Ruthlessness as a Virtue

[Aquagraph]

Some of you would have hard time with yourself after selling sex for money and some of us are quite okay with it.
What I find interesting is that probably many who would think it to be morally acceptable would still feel guilty/ashamed about it.

This feeling is easily mistaken for morality, the voice of conscience, the Jiminy Cricket on your shoulders. Even Christianity tells about how the law of God is written in our hearts which sounds like the very same thing: Your heart aches because you broke the law!

During my life I have forced myself to do things and reconsider things that I feel wrong but I don't consider them wrong. This has involved issues about infidelity, a kitten turned into art and others nasty stuff. This can be at best considered as exercise to what I value ruthlessness, which I consider virtous when combined with clear mind to judge the situations. I always want to be able and motivated to finish off a suffering animal, destroy my enemy when it needs to be so, execute the rapist in the village without pity or remorse and do other ugly things that serve purposes that I consider good. This means that I have to violate parts of my ego that believe in holiness of matters like sex ("I'm not a whore"), hygiene ("I'd never dumpster dive!") and non-aggression ("I would never hit a woman/child") to mention a few.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially how your feeling of conscienceness relates to your morality.

[Ath Is Cool]

I think it has to do with innocence. I like William Blake's idea that innocence and experience are states of mind, and idk if what I have to say actually aligns with his ideas, but I'm playing off of it. certain actions, you simply could never categorize as innocent, no matter how objectively moral they are (killing an animal to save it from suffering). Thus, when you reason yourself into certain actions, while you may not actually be breaking any of your own moral laws, you are entering a state of "experience" that feels dirtier in contrast with your prior state of "innocence." And imo, that dirty feeling doesn't go away until you do something bashfully innocent which puts you closer to once again being in a state of innocence.


also lol

... especially since the guy she was cheating was in the next room sleeping.

[Aquagraph]

Although disgust was first thought to be a motivation for humans to only physical contaminants, it has since been expanded to apply to moral and social moral contaminants as well. The similarities between these types of disgust can especially be seen in the way people react to the contaminants. For example, if someone stumbles upon a pool of vomit, he/she will do whatever possible to put as much distance between himself/herself and the vomit as possible, which can include pinching the nose, closing the eyes, or running away. Similarly, when a group experiences someone who cheats, murders, or rapes another member of the group, its reaction is to shun or expel that person from the group.[37]

Jones & Fitness (2008)[37] coined the term "moral hypervigilance" to describe the phenomenon that individuals who are prone to physical disgust will also be prone to moral disgust. The link between physical disgust and moral disgust in the United States can especially be seen in the fact that our culture often refers to criminals as "slime" and criminal activity as "stinking" or being "fishy". Furthermore, people often try to block out the stimuli of morally repulsive images in much the same way that they would block out the stimuli of a physically repulsive image. When people see an image of rape or murder, they often turn their heads away to inhibit the incoming visual stimuli from the photograph just like they would if they saw a decomposing body.

Horberg et al. found that disgust plays a crucial role in the development and intensification of moral judgments of purity.[38] In other words, the feeling of disgust is often associated with a feeling that some image of what is pure has been violated. For example, a vegetarian might feel disgust after seeing another person eating meat because he/she has a view of vegetarianism as the pure state-of-being. When this state-of-being is violated, the vegetarian feels disgust.

Sometimes I don't understand why should my post be "1 character too short" if I only quote or put a picture.

[Gilly]

I think you excuse yourself too much for fucking a taken person. Your attitude is reminiscent of Nazis who blamed their participation on following orders: "If I didn't do it, someone else would." This mentality is bullshit.

[ashlesha]

this could be an interesting conversation but the op just came across to me as an excuse to brag about being a stud. again.

[Aquagraph]

I think it has to do with innocence. I like William Blake's idea that innocence and experience are states of mind, and idk if what I have to say actually aligns with his ideas, but I'm playing off of it. certain actions, you simply could never categorize as innocent, no matter how objectively moral they are (killing an animal to save it from suffering). Thus, when you reason yourself into certain actions, while you may not actually be breaking any of your own moral laws, you are entering a state of "experience" that feels dirtier in contrast with your prior state of "innocence." And imo, that dirty feeling doesn't go away until you do something bashfully innocent which puts you closer to once again being in a state of innocence.

