What is the True Will of a psychopath?
-
@Takamba said
"I don't believe survival of the fittest is "obsolete." It just depends on learning where you're actually best fit and where you are not.
Fighting doesn't only mean fisticuffs."
Well, what is this quote about the orange? Is it AC's commentaries? Do you have a link?
I mean I have applied for jobs where I was up against other people. I got the job and others failed so I was given what I went for. Is this what you mean? Also, once, some guy's girlfriend came around to my place and we got physically intimate. I don't think she told him. is this the sort of thing you mean?
By the way I never had a brother only sisters. I understand that brothers can fight regularly and kick each others' asses but essentially they love each other. Is that it?
-
@gerry456 said
"
@Takamba said
"I don't believe survival of the fittest is "obsolete." It just depends on learning where you're actually best fit and where you are not.Fighting doesn't only mean fisticuffs."
Well, what is this quote about the orange? Is it AC's commentaries? Do you have a link?
I mean I have applied for jobs where I was up against other people. I got the job and others failed so I was given what I went for. Is this what you mean? Also, once, some guy's girlfriend came around to my place and we got physically intimate. I don't think she told him. is this the sort of thing you mean?
By the way I never had a brother only sisters. I understand that brothers can fight regularly and kick each others' asses but essentially they love each other. Is that it?"
Do not just read Crowley's magical books, read his philosophical books, read his intellectual books. No, I'm not going to provide you a link to my personal library - that's something I earned over time.
Perhaps if Jim and I were the characters and the orange was a contract of land, I'd assume Jim probably has the true will to possess it and he would win that battle because he's an attorney and I am not. But if for some reason I actually believed I had a valid argument, as a brother, I would still fight for it.
And yes, there's the concept that it is done without rejecting the love. Or rather, in the above example I invented, it would be on a battle field that respects Jim (as he is an attorney, I wouldn't love him if I brought a gun to the battle).
So yes, with love and respect. As equals (but not equals because one is obviously intended to be the victor).
As equals (but not equals because obviously someone is always going to be dense).
-
@FiatYod said
"// Hi! This is my first message in this forum.
In Duty, AC wrote
"It is then the common duty to prevent crime by segregating the criminal, and by the threat of reprisals; also, to teach the criminal that his acts, being analyzed, are contrary to his own True Will. "
But suppose the criminal is a psychopath. As research shows, psychopaths' brains are simply built in a way that doesn't let them feel empathy, and makes them ignore the consequences of their actions, and so on.
So what if a psychopath's True Will is to kill people?
I assume the answer to this question would be, "But a True Will can't be to kill people!"
Then this brings up the questions:- How can we know the nature of all possible True Wills?
- What creates a True Will?
- Does a person have a True Will since the moment they are born? Can it ever be changed?
Thanks in advance for your help."
You've been given some great answers, but I'll just chime in here (FWIW, just my thoughts).
Remember, we're talking about "Law" here, we're not talking about just the natural free-for-all (e.g. blind biological competition) but about conscious (memetic, cultural, social, personal, individual) evolution. In a natural sense, yes, a psychopath's brain is just another structural variant. The problem is that that particular variant occludes/precludes the psychopath from discovering/having a True Will.
IOW, all this stuff, while it takes lessons from, and takes heed of, natural phenomena (i.e. isn't afraid to contemplate, and even meditate on, ugly facts of reality), is about having a society in which it's possible for people to live and express themselves as free individuals, i.e. we're talking about some kind of intrapersonal and interpersonal order, only we're denying that the form of that order is something that has to be imposed or submitted to. The order must come from within, primarily from every individual taking hold of their birthright and realizing that they're really God in disguise, therefore already perfect, already in need of nothing, and merely adventuring in the universe of possibilities for fun. Social order then arises naturally from the dignity of that (even if only as one person politely giving way when two people are trying to get through the same door - "after you!" - "no, after you!" - which can lead to its own mini comedy
)Really, the resolution to all "possible clash" questions is that "we" are gentle, i.e. always initially co-operative, always initially giving the benefit of the doubt. But we are also strong, i.e. "we" will instantly and mercilessly punish "defection" (as per game theory, Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma, TIT for TAT, etc.) until "defection" ceases and co-operation returns, whereupon we instantly return to benign equilibrium, without any lingering rancor
The general upshot of all that is that the moral thing to do is a) take as much cognizance as possible of all possible factors, and b) do the right thing by the Universe (including obviously oneself).
