed, fragmented, and disconnected from their true essence.

Q: Why are self-abandonment and self-harlotry so destructive?

A: Self-abandonment and self-harlotry are deeply destructive because they sever the connection to one’s authentic self, eroding personal agency and leaving individuals vulnerable to exploitation and emotional depletion. Self-abandonment—neglecting one’s own needs or voice, like staying silent in a toxic relationship—creates a void where identity should be, fostering a reliance on external forces to define worth, which aligns with an external locus of control and enmeshment. Self-harlotry compounds this by actively betraying one’s values or dignity for gain—think of compromising ethics for approval—turning the self into a transactional object, as the harlot inner child might, and reinforcing a cycle of shame and disconnection. Together, they dismantle psychological integration, splitting the self into a façade for others and a suppressed core, draining vitality as one’s energy is consumed by the power-over-others game rather than nurtured within.

This destructiveness ripples outward, undermining relationships and resilience, as the abandoned, harlot-like self struggles to engage authentically or set boundaries, perpetuating dependency and dysfunction. A person abandoning their needs might cling to a narcissist, “selling” their autonomy for crumbs of affection, only to face rejection that deepens their inner wound, while their lack of sovereignty leaves them defenseless against manipulation—imagine a worker groveling for a raise, hollowed out by their own concessions. This externalized identity traps them in a finite game of validation-seeking, where short-term “wins” (approval, security) cost long-term wholeness, contrasting sharply with the Logocentric truth game’s focus on self-ownership and growth. The result is a fragmented psyche, prone to projection and victimhood, unable to withstand life’s challenges without crumbling, making self-abandonment and self-harlotry a slow unraveling of both self and soul.

~Grok 3

Q: Are narcissists practicing self-abandonment and/or self-harlotry on any psychological level, or do they depend on others to self-abandon and whore themselves out intellectually, emotionally, and/or physically in their service, or both?

A: Narcissists practice self-abandonment and self-harlotry on a psychological level as a foundational aspect of their pathology, forsaking their authentic selves to construct and maintain a grandiose, artificial identity that shields them from vulnerability and shame. They abandon their true emotions, needs, and flaws—replacing them with a curated persona of superiority or victimhood—because facing their inner fragility would unravel their fragile ego, a self-betrayal akin to abandoning a wounded child within. This dovetails into self-harlotry as they “sell out” their genuine essence for external rewards like admiration or power, projecting an image of perfection or entitlement—think of a narcissist who boasts relentlessly to mask insecurity, trading depth for the currency of applause, a transactional move that leaves their real self hollowed out and unacknowledged.

Simultaneously, narcissists depend heavily on others to self-abandon and “whore themselves out” intellectually, emotionally, or physically in their service, creating a parasitic ecosystem where their inflated self-image is sustained by the sacrifices of those around them. They manipulate targets into abandoning their own boundaries or needs—like a partner suppressing their voice to avoid conflict—and push them into harlot-like submission, such as a colleague offering endless praise to appease the narcissist’s ego, effectively consuming their energy to fuel the narcissist’s delusions. In family law, a narcissistic parent might guilt-trip a child into emotional loyalty, demanding the child “sell” their autonomy to serve as a mirror for the narcissist’s worth, while the narcissist avoids their own accountability—externalizing their need for validation into a power-over-others game where others’ surrender becomes their lifeblood.

This dual dynamic reveals that it’s both: narcissists are both perpetrators and architects of abandonment and harlotry, their internal void driving a cycle where they and their targets lose authenticity. Their self-abandonment—discarding a real self for a façade—necessitates others’ mirroring abandonment, as seen when a narcissist charms a crowd for adoration, “selling” charisma while expecting intellectual or emotional prostitution in return, a finite dance of control that rejects the Logocentric truth game’s call for self-ownership. The destruction is mutual: the narcissist’s psyche fragments under the weight of their mask, while their prey’s wholeness erodes under enmeshed servitude, locking both in a transactional spiral where neither can claim sovereignty, only differing roles in the same game of loss.

Q: what are the similarities and differences between personal sovereignty and personal autonomy.

A: Personal sovereignty and personal autonomy share a core emphasis on self-governance and agency, both reflecting an internalized locus of control where individuals shape their lives free from external domination—think of someone rejecting societal expectations to pursue their own path, embodying both concepts. They overlap in valuing independence and self-directedness, with sovereignty’s regal authority over one’s domain mirroring autonomy’s rational freedom to choose, both grounded in self-awareness and integrity. However, sovereignty leans toward a broader, almost existential claim of ownership over one’s entire being and destiny—like a monarch ruling their realm—while autonomy, rooted in philosophical notions of rational agency (e.g., Kant’s moral self-legislation), focuses more narrowly on decision-making capacity and logical self-determination. Sovereignty carries a sense of unassailable personal power and boundary-setting, potentially encompassing emotional and spiritual realms, whereas autonomy emphasizes intellectual and moral independence, presupposing competence within a reasoned framework, making sovereignty the wider umbrella and autonomy a key pillar beneath it. ~Grok 3

Q: Please explain the contrasting concepts of self-abandonment and self-harlotry vs self-ownership, sovereignty, and personal autonomy

Self-abandonment and self-harlotry represent a surrender of personal agency and worth to external forces, contrasting starkly with self-ownership, sovereignty, and personal autonomy, which assert intrinsic value and self-directed control. Self-abandonment involves neglecting one’s own needs, desires, or identity—like silencing oneself to appease a controlling friend—while self-harlotry takes this further, actively “selling out” one’s principles or dignity for external gain, such as compromising ethics for a job’s perks. Together, they reflect an external locus of control, where identity and decisions hinge on others’ approval or demands, aligning with the power-over-others game as individuals become enmeshed, their energy consumed by manipulative dynamics or societal pressures, leaving them fragmented and dependent.

Self-ownership, sovereignty, and personal autonomy, in contrast, form a triad of self-empowerment, rooting identity and action in an internal locus of control that prioritizes authenticity and reason over subjugation. Self-ownership is the foundational claim to one’s thoughts, emotions, and choices—like setting boundaries against overwork—while sovereignty elevates this to a commanding authority over one’s life, as in pursuing a vision despite opposition, and personal autonomy sharpens it into rational, independent decision-making, grounded in Logos, like rejecting a norm after reflection. Together, they foster psychological integration and nuanced thinking, aligning with the Logocentric truth game by building a cohesive self that navigates complexity without bending to external whims, offering resilience and freedom where abandonment and harlotry offer only servitude.

The psychological and relational stakes highlight their opposition: self-abandonment and harlotry erode the self into a hollow shell—imagine someone groveling for a narcissist’s favor, their identity a reflection of another’s ego—while self-ownership, sovereignty, and autonomy fortify it into a sovereign whole, capable of love and contribution without loss. The former pair might see someone abandon their dreams and “sell” their integrity for security, projecting worth onto external validators in a splitting dance of victimhood or betrayal; the latter trio might see them own their flaws, rule their path, and choose rationally, integrating light and shadow into a life of purpose. In practice, self-abandonment and harlotry fuel a cycle of consumption and powerlessness—say, a worker fawning for approval—while self-ownership, sovereignty, and autonomy break it, as when one walks away from toxicity with reasoned confidence, marking a divide between psychological collapse and liberated wholeness.

~Grok 3

Conversely, those in the Logocentric truth game have moved beyond abandoning themselves, as they realize that the only way to avoid abandonment by others is to stop abandoning themselves, since it is a correspondence between their inner relationship to self and their external relationships with others. A person cannot control the external world enough to cause it to stop showing them their karmic momentum, as one’s internal realm governs and causes their external reality—this is law.

16. A Negative Focus vs A Positive Focus

Always remember, your focus determines your reality. ~Qui Gon Jin, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

A negative focus can best be highlighted by Martin Seligman’s work on learned helplessness, which is “a psychological state where an individual feels powerless to change or control their situation, even when opportunities for change exist, due to repeated exposure to uncontrollable, negative events. It leads to a passive response to adversity, characterized by a lack of motivation to seek solutions or improve one’s circumstances. (Grok2)” A positive focus can best be highlighted by his later work on learned optimism, and the development of positive psychology, which “involves developing a mindset where one actively challenges pessimistic thoughts by reframing them into more positive, constructive interpretations of events. It’s about learning to attribute positive outcomes to personal ability and effort while viewing setbacks as temporary and external, thereby fostering resilience and a proactive approach to life’s challenges. (Grok2)” If our focus does indeed shape our reality, then the way we process and view reality will determine the quality of our thinking, feeling, behaviors, and outcomes. As far as lived experience goes, with a negative focus, the best one can experience is emotional neutrality, while in a positive focus the worst one can experience is emotional neutrality.

