What is the True Will of a psychopath?
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
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"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.
-
Jim effectively answered the OP early on.
To me, this thread is going against <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=13595">viewtopic.php?f=48&t=13595</a><!-- l --> Who We Are.
You know the signs, first you are asked for definitions.
-
@FiatYod said
"// Hi! This is my first message in this forum.
"This youtu.be/3tJahCHjVhI?t=356 is very near to true will of an Psychopath^^
Don't go too far in "ill" minds... True will is Resolution(sig), having fun etc... OR solving Logic tricks...
If you wanna have more information: Aleister also wrote "Scientific Texts" For example about C-nn-bis (
too diff for not-(A.A.) so... 
) and they have more wisdom than other, because of Aleister clear and drugs mighty, C Q Thc, so 
This text shall be clear @ Asisa
-
-
@FiatYod said
"
Liber Al talks about those who are in sorrows of pain and regret,( Done! ) 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?"Argl.... Stay simple... You can't know, if others feel, or how they feel... You can just feel yourself... And interpret "reaction" like crying as "My God, that must feel amazing...."
AND(Logic)"Again, thank you for your kind explanations."
"