There's an apparent assymetry that arises (we are naturally more concerned with our own doings), but that's just an artifact of informational assymetry (we know more about ourselves than about others' position). This mandates a certain amount of fairly loose, liberal law in the ordinary sense (something like English Common Law, I don't mean "liberalism" in the American sense, more like libertarianism in the American sense, and liberalism in the old-fashioned sense), in which our "doing the right thing by" someone on the other side of the world implies that we will uphold at our end, a system that will also give that person room and scope to fulfil their own True Will. (IOW, it's like a mandala: king and consort at centre, functionaries and bureacrats close, then the commoners, then foreigners - close to home we know ourselves, our friends, etc., fairly well, so there's a bit of "free play" there, we can do fairly concrete things to help, even give our friends advice that would be importunate coming from a stranger. But the further you get from the centre of the mandala, the more our do-gooding has to be embodied in abstract rules, which address the ever-more-abstract conditions that we share with those at the fringes - unless of course it is one's True Will to go to where that fellow at the other side of the world is, and concretely get to know their situation, and concretely help them based on that more detailed knowledge.)
The psychopath we look kindly on, in the sense that we'd look kindly on a shark or a tiger - as a phenomenon of nature, s/he is equally as wondrous as any other phenomenon. But we don't mix the planes - we keep a wary eye on them (if they haven't actually done anything wrong, i.e. if they are canny enough to live and let live, or find some harmless outlet for their psychopathy) and if they do do something wrong, we capture them and stick them in jail (or whatever) until such time (in the future, perhaps) when they can be given a choice of some kind of medical intervention. ("Wrong" here being defined as something like "interfering with others' True Wills".)
-
I just wanted to add something that may support Jim's answer. There is a famous neuro scientist who discovered he had the brain of a psychopath, as he studied brain abnormalities in those with such behavior. While he had the brain of a psychopath, he didn't have the behaviors of one and noted that the difference in his situation was he came from a close and loving family.
So while the brain is wired and we assume from genetics (which makes the claim of a true will extend no further than biology) along with nature there is always nurture.
I would say those with sociopathic behaviors are identical to what crowley called 'the black brothers.
-
@Takamba said
"
@gerry456 said
"
@Takamba said
"
I feel this invokes the old "if two brothers believe each that it is their will to eat the single orange that sits on the table, one of them is certainly mistaken," and follows with "As brothers fight ye.""How about splitting it in two and sharing it?"
Hey everyone, I found the hippy liberal!
El oh El
Then both are to go hungrier for it? Will doesn't exactly work that way. The entire orange is at stake. I see you aren't familiar with this story of old Uncle Al's discussion of the Book of the Law (to whom all appeals are meant to be made)."
ha, well maybe you found another one too
I think this argument as used on both sides may be a little short sited? While individuals have true wills, so must species have true wills. I think its safe to say that the true will of humanity as a species is to be collaborative.
While fighting for the orange is just introducing the 'what happens to true will in a zero sum game?' - our true will as a collaborative species is to create non zero sum games for resource management.
So while one brother may be intent on fighting for one orange, confusing his true will for biological survival with the broader will of the species, the other brother is out there figuring out smart resource distribution strategies so such a zero sum game wont need to be played again.
'as brothers fight ye' is a call for a win win non zero sum confrontation to critical issues.
love
liberal hippy -
@ldfriend56 said
"
ha, well maybe you found another one tooI think this argument as used on both sides may be a little short sited? While individuals have true wills, so must species have true wills. I think its safe to say that the true will of humanity as a species is to be collaborative.
While fighting for the orange is just introducing the 'what happens to true will in a zero sum game?' - our true will as a collaborative species is to create non zero sum games for resource management.
So while one brother may be intent on fighting for one orange, confusing his true will for biological survival with the broader will of the species, the other brother is out there figuring out smart resource distribution strategies so such a zero sum game wont need to be played again.