Yeah, there's something easily experienced "pure" with what is experienced "innocence". Sometimes my I in my hate loops I tend to think that many manifestations of the innocence to be linked to "slave morality" and simply being a fucking sheep citizen who:
-doesn't hang around with wrong sort of people.
-believes that the community should erase the drug users, prostitution and other stinky people. Of course, the individual will almost always focus on his/her immediate community units (family, neighbourhood, roommates ". If you ever use drugs again, Johnny, you are not my son." etc) more than the extended ones (nation, state, city, "west side (of X)"). This might be a continuum "Our family, not even Johnny, can do without drugs and I don't see why nobody should use drugs, except if you drink them and don't need interaction with icky needles or stinky hippies."
-voted Nixon (and other crooks that like to step on civil liberties).
-Overtly opposes nuclear power "Like radiation, man, that's not green and pure."
-Overtly opposes abortion. You can call me pro death because I'm a supporter in murdering the unborn.

The list goes on and on but you can probably see what I tend to think about moral hypervigilance.

Research has shown that people who feel physical disgust towards an image or action will also feel an equal amount of moral disgust. This term is known as “moral hypervigilance” Moral hypervigilance is specifically prominent in United States culture where people often describe immoral acts against dignity by utilizing physical characteristics. Contempt is often linked with hierarchy and community. The feeling of contempt differs from anger and disgust because although it does involve disapproval, it also entails a component of indifference. Moral superiority and contempt are often felt concerning individuals who violate the morality of the community.

[Aquagraph]

this could be an interesting conversation but the op just came across to me as an excuse to brag about being a stud. again.

Actually it's quite untactful. A moment please.

Ironically I feel ashamed about the OP.

[willekeurig]

Research has shown that people who feel physical disgust towards an image or action will also feel an equal amount of moral disgust.

Eh, what, no? I feel physical disgust towards nose picking and cleaning dirty toilets and but I don't think they're immoral as actions.

[blackburry]

Some of you would have hard time with yourself after selling sex for money and some of us are quite okay with it.
What I find interesting is that probably many who would think it to be morally acceptable would still feel guilty/ashamed about it.

This feeling is easily mistaken for morality, the voice of conscience, the Jiminy Cricket on your shoulders. Even Christianity tells about how the law of God is written in our hearts which sounds like the very same thing: Your heart aches because you broke the law!

During my life I have forced myself to do things and reconsider things that I feel wrong but I don't consider them wrong. This has involved issues about infidelity, a kitten turned into art and others nasty stuff. This can be at best considered as exercise to what I value ruthlessness, which I consider virtous when combined with clear mind to judge the situations. I always want to be able and motivated to finish off a suffering animal, destroy my enemy when it needs to be so, execute the rapist in the village without pity or remorse and do other ugly things that serve purposes that I consider good. This means that I have to violate parts of my ego that believe in holiness of matters like sex ("I'm not a whore"), hygiene ("I'd never dumpster dive!") and non-aggression ("I would never hit a woman/child") to mention a few.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially how your feeling of conscienceness relates to your morality.

I'm able to distance myself from my action as well but I've come to find out it's the consequences and not my conscious that ultimately catch up with me. Sometimes it is my conscious. and like you sometimes I'm able to rationalize it in a fitting way that fits my values (I value selfishness as a virtue and the root of my happiness and compassion for others, because I used to be so giving and giving and giving and was miserable), but what keeps me from doing something I really may just for the hell of it want to do is a moment is, well... the possibility of STDs or dying some horrific death because I did something stupid or worse getting someone else involved or hurt. But if the chances are slim-- maybe. But I've yet to learn how to not let fear and distrust make many choices for me, I'm working on it.

[Aquagraph]

This is a reply to the original non-edited version of the OP that involved a short example that involved me helping someone exercise infidelity.

I think you excuse yourself too much for fucking a taken person. Your attitude is reminiscent of Nazis who blamed their participation on following orders: "If I didn't do it, someone else would." This mentality is bullshit.

Actually what I considered about it was more elaborate. Everyone gets what they deserve.
-The man might need a teaching to trust her.
-The woman will feel guilty and redeem.
-I will deserve a violent lesson in not getting caught.
-Their relationship will either overcome this or die in this trial. The latter option makes room for more relationships with minds that have learned from the past.