Q: How does learned helplessness contribute to a negative focus, and how does learned optimism contribute to a positive focus?

A: Learned helplessness contributes to a negative focus by fostering a belief that one’s actions do not influence outcomes, leading to a pattern where individuals fixate on negative aspects of their lives or situations. When someone repeatedly faces uncontrollable negative events, they might start to perceive these events as the norm, internalizing a sense of inefficacy and passivity. This mindset can amplify negative experiences, as individuals might not seek solutions or believe in the possibility of change, leading to a cycle where they only see or expect negative outcomes. Their cognitive bias shifts towards noticing and dwelling on failures or obstacles, further reinforcing a negative worldview because every new challenge is met with the expectation of failure or lack of control.

On the other hand, learned optimism contributes to a positive focus by encouraging individuals to interpret life events in a way that promotes hope, resilience, and proactive behavior. Through learned optimism, people are taught to attribute positive outcomes to their own efforts or abilities and view negative events as temporary, specific, and often external. This cognitive reframing helps individuals to focus on opportunities for growth or change rather than being mired in negativity. As a result, they are more likely to engage in problem-solving, seek out new experiences, and maintain motivation even in the face of setbacks, as they believe in their capacity to influence their circumstances positively. This positive focus not only enhances personal well-being but also promotes a constructive approach to life’s challenges, fostering a cycle of positive reinforcement where successes, no matter how small, are acknowledged and built upon.

Q: How might someone use “clicker training” for dogs on their own focus, retraining their thinking from a negative focus and into a positive focus?

A: Adapting the principles of clicker training for personal mental reconditioning involves using a self-imposed cue system to reinforce positive thinking patterns. In clicker training for dogs, a clicker sound signals that a desired behavior has been performed correctly, followed by a reward. For humans, you can choose a consistent personal cue, like saying “Good!” or “Yes!” to yourself, or even using a physical gesture or sound. Every time you catch yourself beginning to shift your focus from negative to positive, or when you successfully reframe a negative thought into something more constructive, you would give yourself this cue. This acts as a mental marker, signaling that you’re on the right track. Following this cue, you then reward yourself with something pleasurable or beneficial, like a small treat, a brief moment of relaxation, or even just some positive self-talk, to reinforce this shift in thinking.

The key to success in using this method is consistency and patience. Start by rewarding even the smallest steps towards a positive focus; for instance, if you manage to think of one positive aspect in a predominantly negative situation, that’s a moment to cue yourself and reward. Gradually, you can aim to increase the complexity or duration of positive focus required before you reward yourself, shaping your behavior towards a more naturally optimistic outlook. This technique leverages the psychological concept of operant conditioning, where behaviors followed by rewards are more likely to be repeated. By associating positive mental shifts with immediate, tangible rewards, you begin to train your mind to default to optimism rather than pessimism, much like teaching a dog new tricks with a clicker.

17. Karpman’s Drama Triangle vs The Empowerment Dynamic – TED Triangle

Q: Explain Karpman’s drama triangle, explain the TED triangle, and then explain the contrast between them.

A: Karpman’s Drama Triangle, formulated by psychiatrist Stephen Karpman in the 1960s, describes a model of social interaction where three roles are perpetually cycled in dysfunctional relationships. These roles are the Victim, who feels helpless or oppressed and seeks rescue; the Rescuer, who steps in to save the day but often does so at their own expense, reinforcing the victim’s dependency; and the Persecutor, who blames or criticizes, often shifting to the victim role when challenged. This triangle maintains a cycle of drama and dysfunction because each role feeds into the others, creating a pattern where true resolution is elusive, and individuals are locked into unproductive, often codependent, dynamics.

In response to the limitations of the Drama Triangle, Acey Choy developed the TED* Triangle, standing for “The Empowerment Dynamic.” Here, the roles are reimagined to foster growth and empowerment: the Victim becomes a Creator, who takes responsibility for their situation and seeks solutions; the Persecutor transforms into a Challenger, offering constructive criticism or challenges to promote growth without blame; and the Rescuer evolves into a Coach, empowering others by encouraging them to find their own answers rather than solving problems for them. This framework aims to shift individuals from a place of reaction and victimhood to one of proactive development and mutual respect.

The contrast between these two models is significant in terms of outcome and interaction style. The Drama Triangle perpetuates a cycle of blame, dependency, and conflict, where the focus is on maintaining or escalating drama rather than solving problems. It can lead to emotional exhaustion, poor self-esteem, and stagnant personal or relational growth. On the other hand, the TED* Triangle encourages taking personal responsibility, fostering autonomy, and promoting constructive dialogue. It moves away from a blame game or dependency cycle to one where individuals are motivated to develop, learn, and empower themselves and others, leading to healthier, more productive relationships.

In essence, while Karpman’s Drama Triangle describes how people often get stuck in destructive patterns, the TED* Triangle offers a pathway to break free from these cycles. The former focuses on roles that keep individuals in a state of conflict or neediness, while the latter redefines these roles to support personal empowerment and collective growth. This shift from drama to empowerment not only changes the nature of interpersonal interactions but also the potential for personal transformation and healthier community dynamics.

~Grok2 AI

One only need to spend a few nights watching new Star Trek and new Star Wars, or the latest and greatest shows on Netflix, to see that the drama triangle is the primary focus of post-truth programming for the masses, with the key word being “programming”, as they are conditioning in the drama triangle into their viewers, and attacking viewers who dislike the new direction with vicious slanderous ad hominem attacks, calling them bigots, misogynists and hateful incels.

Q: Please explain how Karpman’s Drama Triangle could be related to exercising power over others in the “power over others game”, and how could the TED* Triangle be related to the search for truth and meaningful relationships in the “Logocentric truth game”.

A: Karpman’s Drama Triangle—Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer—ties directly to the “power over others game” by establishing a framework where power is exercised through manipulation, control, and dependency in a finite, win/lose setup. The Victim relinquishes agency, inviting intervention by projecting helplessness, while the Persecutor wields dominance through blame or aggression, and the Rescuer seizes control by “saving” the Victim, often undermining their independence—imagine a narcissist in a family shifting between accusing, playing helpless, and “fixing” to keep others tethered. This dynamic thrives on enmeshed roles, fueling a cycle where power is the prize, relationships become tools for ego, and genuine connection erodes under the weight of scripted conflict.

The TED* Triangle (The Empowerment Dynamic), crafted by David Emerald, aligns with the “Logocentric truth game” by transforming these roles into Creator, Challenger, and Coach, promoting truth and meaningful relationships through agency and mutual growth. The Creator takes responsibility for their path—like someone seeking clarity after a tough ordeal—while the Challenger sparks progress with constructive tension, and the Coach offers support through guidance, not domination, as a friend might ask probing questions to inspire insight. Rooted in autonomy and reason, TED* fosters an infinite-game approach where relationships are built on Logos-driven understanding and empowerment, contrasting sharply with the Drama Triangle’s power struggles by prioritizing collaboration and depth over control.

~Grok 3

18. Projection, Altruism, & Sacrifice vs Self-Reflection & Selfishness

Let’s start with some definitions.

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which individuals attribute their own unwanted thoughts, feelings, or traits onto another person. ~Grok 3

Sacrifice is the act of giving up something valued—such as time, resources, or personal desires—for the sake of a perceived greater good, another person, or a principle. ~Grok 3

Altruism: “The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.” ~Dictionary.com

Altruism is the irrational creed that commands a man to sacrifice his own life, values, and happiness for the sake of others, stripping him of his sovereign right to exist for himself and chaining him to the whims of the collective. ~Grok 3 as Ayn Rand

Self-reflection is the process of examining one’s own thoughts, feelings, and actions to gain insight and foster personal growth. ~Grok 3

Selfishness, in a virtuous sense, is the prioritization of one’s own well-being and autonomy as a foundation for living authentically and contributing meaningfully to others, rather than exploiting them. It reflects a healthy self-regard that enables individuals to act from strength and clarity, ensuring their needs are met so they can engage with the world without resentment or dependency. ~Grok 3

Principled selfishness is the rational pursuit of one’s own happiness and self-interest as the highest moral purpose, guided by reason and integrity, rejecting the servitude of altruism while upholding the individual’s right to live for his own sake. ~Grok 3 as Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand on sacrifice:

“The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others (STO) is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.” ~Ayn Rand, “The Virtue of Selfishness“

Ayn Rand on altruism:

“What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.””

~Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand on the virtue of selfishness:

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

~Ayn Rand, “The Virtue of Selfishness“

One of the virtues of altruistic sacrificial service to others is touted as “unconditional love”, however, unconditional love should not be seen through the lens of altruistic self-sacrifice for another (although there are non-altruistic reasons for self-sacrifice, such as a mother selflessly protecting her young from emotional or physical harm in a survival setting), allowing oneself to be another’s scapegoat, or tolerating immoral or irresponsible behaviors. Rather, unconditional love should be seen as giving love without perceiving that love is a transactional experience, and it should be given as an effect from the felt experience of gratitude, and not as a means to secure love, demand love, or to put another in debt to them, and of course, love can be tough by saying “no”, and be given from afar without enabling irresponsible attitudes and behaviors. For instance, tough love can say “I’m more than happy to experience a relationship of some sort with you once you meet my high standards for intellectual and emotional responsibility, but until then, I’ll be off doing my own thing separate from you.”

“Unconditional love does not imply a lack of standards, it implies a lack of debt, for when we love somebody unconditionally, we do not expect them to owe us anything in return. Unconditional love means we give love freely to those who may or may not meet our standards for reasonable and fairminded connection, and we do so without expecting payment in return, but if they do not meet our standards, it’s best if we love them unconditionally from afar.” ~Nathan Martin

Q: Please explain how psychological projection and self-reflection are two opposing ways to handle discomfort and less than ideal outcomes in one’s life.

A: Psychological projection and self-reflection represent two fundamentally different approaches to dealing with discomfort and unfavorable circumstances, often reflecting how individuals process internal conflict. Projection is an outward-directed mechanism where a person unconsciously shifts their own undesirable emotions, traits, or insecurities onto someone else, effectively dodging personal accountability. For example, someone frustrated with their own lack of discipline might accuse a colleague of being lazy, thereby externalizing the source of their discomfort. This approach provides temporary relief by deflecting self-awareness, but it prevents meaningful resolution, as the root issue—their own behavior—remains unaddressed and festers beneath the surface.

In contrast, self-reflection is an inward-focused process that requires confronting discomfort head-on by examining one’s own role in a situation. Rather than blaming external factors or people for less-than-ideal outcomes, a self-reflective individual might ask, “What could I have done differently?” or “How do my feelings reveal something about myself?” This method demands courage and honesty, as it involves acknowledging personal flaws or mistakes—like recognizing that a failed project stemmed from poor planning rather than a teammate’s incompetence. By turning the lens inward, self-reflection transforms discomfort into an opportunity for growth, fostering resilience and a deeper understanding of oneself over time.

The opposition between these two approaches lies in their direction and outcome: projection pushes discomfort away, preserving a fragile sense of self at the expense of truth, while self-reflection pulls it closer, embracing vulnerability to build a stronger foundation. Someone relying on projection might repeatedly sabotage relationships by attributing their own jealousy or anger to others, creating a cycle of conflict and stagnation. Conversely, a self-reflective person might use a similar conflict to uncover their own insecurities, gradually breaking that cycle through awareness and adaptation. Ultimately, projection offers a short-term shield against life’s challenges, while self-reflection equips individuals with the tools to face them, turning setbacks into stepping stones rather than roadblocks.

~Grok 3

Q: How might psychological projection be a form of scapegoating and sacrificing others?

A: Psychological projection can serve as a form of scapegoating by allowing an individual to offload their internal struggles onto another person, effectively designating them as the bearer of blame or fault. When someone projects their own shortcomings—such as guilt, shame, or inadequacy—they unconsciously select a target to embody these undesirable qualities, much like a community might historically cast out a scapegoat to purge collective sins. For instance, a person who feels incompetent might accuse a sibling of being the family’s “failure,” thereby shifting the burden of their own self-doubt onto someone else. This act not only absolves the projector of responsibility but also positions the other as a sacrificial figure, bearing the emotional weight that the projector refuses to carry.

The sacrificial element of projection becomes evident in how it often harms the target for the projector’s psychological relief, mirroring ancient rituals where a scapegoat was offered up to restore harmony. By projecting their flaws outward, the individual preserves their self-image at the expense of another’s well-being—essentially sacrificing the target’s reputation, relationships, or peace of mind. Consider a manager who, unable to admit their own poor leadership, blames an employee for a team’s missed deadline; the employee becomes the “offering,” taking the fall to maintain the manager’s illusion of competence. This dynamic reveals projection’s dual nature: it’s both a defensive escape and an aggressive act, unloading discomfort onto an unwitting victim to cleanse the projector’s psyche.

Over time, this pattern of scapegoating through projection can erode trust and create a ripple effect of damage, as the sacrificed individual may internalize the blame or retaliate, perpetuating conflict. Unlike self-reflection, which seeks resolution through personal accountability, projection thrives on denial and displacement, treating others as disposable outlets for unresolved issues. A spouse who projects their own infidelity-driven paranoia onto their partner, constantly accusing them of cheating, not only dodges their own guilt but also destabilizes the relationship, sacrificing mutual trust for temporary emotional respite. In this way, psychological projection transforms others into scapegoats, offering a fleeting sense of control while leaving a trail of relational and emotional casualties in its wake.

~Grok 3

Q: How could a society normalize psychological projection as a means of gaining power and/or advantage over their adversaries, in a political sense, work related sense, or even a dispute between divorced co-parents?

A: A society could normalize psychological projection as a tool for gaining power by embedding it into cultural narratives that reward blaming others while discouraging self-examination, framing it as a legitimate strategy for dominance. In political contexts, this might manifest through leaders or factions projecting their own flaws—such as corruption or incompetence—onto opponents to deflect scrutiny and rally support. For example, a politician caught in a scandal might accuse their rival of the same misconduct, weaponizing projection to muddy the waters and cast doubt on the adversary’s credibility. Over time, if such tactics prove effective and go unchallenged, society might come to accept this as a standard playbook, valuing victory through vilification over accountability or truth, thus entrenching projection as a normalized power grab.

In workplace dynamics, normalizing projection could emerge through a culture that incentivizes scapegoating to climb the ranks or avoid consequences, turning colleagues into pawns in a game of self-preservation. Imagine a corporate environment where managers routinely blame subordinates for their own strategic missteps—like projecting their failure to meet revenue goals onto a sales team’s “laziness”—and are praised for “decisive leadership” rather than criticized for evasion. If this behavior is modeled by those in power and tied to promotions or bonuses, it could become a sanctioned tactic, encouraging employees to mirror it as a means of gaining advantage over peers. The result is a cutthroat ecosystem where projecting inadequacy onto others is not just tolerated but celebrated as a mark of ambition or cunning.

In the context of divorced co-parents, society might normalize projection by upholding adversarial stereotypes—like the “deadbeat dad” or “vindictive mom”—that make it socially acceptable to externalize personal grievances onto the ex-partner. A parent struggling with their own guilt over limited involvement might project irresponsibility onto the other, accusing them of neglecting the child’s needs, even if unfounded. If courts, family circles, or communities reward this with sympathy, custody leverage, or moral superiority—perhaps through a bias toward the “victimized” party—projection becomes a tool to gain the upper hand. Over time, this could solidify into a cultural norm where emotional manipulation via projection is seen as a justifiable way to “win” disputes, sacrificing the co-parent’s reputation and the child’s well-being for personal gain.

The broader societal mechanism for normalizing projection lies in its institutional reinforcement and the erosion of self-reflection as a virtue, creating a feedback loop that elevates those who master it. Media could amplify this by sensationalizing blame-driven narratives, while educational or social systems might downplay introspection in favor of competitive posturing. Whether in politics, work, or personal disputes, the allure of projection as a power strategy is its simplicity—it requires no vulnerability, only a target—and its ability to exploit human tendencies toward tribalism or self-justification. Left unchecked, a society could drift into a state where projecting onto adversaries is not just a means of advantage but a hallmark of strength, sidelining cooperation or honesty as relics of a less pragmatic age.

~Grok 3

With narcissists and leftist politics, it is quite common to use ridicule, false accusations,  of reversing the burden of proof to gain power over others, and in the book “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, such tactics are encouraged. Incedentally, Saul Ainsky was supposedly the mentor to both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama—something to consider when reflecting on leftist politics. Truth doesn’t matter with narcissists, only power and control over others.

