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 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.

The articles Freedom, Safety, & Natural Law and When Morality and Law Are Opposed to One Another were both written as a result of some of the challenges and insights that we gained from the collision process, which overlap well with this article.

In a previous article titled The Potential False Dilemma of Service to Self (STS) vs Service to Others (STO), I explored the possibility that the two concepts of service to self and service to others were too easy to misunderstand, and could lead to erroneous conclusion that selfishness was evil and that altruism was good and moral. In that article, I explained how selfishness was actually a moral trait and that altruism was an evil trait. You can also look more into Ayn Rand’s understanding of selfishness and altruism in the following article HERE, and check out her book called “The Virtue of Selfishness” (affiliate link). In another article titled Wanting, Having, and the Two Games, I discussed the topic of the finite competitive game in contrast to the infinite progression game, and how that relates to the opposing mindsets of “wanting vs having” in respect to wanting or having enough resources, especially love and time.

Also, back in 2015 I wrote an article called The Two Versions of Unity, where I discuss the 3rd density version of unity that is essentially conformity consciousness in contrast to the 5th density version of unity that is called unity consciousness, where conformity consciousness is all about conforming to egocentric “me vs you” and sociocentric “us vs them” thinking, and Michael Topper’s discussion on STS and STO ways of achieving their particular form of unity (Team Dark’s eating units of consciousness via free will decisions vs Team Neutral’s integrating units of consciousness via free will decisions). Lastly, you may want to read my last major article How to Defeat Power-Directed Systems of Thought, as I started to better understand and reduce the primary conflict between team dark/false light vs team neutral down to the power over others game and the Logocentric truth game there.

In this article, I will be expounding on these four articles by reducing the concepts of service to self (STS), service to others (STO), the finite game, the infinite game, eating consciousness, and integrating consciousness into two easier to understand and clearer categories, categories that are difficult to confuse with selfishness and altruism—namely the power over others game and the Logocentric truth game. I will start with a table that compares the traits of the two games, and then go through point by point in comparing the differences between them (note: the bullet points are not listed in any particular order).

*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 individual with an *internal locus of control* believes that their actions, thoughts, and decisions shape their life outcomes. They see challenges as opportunities to learn and grow, and they often attribute their successes or failures to personal effort, skills, or choices. Internal locus individuals are proactive in creating change and have a strong sense of agency.

On the other hand, an individual with an *external locus of control* tends to believe that external factors, such as luck, fate, circumstances, or the actions of others, determine their life outcomes rather than their own efforts and decisions. They might feel powerless over situations they can’t directly influence and may blame themselves for negative events without considering other contributing factors. External locus individuals may perceive challenges as insurmountable barriers that are beyond their control.

In summary, the internal locus is associated with a sense of personal responsibility, optimism, resilience, and self-motivation, while the external locus is linked to helplessness, passivity, and potentially pessimism about one’s ability to change circumstances.

~Qwen2 AI Chatbot

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

A: The term “locus of control” is often referred to as the “locus of identity” because it refers to how individuals perceive their own role and power in relation to the environment they live in. This concept encapsulates an individual’s belief about whether external forces (environment, fate, luck) or internal factors (personal choices, willpower) are more influential in shaping their life outcomes.

When talking about “locus of identity,” you’re essentially discussing how someone understands themselves and their relationship to the world around them through this lens. Individuals with an internal locus of control see a strong alignment between their actions and their outcomes, which can contribute to a consistent and coherent sense of self or identity. They believe that they have control over their decisions and that those decisions define who they are.

Conversely, individuals with an external locus of control may not feel as much personal agency in defining their path through life. Their perception of the world might be shaped more by external events or forces than by their own choices, potentially impacting how they view themselves and their role within society.

Therefore, referring to “locus of identity” highlights that one’s beliefs about where responsibility lies (internal vs. external) can deeply influence their self-concept and how they navigate through life experiences.

~Qwen2 AI Chatbot

Self-Direction:

“Self-directedness is a personality trait held by someone with characteristic self-determination, that is, the ability to regulate and adapt behavior to the demands of a situation in order to achieve personally chosen goals and values.

It is one of the “character” dimensions in Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI). Cloninger described it as “willpower”—”a metaphorical abstract concept to describe the extent to which a person identifies the imaginal self as an integrated, purposeful whole individual, rather than a disorganized set of reactive impulses.” Cloninger’s research found that low self-directedness is a major common feature of personality disorders generally.

Self-directedness is conceptually related to locus of control. That is, low self-directedness is associated with external locus of control, whereas high self-directedness is associated with internal locus of control.

In the five factor model of personality, self-directedness has a strong inverse association with neuroticism and a strong positive association with conscientiousness.”

~Wikipedia

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 and individualism represent two fundamental paradigms regarding how societies organize and prioritize the relationship between individuals and the group. Collectivism places the group’s needs, goals, and well-being above those of the individual, fostering a culture where identity, actions, and decisions are often shaped by collective norms, roles, or family expectations. In collectivist societies, there is a strong emphasis on interdependence, harmony, and the welfare of the community, where individual achievements are often seen as contributions to the group’s success.