[Aquagraph]

Eh, what, no? I feel physical disgust towards nose picking and cleaning dirty toilets and but I don't think they're immoral as actions.

Yeah, that's a bit odd.
I'm not sure on what grounds can they say like that but I think they were on to something. If not, I think I am.

[InvisibleJim]

Wow, Aqua, you really will stick your dong into any hole won't you?

[squark]

I've done reprehensible things in the name of "good," things that I felt entirely justified doing. I can be incredibly cruel and heartless while believing I'm doing the right thing. I also don't think I'd have any hesitation or problem with any of the things you mentioned as being difficult "finish off a suffering animal, destroy my enemy when it needs to be so, execute the rapist in the village without pity or remorse and do other ugly things that serve purposes that I consider good." But there is no "violation of my ego" to do any of those things. It's actually the strength of my conscience that allows me to do those things.

In other words, I can do what you call "ruthless" things because I strongly believe in and am always trying to do what's right, not from stifling my conscience. It's the wild-eyed fanatics that destroy without pity or mercy, and feel righteous for doing so - not those who violate their consciences and weaken their resolve. It seems like a contradiction that I'd never enable someone to cheat like you did without huge measures of guilt, yet could do things you call "ugly" much easier, and without guilt -- but it comes from taking action in line with, rather than against a person's own values.

Anyway, I have the enneagram 1 curses of anger, guilt, self-righteousness, zeal/passion, and enormous demands on myself and others that translates well into becoming a single-minded obsessive instrument for "truth, justice, etc" at all costs that makes this perhaps somewhat different for me than for many others. But, I do think that you either strengthen your values by acting in accord with them, or weaken them by acting against them in all cases. You can't strengthen your zeal to do good by doing something you know isn't. So, fucking a woman in a relationship most definitely won't help you kill a rapist, or destroy your enemy when it comes down to it.

[Aquagraph]

Wow, Aqua, you really will stick your dong into any hole won't you?

Yes, my libido is pretty high and I am sexually liberated but, no, there's another side to that coin as I like to exercise contradicting myself as well. I've refused to have sex with 2 or 3 of people that are among the most beautiful people I know. I also once spontaneuosly started celibacy when waiting for a girl I met to be released from a mental institution. But yeah, you can probably see how defensive I'm getting. Sex is just such a cheap drug in my otherwise low serotonin life.

[strangeling]

this could be an interesting conversation but the op just came across to me as an excuse to brag about being a stud. again.

Actually it's quite untactful. A moment please.

Ironically I feel ashamed about the OP.

Why? You're highlighting the differences between moral disgust, innocence, and virtues. This is a good topic. Screw Lungs - she has a personal quarrel with you and not a theoretical one; don't let her shame you with her bullshit.

[Aquagraph]

I also don't think I'd have any hesitation or problem with any of the things you mentioned as being difficult "finish off a suffering animal, destroy my enemy when it needs to be so, execute the rapist in the village without pity or remorse and do other ugly things that serve purposes that I consider good." But there is no "violation of my ego" to do any of those things. It's actually the strength of my conscience that allows me to do those things.

But whatever it is, the moral disgust is what I see as an enemy of reason and a strong motivator in a way or another. The "executing a rapist" might vary in difficulty depending on the level of disgust towards raping and killing (a father/ as a state executioner with/as a vigilante).

[squark]

But whatever it is, the moral disgust is what I see as an enemy of reason and a strong motivator in a way or another. The "executing a rapist" might vary in difficulty depending on the level of disgust towards raping and killing (a father/ as a state executioner with/as a vigilante).

Why do you think you have to feel disgust to do it? And what effect does disgust have on preventing you? You simply have to have a desire to prevent anyone else from suffering at their hands. Basically - you're just getting rid of a problem, there doesn't have to be any disgust involved.

[Aquagraph]

When a human does something to upset their inner core values, they become broken. This is why there is so much post traumatic stress disorder in the military. Those people are forced to go against and see things that upset their core values and it ends up breaking them down inside. Not everyone lives with the mind of a psychopath. We're human, we have convictions, we feel empathy.

If it is strongly imbedded into your being that sleeping with gross old crusty slobs for money is wrong, then you will feel guilt about it, no matter how hard your try to convince yourself otherwise.