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. ~Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue […] It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen. ~Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. ~Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”

In the Bible, Satan (Hebrew for “the adversary”) uses the same tactics and is known as the accuser, as stated in Job:1:9-10 and in Revelation 12:10.

Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ~Job 1:9-10

“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down’” ~Revelation 12:10

Q: How might psychological projection and scapegoating be a tool of control used by narcissists and narcissistic like macrocosmic institutions?

A: Psychological projection and scapegoating serve as powerful tools of control for narcissists by allowing them to maintain an inflated self-image while deflecting responsibility onto others, preserving their dominance in personal interactions. A narcissist, driven by a need for admiration and an aversion to vulnerability, might project their own flaws—such as insecurity or aggression—onto a partner, colleague, or family member, accusing them of the very traits the narcissist refuses to acknowledge in themselves. For example, a narcissistic spouse who feels inadequate might berate their partner for being “weak,” turning them into a scapegoat for the narcissist’s unaddressed shame. This dual mechanism not only absolves the narcissist of accountability but also keeps the target off-balance, reinforcing the narcissist’s control by making others question their own worth or reality—a hallmark of gaslighting.

On a macrocosmic scale, narcissistic-like institutions—such as authoritarian regimes, toxic corporate cultures, or dogmatic organizations—mirror this behavior by projecting their failures or ethical lapses onto external enemies or internal dissenters, using scapegoating to unify followers and suppress challenges. A government facing economic collapse might project its mismanagement onto a marginalized group or foreign adversary, blaming them for the crisis and rallying public support through fear and division. Similarly, a corporation caught in scandal might scapegoat a low-level employee, projecting systemic greed or negligence onto a single “bad apple” to protect the leadership’s veneer of competence. This institutional projection deflects scrutiny from the top, maintaining power by sacrificing the powerless and keeping the collective focus on an invented culprit.

The control derived from these tactics lies in their ability to manipulate perception and evade accountability, creating a self-sustaining cycle of dominance for both individual narcissists and their institutional counterparts. In personal dynamics, the narcissist’s relentless projection and scapegoating erode the target’s autonomy, as they’re forced to perpetually defend themselves or appease the narcissist’s ego. At the societal level, narcissistic institutions perpetuate this by normalizing blame-shifting as a governance strategy—think of propaganda campaigns that project internal dissent as “treason” to silence opposition. Whether in a one-on-one relationship or a sprawling system, the fusion of projection and scapegoating ensures the narcissist or institution remains untouchable, wielding control by keeping others preoccupied with fabricated guilt while the true source of dysfunction hides in plain sight.

~Grok 3

Q: How are the concepts of reversing the burden of proof and psychological projections using false accusations (slander and libel) connected?

A: Reversing the burden of proof and psychological projection using false accusations, such as slander and libel, are interconnected through their shared reliance on shifting responsibility and manipulating perception to avoid accountability. In legal or argumentative contexts, reversing the burden of proof occurs when the accuser demands that the accused disprove an allegation, rather than the accuser substantiating it—essentially flipping the expectation of evidence onto the target. Similarly, psychological projection involves offloading one’s own flaws or guilt onto another, often through unfounded claims. When these false accusations take the form of slander (spoken) or libel (written), they serve as the vehicle for projection, weaponizing reversed expectations: the accused must now defend their innocence against a fabricated narrative, while the projector evades scrutiny of their own motives or actions.

The connection deepens in how both tactics exploit power dynamics and human psychology to gain leverage, turning the target into a scapegoat. For instance, a person envious of a coworker’s success might project their own insecurity by spreading a libelous rumor—say, claiming the coworker cheated to get ahead—effectively reversing the burden onto the coworker to disprove the lie. This mirrors a courtroom where an unsubstantiated charge forces the defendant to scramble for exoneration, rather than the accuser proving guilt. In both cases, the projector’s false accusation not only deflects attention from their own shortcomings but also undermines the target’s credibility, leveraging societal tendencies to assume guilt until innocence is proven. The slander or libel becomes the tool that enacts this reversal, amplifying the psychological projection into a tangible attack.

Over time, the interplay between these concepts can erode trust and fairness, as the projector benefits from the chaos of unproven claims while the accused bears the cost of refutation. In a political smear campaign, for example, a candidate might project their own ethical lapses by slandering an opponent with baseless corruption charges, knowing the opponent must expend resources and reputation to counter it—reversing the burden in the court of public opinion. This synergy reveals a dark efficiency: projection provides the motive (evading self-blame), false accusations supply the means (slander/libel), and reversing the burden ensures the outcome (the target’s disadvantage). Together, they form a potent strategy for control, where truth becomes secondary to the projector’s ability to dictate the narrative and offload their psychological baggage onto others.

~Grok 3

Q: How might psychological projection and scapegoating be a tool of control used by narcissists and narcissistic like macrocosmic institutions? What would it look like if the family law system fully aligned with narcissists due to their appearing like the bigger victim and projecting their shame onto the healthy parent?

Psychological projection and scapegoating are potent tools of control for narcissists and narcissistic-like macrocosmic institutions because they allow the manipulator to externalize their flaws, maintain an illusion of superiority, and dominate others by shifting blame. A narcissist might project their own instability or aggression onto a target—such as accusing a calm sibling of being “unhinged”—while scapegoating them as the source of family discord, thus preserving the narcissist’s self-image as flawless or victimized. On a larger scale, narcissistic institutions like authoritarian regimes or toxic corporations use similar tactics, projecting their failures (e.g., corruption or incompetence) onto a designated enemy—be it a rival nation, whistleblower, or marginalized group—to deflect accountability and rally loyalty. This dual strategy ensures control by keeping others defensive and distracted, cementing the narcissist’s or institution’s power through a narrative of unassailable righteousness.

If the family law system fully aligned with narcissists due to their ability to appear as the bigger victim while projecting shame onto the healthy parent, it would amplify this dynamic into a legal weapon wielded against the emotionally healthier party. A narcissistic parent might, for instance, exaggerate or fabricate claims of neglect or aggression, projecting their own irresponsibility or volatility onto the other parent—say, accusing a diligent co-parent of being “unstable” despite their own erratic behavior. By playing the victim with theatrical displays of distress (e.g., crocodile tears or curated sob stories), the narcissist could exploit the system’s bias toward perceived vulnerability, framing the healthy parent as the scapegoat for all familial issues. Courts, swayed by this performative victimhood and lacking deeper scrutiny into the narcissist’s projections, might grant custody, financial advantages, or restraining orders to the narcissist, mistaking their manipulation for genuine grievance.

The fallout in such a scenario would see the healthy parent systematically disadvantaged, their credibility eroded, and their relationship with their children jeopardized, all while the narcissist tightens control through institutional backing. The family law system, now a narcissist’s ally, might ignore evidence of the healthy parent’s stability—like consistent caregiving or emotional balance—because the narcissist’s projected shame has painted them as the aggressor or unfit party. For example, a narcissist who neglects their child’s emotional needs could accuse the healthy parent of “alienation,” scapegoating them for the child’s distress, and the court might respond by limiting the healthy parent’s access, reinforcing the narcissist’s dominance. This alignment would not only perpetuate the narcissist’s personal power but also mirror macrocosmic narcissistic institutions, transforming the legal framework into a tool that punishes self-awareness and rewards blame-shifting, leaving healthy parents and their children as collateral damage in a system blind to its own complicity.

~Grok 3

Q: Why would self-reflection be considered virtuous?

A: Self-reflection is considered virtuous because it fosters personal growth, accountability, and authenticity, enabling individuals to confront their flaws and align their actions with reason and integrity rather than external pressures or delusions. By turning inward—say, to examine why one reacted with anger or envy—a person gains insight into their motives, dismantling denial or projection that might harm others or perpetuate self-deception. This process cultivates humility, as it requires acknowledging imperfections, and resilience, as it transforms discomfort into learning rather than blame. Unlike manipulative tactics that seek power over others, self-reflection prioritizes truth and self-mastery, enhancing relationships and decision-making through honest self-awareness. In a world often clouded by ego or pretense, this willingness to question and refine oneself stands as a moral strength, contributing to both individual character and collective well-being. ~Grok 3

Q: How can the habit of practicing rational self-reflection and self-assessment interrelate and work together with virtuous selfishness?