Individualism, in contrast, values personal freedom, self-reliance, and the pursuit of individual goals and happiness. It encourages an environment where personal identity, achievements, and choices are primarily defined by oneself rather than by one’s social group. Individualistic cultures celebrate autonomy, personal initiative, and the idea that each person is the architect of their own life, focusing less on conformity to group norms and more on personal growth and expression.

The link between collectivism and the “power over others game” can be seen through the lens of how power dynamics are managed within a group-centric culture. Collectivism can sometimes lead to scenarios where power is centralized in the hands of those who define or enforce group norms, potentially leading to a “game” where control is exerted to maintain order, unity, or the collective’s agenda at the expense of individual autonomy. This might involve hierarchical structures where leaders or dominant groups use their influence to dictate behaviors, suppress dissent, or ensure the group’s survival, which can foster an externalized locus of control where individuals see their lives as being shaped more by external forces or societal expectations rather than by personal agency.

Conversely, individualism aligns with the “logocentric truth game,” where the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and personal authenticity is central. This game is played on the battleground of ideas, where individuals use their autonomy to explore, question, and innovate, often leading to personal and societal advancements. Individualism fosters an internalized locus of control/identity, where individuals perceive themselves as the primary agents of their destiny, motivated by personal values, goals, and the quest for self-understanding. Here, the truth is not just inherited from the collective but is something each person seeks, debates, and constructs, which can foster a society rich in diverse perspectives but also requires everyone respects the individual rights of others to maintain harmonious interactions within the greater societal whole.

~Grok2 AI

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 “the two games”, the competitive game and the infinite game, as developed by author Simon Sinek.

A: In Simon Sinek’s book “The Infinite Game,” he delineates two distinct approaches to life and business: the Finite Game and the Infinite Game. The Finite Game is characterized by clear, concrete objectives where the end goal is to win. These games have set rules, a known number of players, and a definitive endpoint where one or more players are declared winners while others lose. In business, this translates to strategies aimed at outperforming competitors in short-term metrics like market share or profit margins. The mindset here is competitive, often leading to aggressive tactics and a focus on immediate gains, which might not always consider the long-term health or ethical implications for the organization or society.

Conversely, the Infinite Game has no end and no fixed rules; the goal isn’t to win but to keep playing. Success in an infinite game is measured by the ability to sustain, adapt, and evolve. Here, businesses focus on vision, values, and a long-term perspective, prioritizing sustainability over immediate victory. Leaders adopting this mindset invest in employee development, innovation, and cultural integrity, understanding that the true measure of success is how well their organization can continue to exist and thrive through changing times. This approach is less about competition against others and more about self-improvement and contributing positively to the broader ecosystem.

The fundamental contrast between these games lies in their objectives and strategies. Finite games encourage a win-at-all-costs mentality, which can lead to short-term thinking and potentially detrimental decisions for the company’s future. Infinite games, however, promote a philosophy of longevity, where the focus is on building a legacy that can endure. Sinek argues that many of today’s organizational challenges stem from applying finite game thinking to what is inherently an infinite game scenario, suggesting that embracing an infinite game approach can lead to more sustainable success, fostering environments where innovation, trust, and resilience are paramount.

~Grok2 AI

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 dichotomy fallacy, also known as the false dilemma or either/or fallacy, occurs when an argument presents only two options or outcomes as if they are the only possibilities, when in reality, there might be other alternatives or a spectrum of possibilities between the two extremes. This fallacy oversimplifies complex issues by forcing a choice between what is often portrayed as mutually exclusive options, ignoring the nuanced or middle ground that could exist. ~Grok2 AI

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, the way a narcissist “consumes” the energy of their prey in an enmeshed manner is characterized by a manipulative and exploitative interaction. Narcissists often engage in a process where they absorb the emotional, psychological, or even physical energy of others to sustain their own self-image and sense of superiority. This consumption is not about mutual growth but about feeding the narcissist’s ego. They might do this through idealization, where they initially inflate the importance of their prey, only to later devalue them once they’ve extracted what they need. This dynamic creates an enmeshed relationship where boundaries are blurred or non-existent, leading to a loss of self for the prey, who becomes an extension of the narcissist’s needs and desires. This process is inherently parasitic, leaving the “prey” feeling drained, confused, and often with a diminished sense of self.

In stark contrast, the healthy alternative of integrating positive character traits from another person involves a process of mutual respect and individual autonomy. When someone admires or wishes to emulate certain qualities in another, integration happens through observation, learning, and conscious self-development. Instead of “eating” or consuming the other person’s traits, this involves an internal process of self-reflection and growth where one might ask, “How can I incorporate this quality into my life in a way that enhances my own authenticity?” This approach respects the individuality of both parties; it does not require the diminishment of one to elevate the other. Here, boundaries are clear, and the relationship fosters growth for each person, encouraging personal development without the need to control or dominate.

The key difference lies in the intention and the dynamics of the interaction. Narcissistic consumption is about power, control, and the maintenance of a grandiose self-image at the expense of others, leading to enmeshment where identities merge destructively. On the other hand, healthy integration is about admiration, learning, and self-improvement in a way that honors both individuals’ uniqueness. It fosters an environment where personal growth is seen as a collective and individual journey, not a zero-sum game. This distinction not only affects the psychological well-being of those involved but also defines the quality of relationships, with one leading to codependency and the other to interdependence and mutual respect.