Could you imagine that, say, shooting your loved when he turns into a zombie could upset you in a similar manner?

[Aquagraph]

Why? You're highlighting the differences between moral disgust, innocence, and virtues. This is a good topic. Screw Lungs - she has a personal quarrel with you and not a theoretical one; don't let her shame you with her bullshit.

I just edited it something too personal out and turned it into less personal without taking anything vital. I'm getting sick of myself talking about my sex life and the more I think about it's latest motives, the more they seem personal manically moral crisis. Lately a new stream of piss has risen in my skull and I'm deflushing.

 

Maybe I subconsciously chosen to involve it in the OP because the intuitive disgust that I still have for my actions makes me reconsider my stance about it. I'll either feel too guilty about it and stop or will convince the rational part of my conscience that I didn't act wrong. This is basically me experimenting with guilt. I actually thought about making this thread yesterday when I was smoking pot, hangover, feeling secretly guilty and lowly while others considered the story about my return to be funny. My childhood friend said that I'm ruthless and laughed cheerily. I think I learn through taking things too far and then coming crashing down. The number of mistakes is crucial to the rate of the learning and now I think I might have hit my limits. I probably wouldn't do it again, whatever it is I how I would have rationalize it. Even if I could, I wouldn't want to get used to this feeling I still have. Yuck, indeed.

I've been romantically enabled a person cheat before but that was very different, though I wanted to think it over. The couple's situation was very elaborate but basically that person I had an affair months ago was forced to stay in that relationship due to coercion. It didn't also feel that bad because it was pretty romantic in comparison to fucking a taken woman on her birthday with the guy's snoring being as a background music...

If put in placebonics, it would be a highly valued Ti at the expense of Fi or something. Would probably also explain lungs' stance.

[Aquagraph]

Yes. It would be difficult.

But you'd be doing something that must be done, still could you imagine that the feeling afterwards could be similar to guilt?

[Aquagraph]

I'd compare it to the same feeling a soldier must feel when they have to kill innocents after being seen on secret operations.

Yeah, assuming they think they did the right thing although it was a gruesome one.

You used the word "imbedded" earlier. That sounds somewhat permanent. I wonder how well can a person forsake his old reactions due to new overwhelming experiences. Like how long does it take a fresh atheist to start enjoying premarital sex without guilt if he's in his thirties, from very strict religious backgrounds and a virgin? Or does killing in the military get easier after the first one? Or will surgeons have many sleepless nights?

[FDG]

Sorry Acqua but...eating-killing random animals, having sex with people and getting in random fights while drunk is now special? I´d wager 50% of the people I know have done all of this, sooner or later. It´s just like, doing things, then they are done, and nothing has changed. I mean, I am a bit cynical about this, but I believe those experiences don´t really change us at all, unless they are truly traumatic and repeated in time.
I personally take a more utilitarian approach to this topic (dog trying to bite me? I´ll try to beat the hell out of him. Girl likes me and neither of us has a boy-girlfriend? Lets get together. Idiot has been drunk-teasing me for months? Lets see if punching him is effective), which may actually be an hindrance to deeper discussions.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Aqua is looking for acceptance.

[rat1]

Ruthlessness... its fine if it serves a purpose, not if it's just indulgent. I guess I can be ruthless at times. Turning a kitten into art I don't know what you mean. If you mean gutting it and smearing it on a wall, I don't see the purpose of that and I think it's stupid.

[zomgqwantz]

[Gilly]

Yeah, there's something easily experienced "pure" with what is experienced "innocence". Sometimes my I in my hate loops I tend to think that many manifestations of the innocence to be linked to "slave morality" and simply being a fucking sheep citizen who:
-doesn't hang around with wrong sort of people.
-believes that the community should erase the drug users, prostitution and other stinky people. Of course, the individual will almost always focus on his/her immediate community units (family, neighbourhood, roommates ". If you ever use drugs again, Johnny, you are not my son." etc) more than the extended ones (nation, state, city, "west side (of X)"). This might be a continuum "Our family, not even Johnny, can do without drugs and I don't see why nobody should use drugs, except if you drink them and don't need interaction with icky needles or stinky hippies."
-voted Nixon (and other crooks that like to step on civil liberties).
-Overtly opposes nuclear power "Like radiation, man, that's not green and pure."
-Overtly opposes abortion. You can call me pro death because I'm a supporter in murdering the unborn.