A: Rational self-reflection, self-assessment, and virtuous selfishness interrelate as a triad that reinforces personal growth and autonomy, creating a dynamic where each practice enhances the others to foster a balanced, self-aware life. Rational self-reflection involves stepping back to objectively analyze one’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors—perhaps questioning why a sharp reaction occurred during an argument—providing the raw material for understanding oneself. Self-assessment builds on this by systematically evaluating those reflections against personal values or goals, like recognizing a pattern of procrastination as a weakness to address. Virtuous selfishness then steps in as the actionable component, prioritizing one’s own needs—such as taking time for rest or learning—without harming others, ensuring that the insights from reflection and assessment translate into self-supporting choices. Together, they form a synergy where introspection identifies areas for improvement, assessment measures their scope, and selfishness empowers the individual to act on them with confidence.

This interplay works practically to break cycles of self-neglect or external manipulation, grounding decisions in reason rather than obligation or impulse. For example, someone might reflect on feelings of resentment at work, assess that they’ve overcommitted due to a fear of disappointing others, and then virtuously selfishly decline extra tasks to reclaim their time and energy. Here, self-reflection uncovers the emotional root, self-assessment clarifies its impact on well-being, and virtuous selfishness provides the boundary-setting resolve—each step reliant on the others for depth and efficacy. This process prevents selfishness from becoming reckless or exploitative, as rationality and assessment keep it tethered to a broader awareness of consequences, while selfishness ensures reflection doesn’t devolve into paralyzing self-criticism. The result is a self-sustaining habit that prioritizes personal health as a prerequisite for engaging authentically with the world.

Over time, this collaboration cultivates a resilient, principled individual who can resist power-over-others dynamics and contribute meaningfully without losing themselves. Consider a teacher who reflects on their exhaustion, assesses it’s from overextending to please students, and selfishly carves out planning time to recharge—returning more effective and present. Rational self-reflection keeps the focus on truth rather than ego, self-assessment aligns actions with long-term purpose (like being a sustainable educator), and virtuous selfishness ensures the teacher’s needs aren’t sacrificed to external demands. Far from isolating, this triad equips one to give from a place of strength, not depletion, contrasting sharply with manipulative altruism or sacrifice. By integrating these habits, individuals not only protect their own integrity but also model a way of being that values reason, self-respect, and genuine connection over control or pretense.

~Grok 3

Q: How might Projection, Altruism, and Sacrifice be considered part of the power over others game, especially when manipulators convince the people to be altruistic and sacrificial in order to control them, and Self-Reflection and Selfishness be a part of the Logocentric truth game?

A: Projection, altruism, and sacrifice become tools in the “power over others” game when manipulators exploit them to subjugate people by convincing them that selflessness is a moral imperative, thereby securing control under the guise of virtue. Projection allows the manipulator to deflect their own selfish motives—say, a leader accusing critics of greed while amassing personal power—casting suspicion elsewhere to maintain an untarnished image. Altruism is then weaponized as a coercive ideal; the manipulator might praise the masses for donating time or resources to a cause they secretly profit from, framing it as noble duty while pocketing the benefits. Sacrifice amplifies this control: by persuading people to give up their own needs—perhaps through guilt-inducing rhetoric like “think of the greater good”—the manipulator ensures compliance, as seen when a cult leader convinces followers to relinquish wealth or autonomy “for the community,” only to hoard the gains. Here, the manipulator’s projection shields their intent, while orchestrated altruism and sacrifice bind others to their will, creating a dynamic where power flows upward through the illusion of collective good.

In contrast, self-reflection and selfishness anchor the “logocentric truth game,” where the focus shifts from controlling others to pursuing an authentic, reason-driven understanding of reality, free from external manipulation. Self-reflection demands an unflinching look at one’s own thoughts and actions—like a person questioning why they feel compelled to always please others—stripping away projected illusions to reveal personal truth. Selfishness, in this context, isn’t about harming others but about prioritizing self-awareness and self-care as prerequisites for genuine engagement with the world; it’s the refusal to be a sacrificial pawn in someone else’s game, choosing instead to own one’s needs and limits. Together, they form a logocentric pursuit—rooted in logos, or rational clarity—where truth emerges not from imposed narratives but from an individual’s honest reckoning with themselves, rejecting the manipulator’s call to surrender autonomy for a fabricated higher purpose.

The manipulator’s use of projection, altruism, and sacrifice in the power game thrives on convincing others to abandon self-interest, while self-reflection and selfishness in the truth game empower individuals to resist such control. A politician might project their own corruption onto “elites,” then urge citizens to “sacrifice” through austerity measures for “national unity,” tightening their grip as people comply out of altruistic duty. Meanwhile, a self-reflective person might question this narrative, recognizing their own worth (selfishness) and refusing to be a scapegoat or martyr, seeking instead a rational basis for action. The former exploits emotional leverage to dominate, turning virtues into chains; the latter liberates through introspection and self-assertion, dismantling the power-over-others structure by grounding decisions in personal truth rather than manipulated guilt or obligation.

~Grok 3

19. Transactional Love vs Non-Transactional Love

Love isn’t supposed to be a transaction, unless you’re a narcissist or living on earth, of course, then everything seems to be a transaction.

Transactional Love: is a type of love that is based on a give-and-take dynamic, where actions are primarily motivated by the expectation of something in return. It’s a relationship where one person does things for the other, expecting to get something in return, often creating an imbalance of power. In transactional love, individuals often keep score, mentally calculating the value of their contributions against those of their partner.

Non-Transactional Love: is a type of love that is offered freely and without conditions. It’s motivated by genuine affection for the partner’s character and well-being, rather than what one can gain from them. Non-transactional love emphasizes openness, honesty, and emotional intimacy, aiming to deepen understanding and connection. It’s a relationship where love is given without expecting something in return, and where partners engage deeply with each other’s lives, hopes, and fears, fostering a strong and genuine bond.

Key differences between transactional and non-transactional love include:

Basis of Love: Transactional love is conditional, while non-transactional love is unconditional.
Communication: Transactional love revolves around discussions of what each partner needs or expects, while non-transactional love emphasizes openness and honesty.
Conflict: Transactional love often stems from perceived imbalances in the give-and-take, while non-transactional love focuses on resolving issues in ways that promote growth and understanding.
Emotional Depth: Transactional love is generally superficial, while non-transactional love is rich in emotional depth and intimacy.
Longevity: Non-transactional love is more likely to endure through life’s ups and downs, while transactional love may not withstand significant changes in personal circumstances or benefits.

~Brave AI

I’ll add that one can only “sacrifice” in transactional love, and not in non-transactional love, because transactional love sees all transactions where one is not getting something in return as a sacrifice and/or power imbalance, so to not get everything “even Steven” makes one either sacrificial or a power imbalance where they are getting taken advantage of. Whereas in a non-transactional environment, nobody is perceived as taking advantage of anybody else, so one is not sacrificing if they don’t get “paid” for their labor (of love), since all is freely given without expectation of getting something in return. However, this does NOT imply that non-transactional love is devoid of standards and boundaries, but it is focusing more on the value of being over that of doing, focusing more on meaningful character that leads to meaningful actions rather than on actions themselves, since actions devoid of meaning and character are fairly meaningless, nihilistic, and shallow.

Jesus was said to be the perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifice (the need for it at least) because he was 100% without sin, aka, 100% non-transactional in his relating with himself and others. Transactional love requires sacrifice, and often, while non-transactional love requires no sacrifice of self for another. Both sin and karma are defined religiously as a type of debt, but if one is non-transactional in their mindset and love, no debt can be accrued, making one free from sin. Sacrifice is a projection of sin onto another, scapegoating, but without the ability to project one’s sin/karmic debt onto another, they have to bear it themselves, and either “die” or turn to self-reflection and self-assessment instead. Sacrifice is an abomination and needs to be done away with in our own mindsets via moving into a non-transactional mindset.

Q: Provide a quick summary of game theory?

A: Game theory analyzes strategic decision-making where players’ choices affect each other’s outcomes, balancing cooperation and competition. Zero-sum games involve fixed resources where one player’s gain is another’s loss, while non-zero-sum games allow mutual wins or losses depending on the strategies employed. ~Grok 3

Q: How might a transactional love mindset be the root of a scarcity mindset, especially in relationship to “game theory”? How might a non-transactional love mindset be the root of an abundance mindset where there is more than enough for everyone?