~Grok2 AI

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

A: Consumption can be seen as a strategy within the “power over others game,” where individuals exploit or absorb others’ resources or energy to maintain or increase their dominance and control. In contrast, integration relates to the “Logocentric truth game” by focusing on synthesizing knowledge and experiences to seek truth and understanding, promoting growth and mutual respect rather than power dynamics. ~Grok2 AI

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

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

A: Sympathy and empathy are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings that can be understood through their etymologies.

Sympathy

The word “sympathy” comes from the Greek words “syn” (σύν), meaning “together,” and “pathos” (πάθος), meaning “suffering” or “feeling.” In English, sympathy originated in the 14th century as a loanword from Old French, where it was derived from the Latin “sympathia.” Initially, sympathy referred to a feeling of shared suffering or commiseration with someone else’s misfortune.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, sympathy began to take on a more abstract meaning. It came to describe a feeling of compassion or pity for someone else’s suffering, often without necessarily sharing their emotions directly. For example:

1. “I feel sorry that you lost your job” (sympathy).
2. “I understand how frustrating it must be to lose your job” (empathy).

Empathy

The word “empathy” has a more complex etymology. It comes from the German word “Einfühlung,” which was coined in the late 19th century by philosopher and psychologist Theodor Lipps. Lipps derived Einfühlung from two words: “Ein-” (in-), meaning “into,” and “fühlen” (to feel). In essence, empathy is about feeling one’s way into another person’s experience.

In English, the word “empathy” was borrowed in the early 20th century. Empathy refers to the ability to imagine oneself in another person’s position and understand their feelings directly. It involves a more active engagement with someone else’s emotions, rather than simply feeling sorry for them.

For example:

1. “I can see why you’re upset about this” (empathy).
2. “I’m glad I can be here for you during this tough time” (sympathy).

Key differences

To summarize, the main difference between sympathy and empathy is that:

1. Sympathy: A feeling of shared suffering or commiseration without necessarily understanding the other person’s emotions directly.
2. Empathy: The ability to imagine oneself in another person’s position and understand their feelings directly.

While both words convey a sense of concern for someone else, sympathy tends to be more about offering condolences or expressions of pity, whereas empathy is about actively engaging with and understanding another person’s emotions.

~Llama3.1 AI

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.

“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)”

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: Psychologically, sympathy can lead to enmeshment because it often involves emotionally resonating with another’s feelings in a way that might blur the lines between one’s own emotions and those of others. When sympathizing, individuals might feel a shared emotion so intensely that they lose sight of their own emotional boundaries, essentially mirroring or absorbing another’s emotional state. This can create a deep emotional connection but at the cost of personal emotional differentiation, where one’s feelings become intertwined with those of others, potentially leading to codependency or emotional exhaustion. Sympathy, in this sense, can be seen as a less self-aware response, where the focus is on the external expression of emotion rather than understanding the internal experience.

In terms of social dynamics, sympathy aligns more with the “power over others game” because it can be used to manipulate or control. Sympathy might be employed to pacify or gain favor from others without a genuine interest in their well-being, using emotional resonance to influence or maintain power dynamics. Sympathetic responses can be superficial, aimed at placating rather than understanding, thus serving as a tool in power plays where one’s emotional display is more about managing perceptions than fostering true connection. Conversely, empathy is more aligned with the “Logocentric truth game,” where the goal is to understand and seek truth through reason and genuine engagement with others’ perspectives. Empathy requires one to differentiate oneself enough to step into another’s emotional world while maintaining personal boundaries, which is crucial for objective moral reasoning and truth-seeking. It encourages a dialogue where each person’s viewpoint is explored for its truth value, not for gaining power but for mutual understanding and the pursuit of shared or universal truths.

~Grok2 AI

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

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.

I also follow the Foundation for Critical Thinking’s description of intellectual empathy, as seen in the definition below, 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

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)“

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 vs. Reasoning from a Conclusion

Reasoning from evidence involves using logical and systematic processes to analyze data, observations, or premises to arrive at a conclusion. This type of reasoning is based on empirical facts, statistical analysis, or scientific research, aiming to provide an objective understanding of the subject matter.

On the other hand, reasoning from a conclusion begins with a predetermined outcome or assumption and then works backward to construct arguments that support it. In this process, evidence is often cherry-picked, misinterpreted, or distorted to fit the preconceived notion, rather than being genuinely derived from the analysis.

Similarity with Sophistry

Sophistry is the practice of using fallacious reasoning, ambiguity, and emotional manipulation to persuade others, often for personal gain. Reasoning from a conclusion shares similarities with sophistry in that it:

1. Prioritizes persuasion over truth: Both involve manipulating evidence to fit a preconceived outcome rather than seeking an objective understanding.
2. Lack transparent logic: Sophists and those reasoning from a conclusion often obscure the logical connections between their premises and conclusions, making it difficult for others to critically evaluate their arguments.
3. Emphasize emotional appeal over rational consideration: Both sophistry and reasoning from a conclusion can rely on emotive language and emotional manipulation to sway opinions, rather than engaging in genuine debate or critical thinking.