The list goes on and on but you can probably see what I tend to think about moral hypervigilance.

Sounds like a grab-all attempt to encapsulate a populace and place their judgement under scrutiny. Fucking elitist European.

[Gilly]

Aqua is looking for acceptance.

Cough cough projection

[Gilly]

This is a reply to the original non-edited version of the OP that involved a short example that involved me helping someone exercise infidelity.

Actually what I considered about it was more elaborate. Everyone gets what they deserve.
-The man might need a teaching to trust her.

You mean he might need to be taught not to trust her, because she cheated on him with you? I can see your point and I agree, but that doesn't make you enabling her any more innocent. You can't just choose the comfortable side of the coin, my friend, especially if you want to weigh the scales evenly, as you seem to lay claim to.

-The woman will feel guilty and redeem.

Sure he might get more guilt blowjobs for a couple of months, but ultimately she will never respect him as much. And he will pick up on something at least. You can't pretend nothing will change for the worse.

-I will deserve a violent lesson in not getting caught.

What does this even mean? Are you some kind of karmic masochist?

-Their relationship will either overcome this or die in this trial. The latter option makes room for more relationships with minds that have learned from the past.

An excuse that could rob them of some happy time they might have had left together. Everything dies some day; does that mean it's ok to kill it today? Not your decision to make.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Cough cough projection

No.

[Oaky]

Morality doesn't exist so that you can compete with it then call it a virtue to do so.

[Minde]

Some kind of disjointed thoughts:

Disgust and guilt are two separate things, though they can certainly appear together. Despite all that moral relativists have going for them, I've found that when you get down to it most human beings do have a very similar set of basic morals, regardless of culture or upbringing. I think that Disney's "follow your heart" mantra, while warm and fuzzy and often well-meaning, is also dangerously deceptive. Feelings are good to listen to in terms of knowing them and their origins, but they can also put you off-track. E.g, doing hard things that are not enjoyable but will have longer-term payoff. It doesn't feel good but it is good. That can be super hard, though, especially if you're already in the habit of following impulse and passion. That's where structured and thought-out morals can be helpful (though obviously they can be unhelpful in other situations).

Also, cognitive dissonance.

[Absurd]

I feel physical disgust towards nose picking and cleaning dirty toilets and but I don't think they're immoral as actions.

Some kind of disjointed thoughts:

Disgust and guilt are two separate things, though they can certainly appear together. Despite all that moral relativists have going for them, I've found that when you get down to it most human beings do have a very similar set of basic morals, regardless of culture or upbringing.

Yup, those are two different things, just like immorality is to amorality and both Agarina and Minde are correct, furthermore morality doesn't have anything to do with feelings as Aquagraph would like to believe. It's has been and is all about the actions one takes that one can deem moral/immoral, so I do agree with both posters above.

Even Christianity tells about how the law of God is written in our hearts which sounds like the very same thing: Your heart aches because you broke the law!

Have you ever thought about ten commandments as the most efficient and brief outline when it comes to "law"? Somebody I knew phrased it in this way. Besides wanting to go in depth and actually disassemble Christianity the way it has been done before is going to produce quite interesting results.

[Creepy-male]

Some of you would have hard time with yourself after selling sex for money and some of us are quite okay with it.
What I find interesting is that probably many who would think it to be morally acceptable would still feel guilty/ashamed about it.

This feeling is easily mistaken for morality, the voice of conscience, the Jiminy Cricket on your shoulders. Even Christianity tells about how the law of God is written in our hearts which sounds like the very same thing: Your heart aches because you broke the law!

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially how your feeling of conscienceness relates to your morality.