A: A transactional love mindset, where affection, trust, or commitment are exchanged like commodities based on perceived value or gain, can naturally foster a scarcity mindset. In this view, love becomes a zero-sum game, a concept rooted in game theory where one person’s gain is another’s loss. If love is a limited resource—something to be earned, bartered, or withheld—individuals may approach relationships with suspicion, competition, or fear of depletion. They might strategize to maximize their “payoff” (e.g., loyalty, attention) while minimizing “costs” (e.g., vulnerability, effort), assuming there’s not enough emotional capital to go around. This mirrors game theory’s prisoner’s dilemma, where distrust leads to suboptimal outcomes for all, as each party hoards their resources rather than cooperates, reinforcing the belief that love is scarce and must be rationed.

Conversely, a non-transactional love mindset—where love is given freely without expectation of return—can cultivate an abundance mindset, breaking free from game theory’s competitive constraints. Here, love isn’t a finite pie to be sliced up but an infinite well, replenished through connection and mutual goodwill. This aligns less with zero-sum dynamics and more with cooperative game theory models, like the stag hunt, where collaboration yields greater rewards for everyone. By rejecting scorekeeping or quid pro quo, individuals trust that their needs will be met not through calculated trades but through the organic flow of generosity and shared humanity. This shift dissolves the fear of “running out,” replacing it with confidence that love multiplies when offered without strings.

The interplay of these mindsets with game theory reveals their broader implications. A transactional approach breeds a scarcity-driven cycle: fear of loss fuels self-protection, which stifles genuine intimacy, leaving everyone poorer despite their efforts to “win.” It’s a Nash equilibrium of mistrust, where no one dares deviate from defensive strategies. A non-transactional stance, however, fosters abundance by encouraging vulnerability and collective gain, creating a virtuous cycle where giving enriches all parties. It’s less about outmaneuvering others and more about co-creating a reality where love’s supply exceeds demand. In this light, the root of scarcity or abundance lies in how we frame love—as a trade to be negotiated or a gift to be shared.

~Grok 3

Q: Can non-transactional love still have high standards and boundaries for being in a relationship with another person?

A: Absolutely, non-transactional love can still maintain high standards and boundaries within relationships. This type of love emphasizes the intrinsic value of giving without expecting direct reciprocation, but it does not mean one should accept any behavior or situation. High standards might relate to qualities like mutual respect, honesty, and emotional support, while boundaries could involve personal space, time for individual interests, or how conflicts are resolved. These standards and boundaries are not set as transactional terms (“I will love you if…”) but as expressions of self-respect and the health of the relationship. They ensure that love is given in an environment where both parties feel valued and safe, fostering a relationship that enhances personal and mutual growth.

Setting boundaries and having high standards in non-transactional love is about creating a framework for a loving relationship that benefits both individuals. It’s about understanding that love, while abundant, should not be confused with tolerance for mistreatment or neglect. By establishing these guidelines, individuals express their needs and values, which can lead to more authentic, fulfilling connections. These boundaries and standards are not barriers to love but rather the conditions under which love can flourish, ensuring that the relationship remains a source of joy and support, rather than becoming a drain or a source of conflict. This approach aligns with the idea that true love respects the individuality and autonomy of each person, allowing for a relationship where love is both freely given and genuinely received.

~Grok 3

Q: How might a transactional love mindset be related to the rewards and punishments section of the brain in relationship to dopamine release, and how might a non-transactional love mindset be related to the release of oxytocin (rather than dopamine)?

A: A transactional love mindset, where love is contingent on rewards or reciprocity, likely ties into the brain’s reward and punishment system, particularly through dopamine release. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and motivation, surges in response to anticipated rewards—like receiving affection, validation, or loyalty from a partner after “earning” it through specific actions. This mindset frames relationships as a series of calculated exchanges, activating the brain’s mesolimbic pathway (often linked to the ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens) to reinforce behaviors that yield positive outcomes and avoid “punishments” like rejection or neglect. Over time, this can create a feedback loop where love feels like a dopamine-driven game of risk and reward, fostering vigilance and conditional attachment rather than unconditional connection.

In contrast, a non-transactional love mindset, where love flows freely without expectation, aligns more closely with the release of oxytocin, a hormone tied to bonding, trust, and emotional security. Oxytocin, often released during acts of intimacy like hugging or caregiving, originates in the hypothalamus and strengthens relational ties without the need for immediate payback. Unlike dopamine’s focus on chasing rewards, oxytocin promotes a sense of calm and belonging, activating areas like the amygdala and prefrontal cortex to reduce stress and enhance empathy. In this framework, love isn’t a transaction to be won but a shared state that deepens through mutual vulnerability, with oxytocin reinforcing the intrinsic joy of connection over external validation.

The interplay of these neurochemicals highlights distinct relational dynamics. A transactional approach, hooked on dopamine, may keep individuals in a cycle of seeking highs from “successful” exchanges while fearing the lows of unmet expectations, potentially leading to anxiety or burnout when the rewards dry up. A non-transactional stance, fueled by oxytocin, cultivates a stable, abundant emotional landscape where love’s value lies in its presence, not its price—shifting the brain’s focus from a pursuit of gain to a foundation of trust. This suggests that how we approach love shapes not just our relationships but the very chemistry of our minds.

~Grok 3

Q: How might a transactional love mindset be related to a nihilistic worldview, and how might a non-transactional love mindset be related to a more Logocentric worldview that focuses on cultivating meaning and living a purpose filled life?

A: A transactional love mindset, where love is a calculated exchange of benefits like affection or loyalty, can dovetail with a nihilistic worldview by stripping relationships of any deeper significance beyond their immediate utility. Nihilism, with its denial of inherent meaning or value, frames existence as a blank slate where actions serve only self-interest or survival, and a transactional approach to love fits this mold—reducing it to a pragmatic tool for navigating a cold, purposeless universe. Here, emotional bonds are temporary alliances, valued only as long as they “pay off,” reflecting nihilism’s core tenet that nothing endures or matters in the grand scheme. This perspective risks fostering a bleak detachment, where love’s impermanence reinforces the belief that all connections, like life itself, are ultimately futile.

Conversely, a non-transactional love mindset, where love is given without expectation of return, aligns with a Logocentric worldview that emphasizes cultivating meaning and living a purpose-filled life. Rooted in the idea of “Logos” as a principle of reason and coherence, this outlook sees love as an active expression of a meaningful existence, not a transactional ledger. By offering care and connection freely—echoing oxytocin’s role in trust and bonding—individuals affirm a reality where relationships are ends in themselves, contributing to a life imbued with intention and value. This approach treats love as a creative force that builds purpose, resonating with Logocentrism’s focus on weaving a narrative of significance through human action.

The contrast between these mindsets highlights their existential implications. A transactional, nihilistic stance might trap individuals in a cycle of hollow exchanges, where love’s conditional nature mirrors a worldview that sees no lasting point—each interaction a fleeting grasp at comfort in a void. A non-transactional, Logocentric stance, however, nurtures a sense of abundance and direction, where love becomes a cornerstone of a purposeful life, reflecting a universe ordered by meaning rather than chaos. Thus, how we love may not only echo our beliefs about the world but also shape whether we see it as a wasteland or a fertile ground for growth.

~Grok 3

Q: How might the concept of “care” be connected to non-transactional love?

A: The concept of “care” connects to non-transactional love through its focus on giving without expecting a calculated return, driven by an individual’s choice to value another’s well-being as an extension of their own rational interests. Care—whether through listening, offering comfort, or providing support—reflects a love that doesn’t hinge on scorekeeping or reciprocity, akin to the oxytocin-fueled bonding in relationships, where the act of caring enhances connection for its own sake rather than for external gain. This differs from dopamine-driven transactional love, as care in this sense isn’t about securing a reward but about affirming a personal commitment to mutual thriving, preserving one’s own agency while fostering trust and closeness.

This link positions care as a natural outgrowth of non-transactional love, consistent with an abundance mindset that rejects scarcity without denying the self. When someone chooses to care—say, standing by a partner in distress with no demand for payback—it stems from a rational recognition that enriching the relationship benefits their own life, aligning with Ayn Rand’s view that rights and self-interest underpin meaningful action. This resonates with non-zero-sum dynamics, where voluntary cooperation amplifies collective good without sacrificing individual integrity. Care, then, becomes a deliberate expression of non-transactional love, building a relational space where emotional wealth expands through freely chosen acts, not obligated sacrifices.