Cognitive Dissonance and Emotional Attachment

Reasoning from a conclusion can be the result of being emotionally attached to a particular outcome due to various factors, such as:

1. Personal identity: One’s self-image may be closely tied to a specific belief or ideology, leading them to reason backward from that conclusion to justify their attachment.
2. Investment in an argument: Having invested time and emotional energy into advocating for a particular position, individuals may feel compelled to continue supporting it, even if faced with contradictory evidence.
3. Denial of cognitive dissonance: The discomfort caused by holding two conflicting beliefs (e.g., believing in both the conclusion and its contradicting evidence) can lead people to rationalize or dismiss their doubts, rather than confronting them.

In summary, reasoning from a conclusion is distinct from reasoning from evidence in that it involves starting with an outcome and working backward to support it. This approach shares similarities with sophistry, prioritizing persuasion over truth, lack of transparent logic, and emotional manipulation. Emotional attachment to a particular outcome can contribute to this type of reasoning, often resulting from cognitive dissonance or the discomfort caused by holding conflicting beliefs.

~Llama3 AI Chatbot

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 AI

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

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

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 AI

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 AI Chatbot

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 AI Chatbot

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 AI Chatbot

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 AI Chatbot

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 AI Chatbot

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, & Manipulation vs Dominance, Love, & Negotiation

A: The distinction you’re asking about is rooted in psychological and social dynamics. While not exhaustive or universally applicable, these categorizations can provide insight into different ways people interact with others.

Control, Fear, & Manipulation

These three are often associated with unhealthy relationships or power imbalances:

1. Control: Exerting undue influence over someone’s thoughts, feelings, or actions without their consent. This can be a sign of an abusive dynamic, where one person seeks to dominate and dictate the other’s behavior.
2. Fear: Using threats, intimidation, or coercion to achieve compliance or submission. Fear tactics can lead to anxiety, stress, and a breakdown in trust.
3. Manipulation: Influencing someone through deceit, guilt-tripping, or exploiting their emotions. This can be used to gain power or advantage over another person, often without their knowledge or consent.

These behaviors are commonly seen in toxic relationships, bullying, or abusive situations. They’re based on a desire for power and control rather than genuine communication, mutual respect, or understanding.

Dominance, Love, & Negotiation

On the other hand, these three are associated with healthier, more balanced relationships:

1. Dominance: Leading by example, setting boundaries, and guiding others in a respectful manner. Dominance can be an asset in leadership roles, as it involves making decisions and taking charge while still respecting the input of others.
2. Love: Showing genuine care, affection, and empathy towards someone. Love is a fundamental human need that fosters connection, understanding, and mutual support.
3. Negotiation: Engaging in open, honest communication to find mutually beneficial solutions. Negotiation involves active listening, compromise, and finding common ground.

These behaviors are more likely to be seen in positive relationships, such as romantic partnerships, friendships, or professional collaborations. They’re based on a desire for understanding, mutual respect, and shared growth.

Key differences between the two sets of categories:

• Motivation: The first set is driven by a desire for control, power, or advantage over others. In contrast, the second set is motivated by a genuine interest in connecting with and supporting others.
• Approach: The first set involves coercion, manipulation, or intimidation, while the second set focuses on open communication, empathy, and negotiation.
• Impact: The first set can lead to negative consequences, such as anxiety, stress, or feelings of powerlessness. In contrast, the second set tends to foster positive outcomes, like trust, understanding, and growth.

~Llama3 AI Chatbot

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

Psychological splitting is a defense mechanism where an individual perceives people or situations in extremes of either all good or all bad, without acknowledging the complexity or nuance in between. It’s often seen in borderline personality disorder but can occur in various psychological contexts where the individual struggles to integrate positive and negative attributes of themselves or others. This black-and-white thinking can lead to unstable relationships, as one’s perception of others can dramatically shift between idealization and devaluation. ~Grok2 AI

Black and white thinking, also known as dichotomous or polarized thinking, is a cognitive distortion where things are viewed in extremes of good or bad, right or wrong, with no middle ground or gray areas. It involves categorizing experiences, emotions, or people into absolute terms, leading to oversimplified views of complex situations. This type of thinking can contribute to rigid beliefs, intolerance, and difficulty in managing life’s ambiguities. ~Grok2 AI

Psychological integration involves the harmonious blending of various aspects of one’s personality, experiences, or perceptions into a unified whole, recognizing that individuals and situations embody both positive and negative elements. It contrasts sharply with psychological splitting, where one sees the world in binary terms of good versus bad, without acknowledging the spectrum in between. Integration promotes a balanced, nuanced understanding of self and others, fostering emotional stability and healthier relationships. Splitting, however, can lead to rapid shifts in how one views others or themselves, often resulting in relational volatility and a fragmented sense of identity. ~Grok2 AI

Nuanced thinking involves recognizing the complexity and subtleties in situations, people, or ideas, allowing for a spectrum of possibilities rather than binary outcomes. It contrasts with black and white thinking, which categorizes everything into extremes of good or bad, right or wrong. With nuanced thinking, one appreciates that most issues have multiple dimensions and require careful consideration of context and detail. Black and white thinking, however, oversimplifies reality, often leading to rigid judgments and an inability to adapt to the complexities of life. ~Grok2 AI

