Knowing good from evil: the duality principle

[tcaudilllg]

Whether they repress it or not, everyone judges. It's a fact of life. Contrary are especially prone to judging each other.

A judgment is made whenever one person transgresses the values of another. A person maintains good character by keeping their base function in line with their role function. Indifference to this relationship is not a sign of bad character per se, but is nonetheless a gravely haphazard approach to ethical and moral conduct which warrants suspicion.

I had an epiphany recently that realism kills the fun of games. The more off the wall a game is, the more fun it is. This because it is unreal. Ne and Si have an inverse quality relationship: unrealistic experiences maximize pleasure. (this is why modern games usually don't compare with the classics of the 90s), Of course this principle necessarily extends to all the functions: the positivity of a function is a factor of the negativity of its dual. The more unpredictable a narrative is, the more it engrosses us. To have a sense of wealth, others must be poor. Equality, likewise, eliminates the sense of being wealthy. Recall from science fiction the emotionless LSI and LII mainframes who kill and main in the name of logic. To feel a "high" in a function requires the denigration of its dual.

The superego block is zealously defensive of its state against the id block. When an id block function is seen as denigrating its dual, a judgment is made against it. There is no flag raised against violation of the super-id by the base, unless it is learned. The super-id is prohibited from denigrating the base. Denigration of the id block by the superego is not only acceptable, but desirable.

In summary, we have natural approbation to the denigration of the superego by the id, which we deem unacceptable or evil. Super-id denigration approbation must be learned. These approbations explain the emotional distance between id block partners, the closeness between superid partners, the apprehension around ego partners, and the reverence for superego partners.

[Aquagraph]

Is the word "evil" still in the dictionary of a modern man?

[JWC3]

Is the word "evil" still in the dictionary of a modern man?

How else would you describe demonic plate-mail of hatred +3? I mean it's got all those spikes and stuff and well for lack of a better word looks pretty evil.

[Creepy-male]

I think evil is a useful concept when its metaphysical in nature, the concept of "evil" people I find to be shortsighted and judgmental.

[Aquagraph]

How else would you describe demonic plate-mail of hatred +3? I mean it's got all those spikes and stuff and well for lack of a better word looks pretty evil.

True.

And there's also there this fanatical groups that call themselves followers of "the one and only God" and they have a firm need to demonize followers of "the only and one God".

[ashlesha]

i think evil is the most accurate word for some people. like the guy that locked his daughter in his basement for years and raped her or the 3 guys 1 hammer kids. i mean you could maybe call them troubled or insane or something but its useful to have a word like "evil" because it fits situations like that really well.

[Aquagraph]

The perceived evil lets us forget that they are people too. Failure to recognize this breeds more what we want to call evil.

[ashlesha]

The perceived evil lets us forget that they are people too. Failure to recognize this breeds more what we want to call evil.

what do you mean when you say "they are people too?" that they have feelings and and self-awareness and whatnot? i'm not entirely sure some of them do.

how does it breed more evil-but-not-evil-because-we-believe-in-evil-just-not-actually-calling-it-evil?

[Capitalist Pig]

****** was a sensitive man.

[Aquagraph]

what do you mean when you say "they are people too?" that they have feelings and and self-awareness and whatnot? i'm not entirely sure some of them do.

I know sociopaths and I believe even they have feelings. Their feeling are just not that inclined to altruism.

how does it breed more evil-but-not-evil-because-we-believe-in-evil-just-not-actually-calling-it-evil?

Most often, the evil is born from the the indifference of good people doing anything or people paving the road to hell with good intentions. You cannot destroy what is not there. Evil is absence.
You can either curse the darkness or lit a candle. And not understanding the source of evil brings a lot of misplaced hatred and frustration which will, in time, poison our virtues.

Besides nowadays we have more accurate value-neutral description options for people who do nasty things. We should leave our values out of our observations if we want to speak wisely, except when observing our values themselves.

[woofwoofl]

Stuff happens and you do stuff in response and make shit better for yourself and everyone else. Only "evil"s I see are death and repression...

[Aquagraph]

****** was a sensitive man.

He actually was pretty environmentalist, vegetarian and.. well.. this is not a measure of a good man to me but ****** was anti-smoking.

[aixelsyd]

Evil, as I understand it, applies primarily towards those who feed off of others and produce death and destruction for the purpose of magnifying themselves. However, this could apply to a lot of people who directly or indirectly do this.

[Aquagraph]

Evil, as I understand it, applies primarily towards those who feed off of others and produce death and destruction for the purpose of magnifying themselves. However, this could apply to a lot of people who directly or indirectly do this.

If it's about direct effect, it would make the USA the most "evil" country in the world. If indirect, the meat eaters are worse than hundred ******s.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Evil people (or to be fair, when people are being evil- since redemption is sometimes possible) are sensitive. The point is of course, they aren't very sensitive to other people. . And so they rationalize and use the excuse of being treated poorly to get back at others.

When Willow was trying to kill Johnathon and Andrew, she felt she had the right because she was picked on all her life. But it was kind of silly because she wasn't going after her perpetrators, she was going after people who also were teased. Deep down part of her believed that the bullies were really the "strong" ones and she probably had a secret desire to be with Cordelia and the popular well-liked people, but they excluded her. But Cordelia and Harmony never tried to murder Johnathon, they just treated him like shit and socially excluded him. ((well Harmony much more so than Cordy.))