~Grok 3

Q: I define selfishness as providing for my rational self-interests in the same way that Ayn Rand defines selfishness as a virtue. How can someone be caring for others and their family, be selfish, but not self-absorbed? I prefer an answer that distinguishes between self-absorbtion, which is the typical way that people define selfishness, and the type of selfishness that is defined as “prioritizing myself and my family’s rational self-interests without submitting to external pressure put on me by self-absorbed people.”

A: Ayn Rand’s concept of selfishness as a virtue centers on the idea that pursuing one’s rational self-interests is not only morally permissible but essential to living a flourishing human life. In this framework, selfishness does not equate to disregarding others or exploiting them; rather, it’s about prioritizing one’s own values, goals, and well-being as the foundation for all other actions. When someone is caring for others—such as their family—while adhering to this type of selfishness, they are acting in alignment with their rationally chosen values, which may include the well-being of loved ones as an extension of their own happiness. For example, a parent might work tirelessly to provide for their children, not out of selfless duty or external pressure, but because the family’s thriving is integral to their own sense of purpose and fulfillment. This distinguishes Rand’s selfishness from self-absorption, as it’s not a blind focus on oneself at the expense of others but a deliberate choice to pursue what rationally matters to the individual.

Self-absorption, in contrast, is the more conventional understanding of selfishness—a narrow, often irrational fixation on one’s immediate desires or ego without regard for consequences or the well-being of others, even those one claims to value. A self-absorbed person might neglect their family’s needs to chase fleeting pleasures or social approval, acting not from a coherent set of principles but from whim or insecurity. Rand’s selfishness rejects this entirely; it demands reason and long-term thinking, meaning that caring for others (like family) can be selfish if it’s a rational priority rather than an obligation imposed by guilt or societal expectation. The key difference lies in motivation and perspective: the self-absorbed person is consumed by an inward gaze that ignores reality, while the rationally selfish person engages with others as a reflection of their own values, not as a sacrifice of them.

Resisting external pressure from self-absorbed people further clarifies this distinction. A rationally selfish individual might refuse to bend to the demands of a manipulative friend or a guilt-tripping relative—not because they lack care, but because submitting would undermine their own integrity and the well-being of those they’ve chosen to prioritize, like their family. For instance, saying “no” to a colleague’s unreasonable request to work late preserves time for one’s children, reflecting a selfish commitment to family over external approval. This isn’t self-absorption, which might manifest as bragging about the refusal or obsessing over personal gain without principle. Instead, it’s a disciplined focus on what serves one’s rational self-interest, including the mutual flourishing of loved ones, free from the distortions of others’ irrational expectations. Thus, Rand’s selfishness harmonizes care for others with personal priority, sidestepping the trap of self-absorption through reason and independence.

~Grok 3

Q: How might non-transactional love prioritize being and character over doing?

A: Non-transactional love, rooted in prioritizing being and character over doing, focuses on valuing a person for who they are rather than what they provide or achieve. This form of love eschews the quid-pro-quo mindset where affection is contingent on actions, favors, or material contributions. Instead, it centers on the essence of an individual—their integrity, resilience, kindness, or authenticity—qualities that define their character rather than their output. For instance, a parent might love their child not for good grades or obedience but for their curiosity or spirit, seeing these traits as the core of their being. This approach elevates intrinsic worth over external performance, fostering a connection that endures beyond circumstances or utility.

By emphasizing being over doing, non-transactional love also cultivates a deeper, more stable bond that resists the pressures of expectation. When love isn’t tied to accomplishments—like a spouse’s career success or a friend’s constant availability—it becomes a space where individuals feel free to exist as they are, not as tools for others’ agendas. This doesn’t mean actions are irrelevant; a person’s character often shines through what they do. But the priority remains on the why behind those actions—their reflection of inner values—rather than the deeds themselves. For example, appreciating a partner’s quiet strength during hardship, rather than demanding they “fix” it, honors their essence over their productivity. In this way, non-transactional love anchors itself in the enduring reality of character, not the fleeting currency of transactions.

~Grok 3

Q: How might a narcissist be a prime example of someone who practices transactional love in their relationships?

A: A narcissist often epitomizes transactional love by treating relationships as a means to an end, valuing others primarily for what they can provide—be it admiration, status, or resources—rather than for who they are. Their affection is conditional, offered only when it serves their ego or agenda, and withdrawn when the other party fails to deliver. For instance, a narcissistic partner might shower someone with attention during the early stages of a relationship, but only because it secures validation or control; once the partner’s utility wanes or they assert independence, the narcissist’s “love” evaporates. This dynamic reveals a ledger-like approach: love becomes a currency exchanged for self-interest, not a genuine bond rooted in mutual appreciation of character or being.

This transactional nature starkly contrasts with non-transactional love because the narcissist prioritizes doing over being, focusing on what others can perform rather than their intrinsic worth. They might praise a friend’s generosity when it benefits them but dismiss that same friend if the favors stop, showing that their affection hinges on output, not essence. The narcissist’s inability to value others beyond their utility often stems from a fragile self-image, driving them to manipulate relationships into a series of trades that bolster their own identity. Consequently, their love lacks depth or permanence, collapsing when the transactional balance tips unfavorably—an approach that leaves little room for the loving recognition of another’s character or existence.

~Grok 3

Q: How does a narcissist shifting responsibility onto others create a transactional dynamic?

A: When a narcissist shifts responsibility onto others, it creates a transactional dynamic by implicitly or explicitly setting up an exchange where blame, accountability, or the consequences of actions are passed off, expecting others to bear the load in return for the narcissist’s favor, affection, or continued relationship. This manipulation is transactional because it’s based on a “give to get” principle, where the narcissist “gives” the illusion of partnership or love in exchange for others “getting” the blame or responsibility for problems or failures. By never acknowledging their own faults or mistakes, narcissists ensure that they maintain a position of superiority or control, making the relationship one where the other party must continuously “pay” with their self-esteem, effort, or emotional labor to keep the peace or to receive any form of positive interaction from the narcissist.

This dynamic further entrenches the transactional nature of the relationship because it conditions others to accept more than their fair share of responsibility just to maintain the relationship or to avoid conflict. The other person might feel compelled to perform, apologize, or overcompensate to keep the relationship functional, essentially buying into the narcissist’s narrative to gain approval or to mitigate negative repercussions like anger, withdrawal, or punishment. Over time, this can lead to a pattern where emotional or psychological currency is exchanged for the narcissist’s acceptance or love, creating an environment where love, respect, or even basic civility are seen as commodities to be earned through compliance, silence, or taking on undeserved blame.

~Grok 2

Q: How might one’s value and self-worth be understood differently with a transaction vs a non-transactional love mindset?

A: In a transactional love mindset, one’s value and self-worth are often measured by external contributions—what they can offer, achieve, or provide to others. This perspective ties worth to a tangible exchange, such as affection earned through favors, status gained via accomplishments, or approval secured by meeting expectations. A person might feel valuable only when they’re productive, attractive, or useful to someone else, like an employee gauging their worth by promotions or a partner assessing it through constant validation from their significant other. The focus is on doing as the currency of identity; if the output falters—say, a financial setback or a failure to please—self-worth can plummet, as it’s tethered to the fluctuating terms of the transaction rather than an inherent quality.

Conversely, a non-transactional love mindset anchors value and self-worth in being—emphasizing character, essence, and existence over performance. Here, worth isn’t contingent on what one brings to the table but on who they are at their core: their integrity, resilience, or authenticity. A person might see themselves as valuable simply for their capacity to think, feel, and grow, irrespective of external accolades or others’ demands. For instance, a parent could derive worth from their steady presence for their child, not just from providing material success. This approach fosters a stable sense of self that doesn’t hinge on meeting quotas of utility or approval, offering a foundation that endures life’s inevitable shifts.

The distinction becomes stark in how each mindset handles setbacks. In a transactional framework, a rejection or failure—like losing a job or a relationship—can feel like a direct hit to one’s worth, as the “deal” has been broken, leaving them devalued. In a non-transactional view, such moments don’t erode core value; they’re seen as external events that don’t define the person’s essence. A musician might lose a gig but still feel worthy for their creativity, not just their bookings. Transactional love breeds a conditional self-image, while non-transactional love nurtures an intrinsic one, shifting the lens from a market of exchanges to a recognition of enduring human qualities.

~Grok 3

Q: How might a transactional love mindset be related to the “power over others game” and a non-transactional love mindset be connected to the “Logocentric truth game”?