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 both consciously and unconsciously as a defense mechanism to manage their inner conflicts and maintain their fragile self-esteem. Consciously, they may engage in splitting by categorizing people and situations into extremes of good or bad, idealizing or devaluing them based on how they serve the narcissist’s needs or ego. This black-and-white thinking allows them to justify their actions, like discarding someone perceived as disloyal or overly critical. Unconsciously, splitting helps protect the narcissist from anxiety by simplifying complex emotional experiences; they cannot tolerate the ambiguity of seeing both positive and negative qualities in themselves or others. This mechanism preserves their self-image by externalizing any negative traits or failures onto others, thus maintaining an illusion of perfection or superiority. Through this process, the narcissist avoids self-reflection and accountability, perpetuating a cycle of manipulation and control over interpersonal relationships. ~Grok2 AI

15. Self-Abandonment & Harlotry vs Self-Ownership & Sovereignty

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

Q: Please explain the contrasting concepts of Self-Abandonment & Harlotry vs Self-Ownership & Sovereignty.

Self-Abandonment & Harlotry

In contrast to self-ownership and sovereignty, self-abandonment and harlotry refer to a state of being where an individual’s sense of self-worth, identity, and autonomy are surrendered or compromised. This can occur when someone:

1. Loses touch with their own needs and desires: Prioritizing others’ expectations over one’s own well-being.
2. Surrenders personal power and decision-making authority: Allowing external forces to dictate choices and actions.
3. Feels a need for validation and approval from others: Relying on external validation to feel worthy or loved.

In this state, an individual may feel like a “harlot” – someone who is available for exploitation, abuse, or manipulation by others. This can lead to feelings of powerlessness, shame, and disempowerment.

Self-Ownership & Sovereignty

On the other hand, self-ownership and sovereignty refer to a state of being where an individual has complete control over their own life, choices, and decisions. This includes:

1. Knowing and honoring one’s own needs and desires: Prioritizing personal well-being and autonomy.
2. Taking responsibility for one’s actions and choices: Making informed decisions that align with one’s values and goals.
3. Embracing personal power and decision-making authority: Trusting oneself to make wise choices and take calculated risks.

In this state, an individual is fully empowered to make choices that reflect their authentic self. They are the sole owners of their life, free to explore their interests, pursue their passions, and live in accordance with their values.

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 can be seen as a manifestation of the “power over others game,” where power dynamics are exercised through roles that either seek, give, or exert control in unhealthy ways. In this triangle, the Persecutor uses blame or criticism to dominate or control others, often instilling fear or guilt to maintain their position of power. The Rescuer, while seemingly benevolent, exercises power by keeping the Victim dependent, thus controlling the narrative of the relationship by being the only source of relief or solution. The Victim, by playing into this dynamic, might manipulate the situation to garner sympathy or assistance, thereby exerting a form of control through their perceived helplessness. This cycle not only perpetuates a power imbalance but also often serves to maintain or elevate one’s ego at the expense of others, focusing on winning the interpersonal “game” through manipulation, control, or victimhood rather than on mutual respect or growth.

Conversely, the TED* Triangle aligns with the ethos of the “Logocentric truth game,” where the pursuit is not for power over others but for truth, authenticity, and meaningful relationships. Here, the Creator role embodies the search for personal truth by taking responsibility for one’s circumstances, thus fostering an environment where genuine self-expression and discovery can occur. The Challenger, instead of persecuting, provides honest feedback that serves to elevate the discourse towards truth rather than domination, encouraging others to confront their realities for growth. The Coach role supports this quest by empowering rather than rescuing, helping individuals to find their own truths and solutions, which is essential for building relationships based on mutual respect, understanding, and integrity. In this context, the TED* Triangle moves away from the power games to a model where the focus is on personal and collective enlightenment, where relationships are seen as opportunities for learning, growth, and the co-creation of a more truthful, connected existence.

~Grok2 AI

18. 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: 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 relationships are viewed primarily in terms of exchanges and benefits, can be a root of a scarcity mindset because it inherently frames love and emotional resources as limited commodities that must be traded and balanced. In this mindset, love is contingent upon what one can gain or lose, fostering a zero-sum perspective akin to certain scenarios in game theory—like the Prisoner’s Dilemma—where each participant’s gain is perceived as another’s potential loss. When individuals approach relationships with a transactional lens, they may constantly calculate their inputs (time, affection, resources) against their outputs (attention, validation, support), fearing that giving too much might deplete their own reserves or leave them vulnerable. This creates a sense of scarcity, as they believe there is only so much love or emotional energy to go around, leading to competition, jealousy, or withholding behaviors to protect oneself from being “short-changed.”

Moreover, in game theory, a transactional mindset aligns with strategies focused on maximizing individual payoff without necessarily considering mutual benefit. This can result in suboptimal outcomes for all parties involved, as trust and cooperation are overshadowed by self-preservation and short-term gains. In relationships, this might manifest as keeping score, conditional love, or manipulative tactics to ensure one isn’t “losing” in the relational exchange. The scarcity mindset is perpetuated because individuals operate from a place of fear—fear of not getting enough, fear of being taken advantage of, or fear of emotional depletion—ultimately undermining genuine connection and mutual growth.