People who were emotionally abused are much more likely to become murderers than people who weren't. I read somewhere most serial killers were bullied as a child. Emotional and social abuse is the worst type of abuse you can do to somebody because it makes them feel like nothing is worth it. They brood and mope and sit around too much until they snap and go on a killing spree. Willow only stopped when Xander reassured her that he had always loved her.

[tcaudilllg]

There are many reasons for evil. Conservative radicals like to maximize their base functions, meaning they must minimize their dual functions. Of course, this isn't evil until it becomes a problem and force is used to prevent the restoration. That is the beginning of tyranny.

Liberal radicals will do nothing to maximize their functions, but like to see them maximized nonetheless. Who is the more evil? They are equally evil because either stands in the way of balance. But balance is positive Fi, so good itself eventually becomes evil (I guess?). Well I suppose so, because sometimes imbalances are necessary to meet priorities (that's something ILE does, the creation of imbalance to make certain endeavors feasible. It's LII's role to restore the balance).

Evil is ultimately the only charge which can undermine a system of corruption so deeply entrenched that all attempts to purge it are canceled out. The evil die loathed, an immortality not worth having.

[Destroypuppy]

I don't believe that evil person's are common in the world, when you perceive someone as evil, he's either trying to stop suffering or trying to reach a personal goal. Its your opinion of the goal that makes you believe he's evil or good.
There was a text I stumbled upon one day:

7. All people operate from the same two motivations: to fulfil their desires and to escape their suffering.

Learning this allowed me to finally make sense of how people can hurt each other so badly. The best explanation I had before this was that some people are just bad. What a cop-out. No matter what kind of behaviour other people exhibit, they are acting in the most effective way they are capable of (at that moment) to fulfill a desire or to relieve their suffering. These are motives we can all understand; we only vary in method, and the methods each of us has at our disposal depend on our upbringing and our experiences in life, as well as our state of consciousness. Some methods are skilful and helpful to others, others are unskilful and destructive, and almost all destructive behaviour is unconscious. So there is no good and evil, only smart and dumb (or wise and foolish.) Understanding this completely shook my long-held notions of morality and justice.

Read more here: http://www.seetheperfection.com/book...s-on-life.html

[Aquagraph]

"Hate the sin, not the sinner" to me is something that implies that you shouldn't fight wrongdoers but rather seek out the roots of their evil.

[ArchonAlarion]

I prefer realism in games. It takes more creativity to craft a cohesive, balanced game that's realistic than one in which everyone is a fruity sorcery ninja of big sword gay.

I don't mean historical realism necessarily, I mean "physical" realism. If I am playing an unrealistic game and do something "epic" it doesn't have much value as an experience because everything is "epic" anyway. Of course, it depends on the genre. My biggest pet peeve is when designers use real world objects but use them in the game with a totally different function than the object has in reality (like a spear that functions more like a sword should, etc.). The only reason why they put them in the game was purely aesthetic, as if to hook people on the idea of having that item due to how cool it is in real life, despite the fact that mechanically it does something else. It's a cheap trick for lazy designers.

*edit: I realize this is pretty off topic lol

[NewBorn STAR]

How about the overmanch principle

[Esaman]

Ne and Si have an inverse quality relationship: unrealistic experiences maximize pleasure.

Did you just, say that unrealistic/fantastic games are not Ne, and equate Si with pleasure?
Simplified fantasy worlds separated from of reality lets Ne off the hook of complexity and conflicts of the real world, letting it run freely - stimulating it.
If you equate Si with pleasure, what is up with talking about "high" in regards of other elements.

In summary, we have natural approbation to the denigration of the superego by the id,

that is the opposite of what you have said here:

When an id block function is seen as denigrating its dual, a judgment is made against it.

[Capitalist Pig]

i clicked on this thread because there was a little thingy next to it that indicates i made a post here, and i couldn't remember what i posted, so i decided to check it out. now i am reminded and i am making this supplemental post to inform you all of my activity here today. hope this helps.

[cherrysidecar]

Whether they repress it or not, everyone judges. It's a fact of life. Contrary are especially prone to judging each other.

I disagree. I fucking love ENFps, most of my best friends were ENFp way before I knew anything about socionics, and now it's one of those types I spot instantly. Mostly because I get good, non-judging vibes from them.

[tcaudilllg]

I disagree. I fucking love ENFps, most of my best friends were ENFp way before I knew anything about socionics, and now it's one of those types I spot instantly. Mostly because I get good, non-judging vibes from them.

I guess you're at odds with type relations theory then. Maybe you should retype yourself.

[tcaudilllg]

Evil, as I understand it, applies primarily towards those who feed off of others and produce death and destruction for the purpose of magnifying themselves. However, this could apply to a lot of people who directly or indirectly do this.

No, evil is sadism. Only sadism. There is nothing wrong with killing people who are denying others the resources they need to reach their full potential. When you try to look at g vs e as a pro-living vs killing issue, you're really over thinking it. Bottom line: alpha Si over delta Si.

[Capitalist Pig]

If evil is sadism, which one is masochism?

[tcaudilllg]

If evil is sadism, which one is masochism?

You're talking about romantic sadism. Romantic sadists usually aren't evil, just drawn to it. But it depends on the reason for their restraint: do they restrain themselves out of humanism, or because society demands it?