************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************
Hi Robin,
I intersperse............... ************ > Hi David, > > you wrote: > > My first question to them would be: >>> >>> What if someone broke into your house, killed your husband and >>> children, stole all your money, then raped you, and broke your arms, >>> then dragged you outside and tied you up to the street light post and >>> burned your house down. >>> >>> >>> Would you consider that bad or good? >>> >> > > My answer to your question would be: > > In the opinion of that victim(s) the deed would be considered as bad. > > The perpetrator(s) will hold the conflicting opinion that it was good. > (If otherwise they certainly would not have done that.) > D> To constructively or meaningfully or sanely evaluate this matter, this datum, I posit that it is necessary to establish several stable datums: 1. There is a right way and wrong way to do almost everything. 2. The value of a datum is determined by how many problems it solves and how well it solves and for how long it solves them. 3. In order to survive or persist, everything needs system, order and control. The better the system, order and control the better the thing survives. 4. The basic nature of man is to survive/ to know. And I would add; to improve, to ascend. Life wants more life. Life prefers good, life prefers happiness, sanity, joy, contentment, satisfaction and things that are positive. To not do that is to descend to insanity, to pain, to failure, to destruction. Insanity is the inability to discern right from wrong. The inability to perceive differences: A=A=A=A. (I would expand that: The inability to honestly and correctly perceive differences: A=A=A=A.) To see wrong where there is right. To make right wrong. To make wrong right. To argue that right is wrong and wrong is right. To pervert right. Poor judgement. Perverted judgement. Lack of common sense. To be condescending. A persistent desire to commit destructive acts. *Common sense* is a basic ability to perceive <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception>, understand <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous>, and judge <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis> things that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason> be expected of nearly all people without need for debate. Everyone has a duty to have and use common sense. Breach of this duty can give rise to legal action and have the perpetrator institutionalized to protect public safety. 5. The truth is nothing more or less than the right answer to solve any problem. Therefore the saying: Only the truth will set you free from the bondage of your problems. Seek the truth in all thing and the truth will set you free. And it's many other variants. 6. The truth is not determined by authority, beliefs, opinions, by political correctness or by who wins an argument. The truth is not affected by such nonsense. The truth is the truth. The truth is determined by universal law. Failure is feedback from the universe that something was not in alignment with universal law. Now to respond to your statement: Quoting you: The perpetrator(s) will hold the conflicting opinion that it was good. (If otherwise, they certainly would not have done that.) The perpetrator would have a perverted or insane (or aberrated) definition or viewpoint on what is good and bad, and what is right and wrong. This aberrated perspective and behavior is caused someone forcing the individual to accept (by overwhelm) something that was wrong as right, or and, something that was right as wrong. This is known as a psychotic break down, resulting in psychosis and many other variants of mental illness or mental disorders. This is usually done by parents during childhood, but it could be done by someone else in adulthood. This occurs often in relationships, as well as workplaces. Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality. The perpetrator thinks that it is (not necessarily right, but necessary) to commit destructive acts, to inflict harm, pain and suffering and death, because his flows for constructive acts have been blocked, causing him to go mad, to go insane. Because a person is basically good or innately good, or good by nature, unless damaged or aberrated: Someone did something wrong to the person first, that caused him to go mad, to go insane. A child would never do anything bad, unless the parent did something bad or wrong to the child first by commission or omission. All destructive acts (in this context) is a symptom of insanity, or psychosis, or madness. The extreme form of this is terrorism. We are all only as good as we have been bred and brought up. To explain this completely would take more time and space than is practical at this time and in this venue. It takes a book or even many books. Best regards, David > You see it's a matter of consideration or opinion. > > Do not forget: Opinions can be manipulated (in ways that are beneficial > and ways that are not. There is a fundamental right to have an opinion. > > I would give preference to a society where the members have learned to > act according to their opinions with their own volition and responsibility > toward deeply felt inner convictions. I would give such a society > preference > in comparison to a society which has to be held in check by a bunch of > rules > which require the threat of force-application in order to get compliance > from the subjects. > > > > > Opinions and considerations are subject to change over time. > (A criminal may repent later.) > > > No law, moral code, code of ethics, creed, constitution, what so ever > would have saved that family. > > > Your example is very interesting and well chosen. > Because it describes one of those rare occasions where you deal > with mad-man (e.g. sadists. There game could be to inflict a maximum of > pain.) > > In such a case it would not have saved that family from being wiped out > (physically) even if they had put up the complementary postulate. > > The only options which I'm aware of in such a case are: > > a) Occupying the viewpoint of masochists (leads to their physical demise > but they may still enjoy it). > > b) Overwhelming the attackers in the course of self-defense (often not > possible). > > c) Bringing a barrier between them and the attackers (can be distance, > time, a wall, ...) > > > [Remark: From a higher viewpoint you have to assign at least a part > of the responsibility to the victims. Doing otherwise is to invalidate > the spiritual being in a most aberrative way.] > > > Axiom 31 b.t.w. does not contradict the core believe: > > "That Man is basically good." > > It is perfectly in line with Axiom 31. Please note: they _believe_ > (It is their conviction). > > Sooner or later you may come to a similar conclusion. > > > Regards > Robin > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > TROM@lists.newciv.org > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list TROM@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