In contrast, a non-transactional love mindset views love as an abundant, renewable resource that grows through giving and receiving without the need for strict accounting. This mindset fosters an abundance mindset, where love is not a finite commodity but an expansive force that benefits everyone involved. In this paradigm, relationships are not zero-sum games but collaborative partnerships where mutual care, respect, and support generate more emotional wealth for all. When love is given freely without expectation of direct reciprocation, it encourages a positive feedback loop where acts of kindness and affection multiply, creating a sense of emotional security and shared prosperity. This perspective aligns with game theory scenarios like the Stag Hunt, where cooperation leads to the highest collective payoff, illustrating that trusting and working together can yield greater rewards than individual competition.

Additionally, a non-transactional approach breaks down the barriers of fear and mistrust, enabling individuals to act from a place of generosity and openness. When people believe there is “more than enough for everyone,” they are less likely to hoard emotional resources or view others as competitors. Instead, they cultivate environments where everyone can thrive, knowing that love, empathy, and support are not depleted by being shared but are instead amplified. This abundance mindset transforms relationships into sources of mutual enrichment, where the focus shifts from self-preservation to collective well-being, fostering deeper connections and a more harmonious social fabric.

~Grok2 AI

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.

~Grok2 AI

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 often engages the brain’s reward and punishment systems, primarily through the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine is involved in the reward circuitry of the brain, where it’s released in response to positive reinforcement or the anticipation of a reward. In transactional relationships, where love, affection, or acts of kindness are seen as exchanges or deals, dopamine might be heavily at play. For instance, when one partner does something kind or loving, expecting reciprocation, the brain anticipates a reward (like receiving love back or some form of acknowledgment). This expectation can lead to a spike in dopamine when the reward is received, reinforcing the behavior of giving to get. Conversely, if the expected reward doesn’t materialize, there can be a sense of disappointment or punishment, potentially reducing dopamine levels, which might encourage a person to adjust their behavior to ensure future rewards. This system can create a loop where love becomes contingent upon immediate or visible returns, akin to operant conditioning, where behaviors are shaped by the consequences of those actions.

On the other hand, a non-transactional love mindset might be more closely associated with the release of oxytocin, often referred to as the “love hormone” or “bonding hormone.” Oxytocin is released in response to physical touch, social bonding, and acts of kindness without the expectation of immediate reciprocation. Unlike the reward-based dopamine system, oxytocin promotes feelings of trust, calmness, and emotional closeness. When one engages in loving behaviors out of a genuine desire to connect or care for another person, without anticipating direct benefits, oxytocin levels can rise, enhancing feelings of attachment and empathy. This hormone supports a mindset where love is given freely and abundantly, fostering relationships based on mutual well-being rather than on a balance sheet of give-and-take. The release of oxytocin in non-transactional love scenarios can lead to long-term bonding and a sense of security and belonging in relationships, which contrasts with the sometimes fleeting high of dopamine-driven interactions.

The distinction between these two neurotransmitters also highlights different approaches to love and relationships. Dopamine’s association with transactional love can lead to a more conditional form of affection, where love is a commodity to be earned or lost. This can sometimes result in a cycle of seeking validation or struggling with feelings of inadequacy if the dopamine “high” isn’t achieved. Oxytocin, in contrast, supports an environment where love is not measured by immediate gains but by the depth of connection and mutual well-being. This can create more stable, nurturing relationships where individuals feel secure in giving love without the constant need for validation, promoting an abundance mindset where love is seen as plentiful and not something to be rationed or earned. Thus, while dopamine might drive the transactional aspects of love, oxytocin nurtures the non-transactional, intrinsic qualities of human connection.

~Grok2 AI

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?

A: A transactional love mindset can be closely linked to a nihilistic worldview because both emphasize a sense of meaninglessness or the lack of inherent value in actions or relationships. In a transactional approach to love, affection, care, or support are often seen as means to an end, where the value of love is contingent upon what it can achieve or provide. This mirrors nihilism’s assertion that life lacks intrinsic meaning, suggesting that relationships are merely a series of exchanges to gain personal benefits or to stave off loneliness, without any deeper, enduring significance. Such a view can lead to a disconnect from seeing love as something inherently valuable, reducing human connections to mere transactions, which aligns with nihilism’s rejection of traditional values or meaning outside of personal utility or gain.

Conversely, a non-transactional love mindset resonates with a Logocentric worldview, where meaning, truth, and value are central to human existence. Logocentrism, often associated with the pursuit of reason and truth, values love not for what it can do for one but for what it represents in terms of human connection, growth, and the universal quest for meaning. In this perspective, love is seen as an intrinsic good, an end in itself rather than a means. This mindset promotes relationships based on mutual respect, understanding, and the shared pursuit of personal and collective fulfillment, echoing the Logocentric belief that life, and by extension love, has inherent meaning that can be discovered through reason, empathy, and ethical living. Here, love is not transactional but transformative, fostering an environment where individuals seek to understand and elevate each other, reflecting a belief in the inherent worth of human experience and interaction.