'as brothers fight ye' is a call for a win win non zero sum confrontation to critical issues.
love
liberal hippy"But see what you did there? You changed the game so that you could find an answer, but that was the answer to another game.
A good answer, but how does one convince the brother who is mistaken that he is mistaken? If it is perceived by him that his will is to have the orange, and the other one correctly knows it is his will to have the orange, there's no game answer that says they share it (because that will is not perceived except by the outside observer, and neither one of them would will it). The brother who has the resources (knowledge & skills in say horticultural spotting and maintaining) to recognize survival of the species is the one that should have the orange. So how do you win out when the other brother, the one who only has the knowledge & skills of table crafting, insists the orange is his?
You fight as brothers. It's a must in this game of the table and the orange and two brothers each convinced.
And I don't think of it as survival of the "fittest," it's a battle where I believe right wins all the time, because the will of the species, the will of all the Universe, will verify it.
-
Yeah, suggesting sharing the orange (which in many scenarios is a great solution) dodges the basic question, which is: what if two people want something that can't be shared?
-
@Takamba said
"But see what you did there? You changed the game so that you could find an answer, but that was the answer to another game."
Ah ha! Yes of course - that's the whole point, changing the game - altering the environment into something collaborative and removing the false ideas and delusions of the ego (me vs you).
Let's clarify however that changing the game does not mean ignoring the problem of the previous one. This is confronting the problem and bringing it into proper harmony shall we say.
"A good answer, but how does one convince the brother who is mistaken that he is mistaken? If it is perceived by him that his will is to have the orange, and the other one correctly knows it is his will to have the orange, there's no game answer that says they share it (because that will is not perceived except by the outside observer, and neither one of them would will it). The brother who has the resources (knowledge & skills in say horticultural spotting and maintaining) to recognize survival of the species is the one that should have the orange. So how do you win out when the other brother, the one who only has the knowledge & skills of table crafting, insists the orange is his?"
There is only one way to ultimately win - only one. And that one way is to develop a system of distribution of oranges so there are plenty for all. Oranges, just like liber al - 'is for all'. (sorry couldn't help the giggle there).
There is no need to argue about it with the first brother.
Success is your proof
"You fight as brothers. It's a must in this game of the table and the orange and two brothers each convinced. "
There is no answer to be found there. It's just logic and zero sum. All zero sum games will lead to brothers fighting, like dogs - for the single resource.
However the single resource is an illusion. It's an illusion you're using in this 'game' as that game between one orange and two brothers is just an abstraction, not a real world problem.
In real world problem solving - all resources intelligently managed are replenishing.
is a god to live in a dog (and thereby fight like one for the orange)?
" And I don't think of it as survival of the "fittest," it's a battle where I believe right wins all the time, because the will of the species, the will of all the Universe, will verify it."
I think you're suggesting here that there is only 'one' game the universe plays and that's the ol brother vs brother orange game? I don't think historical record supports you there! Survival of the fittest is a 'muscular' perspective, and even though you don't like the phrase - that is what you're suggesting brother vs brother to mean. Who has the true will for the orange? which ever one wins the fight for it. That's not going to get us very far nor past 'survival of the fittest.'
Humanity is a collaborative species, we evolved through collaboration. There is only one way to solve zero sum games destroying our global collaborative and that is by creating non zero sum games where brothers don't fight for the orange - they both challenge each other to see who can come up with the best idea for distributing oranges for everyone.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Yeah, suggesting sharing the orange (which in many scenarios is a great solution) dodges the basic question, which is: what if two people want something that can't be shared?"
There is a very small finite list of things that can happen in this me vs you scenario.
- I shall sacrifice the orange FOR YOU, and I will voluntarily lose.
- I will utterly defeat you for the orange! It is all about my happiness and hunger - not yours!
Those are the only two outcomes of any zero sum game. Both are examples of 'win/lose' games. Win/lose games do appear to be very Osirian in nature, no? I lose for you to win or I win for you to lose.
So I do not believe that creating a better environment is an avoidance of the basic question - but a transcendence of it. Since RHK is our collective species canceling out the age of Osiris - the answer to the illusion of win/lose is the reality of win/win collaboration.