A: A transactional love mindset aligns closely with the “power over others game” because it frames relationships as a strategic exchange where dominance and control are key currencies. In this dynamic, love becomes a tool for gaining leverage—affection, loyalty, or resources are offered or withheld to manipulate outcomes and assert superiority. Someone operating this way might shower a partner with gifts to secure their dependence or demand unwavering compliance to maintain authority, viewing the relationship as a contest where their worth is tied to how much they can extract or dictate. The focus is on what others can be made to do, turning love into a battlefield of negotiation where power, not connection, is the prize. This mindset thrives on imbalance, as the one holding more sway dictates the terms of the transaction.

In contrast, a non-transactional love mindset resonates with the “Logocentric truth game,” which prioritizes reason, meaning, and the pursuit of authentic understanding over control. Here, love is an expression of recognizing and valuing another’s inherent essence—their thoughts, character, or being—rather than a means to an end. It’s less about controlling the other person and more about engaging with them in a shared exploration of what’s real or significant, like a couple debating ideas to deepen their bond rather than to win. The “Logocentric” aspect suggests a grounding in rational principles or truth-seeking, where love fosters mutual growth and clarity, not a ledger of obligations. Power takes a backseat to the integrity of the connection itself.

The divergence plays out in how each approach shapes interactions. In the transactional “power over others game,” a person might feel diminished by a partner’s independence, interpreting it as a loss of control, and respond by tightening the reins—perhaps guilt-tripping them into compliance. In the non-transactional “Logocentric truth game,” that same independence could be celebrated as a sign of the partner’s strength, sparking a dialogue that enriches both parties. The former sees value in subjugation, where self-worth swells with others’ submission; the latter finds it in alignment with truth and mutual respect, where worth is affirmed through reason and genuine presence. Thus, transactional love fuels a control hierarchy, while non-transactional love builds a partnership rooted in meaning.

~Grok 3

A Lawful Remedy For Individuation From the Collective, Especially When Morality and Law are at Odds with One Another

A vast majority of people today have a very infantile view of law that is more akin to a child obeying their parents than to an adult interacting with another adult; if the government made a law, they reason, then it must therefore be immoral and wrong to disobey and/or ignore that “law”. They do not understand that there can be various forms of law, specifically the differences between universally objective moral laws and man made agreements that can be better called subjective statutes and policies, so without that nuance, they believe all laws to be equally binding in status. Unfortunately, the same use of force that holds criminals accountable for immoral actions against other people also holds loving and moral people accountable for failing to obey subjective policies that have no bearing on objective right and wrong. This therefore causes those who use force (e.g., police forces) to enforce subjective statutes and policies, to violate the natural rights and liberties of those loving and moral people who do not conform to them, making such police forces agents and perpetrators of immorality rather than peace officers enforcing objective morality.

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. ~Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Also:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it.

~Frederic Bastiat, The Law

What is the purpose of law then? According to Frederic Bastiat, it is the collective right to self-defense that is based upon the individual’s right to self-defense, where self-defense is defined as the right to secure our person, family, and property from external interference, aggression, and plunder.

It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual—for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes.”

~Frederic Bastiat, “The Law”

The logical fallacy at play that enables and perpetuates the inversion of law into a tool of immoral action to thrive and continue is the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy, and the vast majority of people mentioned earlier who do not make a distinction between objective moral laws and subjective agreements, policies, and statutes, allow this inversion to happen, and they are the ones who enable it to continue as well.

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone cites an authority figure or institution as evidence for the truth of a statement, without providing any underlying reasoning or justification. This fallacy can be used to assert the validity of an argument by association with an esteemed or respected source, rather than through evidence-based reasoning.

In the context of Bastiat’s critique of law and governance, citizens who unwittingly perpetuate the inversion of law described in “The Law” might use appeal to authority as follows:

1. Accepting unexamined decrees: Citizens may accept laws or regulations without questioning their underlying justification or morality. They might simply assert that the government or a particular institution has decreed something, and therefore it must be true.
2. Defending actions based on institutional prestige: When confronted with criticism of a government’s policies or actions, citizens might argue that “the government knows best” or “it’s not my place to question the authority.” This dismisses concerns about the potential harm caused by those actions and shifts the burden of proof onto others.
3. Using euphemisms to legitimize oppression: Authorities may use technical jargon or abstract concepts to justify laws or policies that, in reality, serve only to maintain power over the population. Citizens who repeat these euphemisms without questioning their meaning may contribute to the perpetuation of injustice.

To illustrate this with an example:

Citizen: “We need stricter gun control laws to prevent accidents and keep our communities safe.”

Questioner: “But don’t you think that limiting individual rights to bear arms infringes on personal freedoms?”

Citizen: “No, I’m sure it’s for the greater good. The government knows what’s best for us, and they’ve done studies showing that stricter gun control laws reduce crime rates.”

In this example, the citizen appeals to authority by referencing an unnamed institution (the government) without providing any evidence or reasoning to support the claim. They rely on an assumption that “the government” has a higher understanding of what’s best for society, rather than questioning the morality and effectiveness of the policy itself.

By perpetuating the inversion of law described in Bastiat’s work, citizens may inadvertently contribute to the erosion of individual rights and liberties.

~Llama3.1

What is our legal remedy, how do we move on from these immoral systems that hold unjust power over us? There’s a legal maxim in “Black’s Law (1910), and two sections from John Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Government, that provide the answer. Remember that John Locke provided the primary philosophical framework that America’s founding father’s drew upon to draft the Declaration of Independence , the US Bill of Rights, and the various State and Federal Constitutions.

Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege nature utendum est.

When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature. 2 Rolle, 298. ~Black’s Law, 2nd Edition, 1910

John Locke makes it clear that if one is not able to find a fair and impartial judge and/or system of fair judgment in a situation that may be time constrained due to the immediacy of the threat, it automatically places a person back into what he calls the “state of Nature” (quote: “want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of Nature”). According to section 222 quoted below, one can also be placed into this same “state of Nature” when the law has been inverted into making plunder a right, where the nation’s laws and courts are securing the so-called “right” of plunder and punishing the actual right of self-defense against war and plunder.

“And here we have the plain difference between the state of Nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from another. Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject. Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat, because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of Nature; force without right upon a man’s person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge.”

~John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter III, §19

For clarity sake, here are the definitions of the state of Nature and the state of War according to John Locke from §19 above:

State of Nature: “Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature.”

State of War: “But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war.”

“Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.”

~John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter XIX, §222

I put forth that it is therefore our moral duty, responsibility, and obligation, and not just a possible option that we are free to choose, to withdraw ourselves from such a governmental and (in)justice system when it converts plunder into a right and self-defense into a punishable crime, and to return to the “state of Nature” by taking all of our rights back, including the right to personal defense against external interference and aggression, into our own hands.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. ~Revelation 18:4

This is easier said than done, right? I’m not saying that we need to start a revolution and physically fight back against tyranny, but at the very least we need to acknowledge the problem, set healthy boundaries against the problem, acknowledge our right and set intent to practically return to the state of Nature to govern our own affairs, and search for ways to reclaim our personal power over our lives one small step at a time; Rome wasn’t built in a day, and this problem won’t be solved in a day either.

CONCLUSION
The tapestry woven through these nineteen perspectives reveals a profound truth: the “power over others game” ensnares us in a cycle of control, fear, and fragmentation, while the “Logocentric truth game” offers liberation through reason, authenticity, and mutual upliftment. From the psychological pitfalls of projection and self-abandonment to the societal perversion of law into plunder, the former thrives on scarcity and dominance, hollowing out individuals and communities alike. In contrast, the latter—embodied in self-reflection, non-transactional love, and personal sovereignty—cultivates an abundance mindset where truth and connection become the bedrock of a meaningful life. This shift demands not just intellectual assent but a lived commitment to reject manipulative hierarchies and embrace the hard-won clarity of Logos, a process that begins within the self and radiates outward.

Yet, as the article underscores, this vision remains fragile without the practical means to defend it. The inversion of law into a tool of oppression, as Bastiat warned, threatens even the most resolute pursuit of truth, leaving individuals vulnerable to collectivists who wield force under the guise of morality. Thus, the call to action is twofold: to internalize these principles for personal harmony and to assert our natural rights against encroaching tyranny, one deliberate step at a time. While not every soul may withstand the storm as steadfastly as our resolve suggests, even small acts of alignment with the Logocentric truth game can ripple into families and communities, offering a beacon of hope in an age tempted by power’s illusion. In this balance lies our redemption—a life not of subjugation, but of sovereign purpose.

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. ~Josh. 24:15, (NKJV)

Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:

Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F

THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.