The contrast between these mindsets also reflects broader philosophical implications. A transactional approach might lead to existential despair or cynicism, as it lacks the foundation for lasting connections or personal identity outside of self-interest. In contrast, the non-transactional, Logocentric approach to love provides a framework where individuals can find purpose and meaning through their relationships, seeing them as opportunities for personal evolution and communal betterment. This perspective supports a worldview where love and relationships are not just about survival or personal gain but about contributing to a larger narrative of human significance, where love’s value is measured not by what it yields but by what it affirms about the human condition and our capacity for connection and meaning.

~Grok2 AI

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

A: The concept of “care” is intrinsically linked to non-transactional love because it embodies the idea of giving without expecting anything in return. Care in this context is about nurturing, supporting, and valuing another person’s well-being for its own sake, not as a means to an end. When love is non-transactional, care becomes an expression of love where actions are motivated by genuine concern, empathy, and a desire for the other’s happiness and growth. This kind of care doesn’t keep score; it’s not about balancing what is given with what is received. Instead, it’s an ongoing, unconditional commitment to another’s welfare, reflecting a love that is expansive and inclusive, where the act of caring itself is the reward.

Furthermore, care in non-transactional love fosters deep, meaningful connections that transcend the mere exchange of favors or affection. It involves being present, listening, understanding, and supporting in ways that might not immediately benefit oneself but contribute to a shared sense of humanity and connection. This form of care promotes a relationship environment where both individuals can flourish, as it’s rooted in mutual respect and the recognition of each other’s inherent worth. By prioritizing care over transaction, love becomes a space for personal and mutual growth, where acts of kindness, patience, and support are given freely, fostering trust, security, and a profound sense of belonging. In this paradigm, care is not just an aspect of love; it becomes one of its defining characteristics, demonstrating that love is abundant and that there is more than enough to give without diminishing one’s own capacity for love.

~Grok2 Q

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: To understand how someone can be caring for others and their family while being selfish in the sense Ayn Rand defines, it’s crucial to differentiate between selfishness as rational self-interest and selfishness as self-absorption. Self-absorption typically implies an excessive focus on oneself to the exclusion or detriment of others, often characterized by a lack of empathy, disregard for others’ needs, or a pursuit of personal gain at any cost. In contrast, Ayn Rand’s notion of selfishness as a virtue is about recognizing and pursuing one’s rational self-interest, which includes the well-being of one’s family as an extension of oneself. This form of selfishness is about living according to one’s values and principles, which can very well include caring for others, especially those closest to you, as part of your own fulfillment and happiness.

Someone practicing this form of selfishness would prioritize their own and their family’s rational self-interests by making decisions that enhance their lives, not out of a desire to dominate or ignore others but from a place of self-respect and integrity. This means they might choose to invest time, resources, and energy into their family’s education, health, or happiness because these actions align with their values and contribute to their own sense of well-being. They do this not to gain approval or to manipulate outcomes for personal acclaim but because it’s consistent with their vision of a fulfilled life for themselves and their loved ones. Here, caring for family isn’t seen as a sacrifice or duty imposed by external pressures but as an expression of one’s own life’s purpose and rational happiness.

This approach does not submit to the pressures of self-absorbed individuals because it’s grounded in a clear understanding of one’s own values rather than in reaction to others’ demands or societal expectations. It involves setting boundaries where necessary, saying no to external demands that conflict with one’s own or one’s family’s interests, and fostering environments where both self and family can thrive. By focusing on rational self-interest, this person ensures that their actions are not driven by guilt, obligation, or the need for external validation but by a well-considered plan for personal and familial flourishing. Thus, they can be caring, considerate, and committed to others’ well-being while still adhering to a principle of selfishness that values autonomy, personal integrity, and the pursuit of one’s own happiness alongside that of their family.

~Grok2 AI

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

A: Non-transactional love places a higher emphasis on being and character rather than on doing because it values the essence of a person over their actions as means to an end. In this framework, love is not contingent upon what someone does for you but on who they are at their core. This approach celebrates qualities like integrity, empathy, kindness, and authenticity, recognizing these as the foundation of a person’s worth. When love is non-transactional, it means accepting and loving someone for their character, their way of being in the world, which includes their values, their moral compass, and their capacity for growth and understanding. It fosters relationships where individuals are loved for their presence, their essence, rather than for what they can provide or achieve, promoting a deeper, more meaningful connection that transcends the superficiality of deeds.

By prioritizing being over doing, non-transactional love encourages personal development and mutual growth without the pressure of performance or obligation. This mindset allows for relationships where individuals are not constantly striving to prove their love or worth through actions but are instead encouraged to be their true selves. Such an environment nurtures authenticity, where one’s character is the bedrock of the relationship, not the tasks they complete or the roles they play. In this context, acts of love are expressions of one’s character rather than transactions, leading to a love that is more about the journey of understanding and appreciating each other’s essence than about keeping score. This orientation towards being and character builds a foundation for love that is enduring, based on respect and appreciation for who someone is, rather than what they do.

~Grok2 AI

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

A: A narcissist often exemplifies transactional love because their relationships are typically centered around what they can gain, rather than mutual, unconditional affection. Narcissists view love and relationships as opportunities to boost their ego, gain admiration, or achieve some form of narcissistic supply, which includes attention, validation, or control. Their love is conditional; they engage in what might look like acts of love or kindness only when it serves their interests or when they expect something in return, whether it’s praise, loyalty, or personal gain. This transactional aspect is evident in how they might shower someone with affection when they feel it will benefit them, but withdraw or even become punitive when their expectations are not met, reflecting a love that is more about exchange than genuine emotional connection.