The True Will of our species must be collaborative. It's not just about finding 'my' or 'your' True Will, but we also must find 'Our' True Will - the ones we all share in common. I do find many Thelemists get to attached to the idea of the superiority of their own unique individual true will but it is certain that if one thinks their True Will over rides the True Will of all of humanity they may have quite a thunk on their head coming and it wont be from the other brother pounding him for the orange
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Yeah, suggesting sharing the orange (which in many scenarios is a great solution) dodges the basic question, which is: what if two people want something that can't be shared?"There is a very small finite list of things that can happen in this me vs you scenario.
- I shall sacrifice the orange FOR YOU, and I will voluntarily lose.
- I will utterly defeat you for the orange! It is all about my happiness and hunger - not yours!
Those are the only two outcomes of any zero sum game. Both are examples of 'win/lose' games. Win/lose games do appear to be very Osirian in nature, no? I lose for you to win or I win for you to lose.
So I do not believe that creating a better environment is an avoidance of the basic question - but a transcendence of it. Since RHK is our collective species canceling out the age of Osiris - the answer to the illusion of win/lose is the reality of win/win collaboration.
The True Will of our species must be collaborative. It's not just about finding 'my' or 'your' True Will, but we also must find 'Our' True Will - the ones we all share in common. I do find many Thelemists get to attached to the idea of the superiority of their own unique individual true will but it is certain that if one thinks their True Will over rides the True Will of all of humanity they may have quite a thunk on their head coming and it wont be from the other brother pounding him for the orange
"I agree with the general point that the moral thing to do is to try to find a non-zero-sum solution first of all.
IOW, these moral dilemmas that pose "who sacrifices to whom" don't actually get to the nubbin of what morality really is, they're edge cases which are often couched in terms which presuppose that the moral question par excellence is "who sacrifices to whom?" Whereas the moral question par excellence is "how do we find a mutual accommodation in which everyone benefits?" IOW, the moral "thing" is, as you say, to first of all see if the game can be made non-zero-sum in some way.
However, edge cases do exist from time to time in which the game is unavoidably zero-sum, and when they do "who should make the sacrifice and on what grounds?" is still a legitimate question. In those cases, obviously the calculation would have something to do with questions like, "who, if they survive, has a better chance of making further contributions to the world?" e.g., an old codger who's pretty much shot their bolt in life, is quite right to sacrifice himself to save the drowning child; someone who's got the solution to defusing a nuclear bomb holding a city hostage and is on the way to deliver it, not so much
-
-
@gerry456 said
"You all probably have experienced some guy eyeing your girlfriend when you've been with her (or your boyfriend). Well, that should bring it home about the orange. You don't necessarily have to physically hurt the guy. You won the orange."
NO! YOU MUST SHARE YOUR ORANGE WITH ME!
-
@gurugeorge said
"However, edge cases do exist from time to time in which the game is unavoidably zero-sum, and when they do "who should make the sacrifice and on what grounds?" is still a legitimate question. In those cases, obviously the calculation would have something to do with questions like, "who, if they survive, has a better chance of making further contributions to the world?" e.g., an old codger who's pretty much shot their bolt in life, is quite right to sacrifice himself to save the drowning child; someone who's got the solution to defusing a nuclear bomb holding a city hostage and is on the way to deliver it, not so much
"But who are we to decide what a "contribution to the world" is?
If, for example, the city that is being held hostage is full of people who want to kill everyone in YOUR city, and everyone in your city wants to kill everyone in THEIR city (i.e. a state of war), which is to be master? -
OK, this thread has wandered far from the original question, and people are answering each other just so they can post something.
Stop that now. No more answers unless you are addressing the specific questions in the first post.
Administrator
-
@gerry456 said
"Psychopaths don't feel.
People who can't feel are not doing their True Will.
See Liber Al on the subject of those who "feel not"."
Liber Al talks about those who are in sorrows of pain and regret, the outcast and the unfit as those who "feel not", but there is not definition as to what exactly an "unfit" person is (I assume psychopaths can only fall into that category).
In a society where all (or, at least, most) people are like this, psychopaths are perfectly fit, so how can we know that they don't feel?Again, thank you for your kind explanations.