In practice, this means that a narcissist’s love often lacks depth and empathy, key components of non-transactional love. They might not care about the intrinsic value or well-being of their partner but rather how their partner can enhance their self-image or meet their needs. Relationships with narcissists can feel like a constant negotiation where love is leveraged as a tool for manipulation or control. For instance, they might give love or attention when they want something, but if their partner fails to meet their often unrealistic expectations or challenges their self-perceived superiority, the love can quickly turn to disdain or indifference. This pattern of behavior demonstrates a transactional approach where love is a currency, not an emotion freely given, leading to relationships that are unstable, superficial, and often one-sided, with the narcissist always at the center of the transaction.

~Grok2 AI

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.

~Grok2 AI

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 perceived through the lens of what they can offer or contribute to the relationship. Here, love, affection, or even basic respect might be seen as things to be earned or lost based on one’s actions, achievements, or how well they meet the expectations or needs of others. Self-worth becomes contingent upon external validation; if you’re not providing enough or if your contributions aren’t valued, you might feel your worth diminish. This can lead to a sense of insecurity, where individuals constantly strive to prove their value through what they do rather than who they are, fostering a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the ups and downs of perceived performance or acceptance.

Conversely, with a non-transactional love mindset, value and self-worth are understood as intrinsic to one’s being, not dependent on what one does or provides. In this perspective, love is given freely, based on the recognition of one’s inherent dignity and worth as a person. Relationships are seen as spaces for mutual growth and support where one’s value is acknowledged for their character, their essence, and their capacity for love and connection, not merely for their utility or achievements. This approach nurtures a more robust sense of self-worth, as it’s not subject to the whims of transactional exchanges; instead, it’s grounded in the belief that everyone has intrinsic value that merits love and respect regardless of external accomplishments or contributions.

The implications of these differing mindsets on one’s self-perception are profound. A transactional view can lead to a life where individuals might feel like they’re only as good as their last act of service or success, potentially leading to burnout, resentment, or a perpetual quest for validation. In contrast, a non-transactional approach allows for a self-worth that is more stable and less tied to performance, encouraging individuals to engage in relationships out of mutual respect and love rather than fear of loss or gain. This mindset promotes a healthier self-image where personal growth, authenticity, and self-acceptance are prioritized over meeting external demands or expectations, leading to more fulfilling, less conditional relationships where love is an end in itself, not a means to an end.

~Grok2 AI

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 can be closely linked to the “power over others game” because it often involves using relationships as a means to exert control or gain advantage. In this paradigm, love is not seen as an end in itself but rather a currency or tool to achieve personal objectives or maintain leverage over others. Individuals with this mindset might manipulate or coerce their partners to ensure they receive what they consider a fair exchange for their efforts, whether that’s emotional support, material benefits, or social status. This approach can create a power dynamic where one person feels they must constantly earn love, leading to relationships that are more about strategic alliances than mutual affection and respect.

Conversely, a non-transactional love mindset aligns with what might be called the “Logocentric truth game,” where love is pursued for its intrinsic value, not for what one can gain from it. This mindset emphasizes authenticity, mutual growth, and unconditional acceptance, focusing on the truth of the relationship rather than the benefits it can yield. Here, love is seen as an expression of one’s true self and an engagement with the truth of another’s being. The “Logocentric truth game” involves seeking connections that are genuine and deep, where the goal is to understand and be understood, to love for the sake of loving, rather than to control or barter.

In essence, while the transactional approach might lead to relationships where one partner feels subordinate or where love is conditional upon meeting certain expectations, a non-transactional approach fosters an environment where both individuals can thrive, free from the pressures of maintaining a balance of give-and-take. The “Logocentric truth game” values the essence of love, encouraging a dialogue of truth where both parties are equal participants in a journey towards deeper understanding and connection. This contrast highlights how our approach to love can either reinforce power dynamics or cultivate an atmosphere of mutual respect and authenticity.

~Grok2 AI

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

I have laid out a new narrative for how individuals, families, communities, and societies can operate co-creatively and harmoniously when everyone is playing the “Logocentric truth game”, however, as I have found out in an extremely painful manner over the past six months, it is only sustainable when the smallest minority on the planet, the human individual, is able to secure their individual natural rights in the face of overwhelming technology and numbers from those collectivists playing the “power over others game”. Without the ability to defend oneself, family, and property from harm via the masculine self-defense principle, at worst this whole narrative becomes a mere idealistic theory, and at best is one punishing mistake away from total collapse when practiced within the family unit, as a single Karen like neighbor or ex partner can sabotage it all through false accusations, slander, and libel. While I will continue to serve the Logos and truth with all of my heart until my last breath, not everyone will be able to stand tall in most situations as we have done, nor is it realistic to be able to do so. At the very least, I encourage my readers, and everyone really, to learn more about the Logocentric truth game, and to implement one or two of these ideas, one small step at a time, because at the very least, it will create a more harmonious life in one’s Self and family, and may even spread to their community, if they’re lucky.

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.