Very interesting

For starters I would say that conscienceness is a separate thing I believe from the "law of God". I've abandoned any concepts of "godly laws" mainly because the entire concept of it seems perplexing and unnatural. If laws are invented by a godly entity that controls and knows all then why are they not enforced absolutely -- if the laws were perfect then the world would be perfect. This however undermines the entire concept of free will and if one were to consider this then the question arise if a law can't be enforced then why is it necessary to even have it? Isn't it better to discard it all together in place of something else? This is what I'm inclined to think. The so called "law of god" is an invented thought process from bottom-up moralizing a sympathetic human effort to alleviate guilt and responsibility in place of a faux sense of certainty over the moral "correctness" of ones actions. Consider the concept from a human point of view. If one were to be the architect of a utopia, then what laws would one write? This alone is a complex question and even if it could be answered perfectly and correctly, then the question remains how to implement this law. If all there is a perfectly sculpted society but there is no freedom and everything is strictly controlled and regulated then is this really even "perfect". Probably not, so approaching things from this view it seems like the perfect method of architecting a utopia would be to have a system which is self-adaptive and free, which spontaneously organizes itself, and in other words isn't "designed" -- it's self-designing, creating, and evolving. This is why I personally completely ignore any understanding of such things through the lens of "godly laws".

Now in terms of guilt and conscience... I'm especially attracted to the concept of what people don't see. Everyone focuses on what they see. Consider that for every action one thinks is positive there may be a hidden consequence that is negative. Say I wish to inspire someone and tell them "god has great plans for you", this may equally de-inspire someone who feels like their failure is a reflection of god being displeased at them and them not belonging in the world. Say I wish to inspire someone who is struggling to fight harder and survive in life, I may tell them heaven awaits them in the afterlife if they push through but if they kill themselves they will go to hell -- it could backfire to make the loved ones of someone who killed themselves feel anxiety and not a sense of peace/healing. These are basic example but lets consider smaller examples, like a mechanic forgets to fill a tire up and this small event cascades in suite with other circumstances to lead to the person's death. The mechanic doesn't know, the mechanic isn't going to be guilty, yet his actions played a small part of influence, only subtly into the outcome.

This is what I mean by what people don't see -- when confronted with two decisions on how to act, when one is chosen they tend to accept that reality instead of considering how things may have been different. If things are positive in their life they tend to associate these decisions with being correct -- although their may be a hidden negative side to them, a "shadow" they cast. If things are negative in their life though they tend to associate even the most innocent of decisions to being in the wrong, when that decision may actually have a "shadow" which is positive - some hidden seeds of prosperity. This is why to me the entire notion of being burdened by guilt seems so destructive. Guilt allows people to re-evaluate their decisions, learn from mistakes, and revise their decisions. But guilt founded in a perfectionist attitude towards life and innocence and purity can be paralyzing, because there are so many hidden shadows and details to align -- if one goes looking for things to feel guilty about they are not hard to find. I personally find the most productive attitude for me is how I synthesize this guilt -- more as an awareness of the impact of my decisions and actions which I can learn from and grow in order to improve. This has allowed me to shift my sense of guilt away from particular situations and the present circumstances and onto an urge to grow/learn/improve. Feeling guilty for a bad decision is typical and everyone has it, its not worth the time to exasperate guilt in oneself or others -- its a lot more productive to learn and correct. This shifts the responsibility back away from "gods" and back onto the individual, their responsibility, their empowerment, and their role in something larger than themselves.

After studying physics for so long I'm not worried at all -- the worst that could happen is the planet gets wiped out, or say the human species is wiped out -- still the birth and death of new stars will form entirely new worlds and ecosystems. Most decisions that seem so impactful in everyday life are vastly irrelevant to the massive scope and grandeur of the entire universe.

>> I think in this sense you could consider ruthlessness to be a virtue. But it depends if you call ruthlessness the ability to follow through and act and carry something out ("willpower") or if you call ruthlessness the cruelty and callousness that sometimes requires. I would say if you eliminate the cruelty and callousness and hate from the ability to decide then this is only making someone more effective and therefore is a virtue. However separating the cruelty and callousness from the ability to follow through is difficult, and this is where the previously mentioned discussion of "impacts of ones" decisions comes in. Every decision has consequences and some decisions may leave one feeling particular ways.

[squirreltual]

I try to treat people decently because it gives them the ability to see what I expect in return. If this is violated then I may alter my behaviour accordingly. This can slip into self-righteousness and blocked empathy, but I expect/hope to be called out on that. Sometimes I can only realize with hindsight. It's as simple and flawed as I am but still the best framework I have. I don't know about shame or guilt but empathy dictates I feel upset if I cause someone to feel pain; without that I wouldn't feel human.

The question though, appears to be this: now you've learnt about the ill-effects of douchebaggery are you going to be kind to yourself and avoid this kind of internal conflict?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Feelings are good to listen to in terms of knowing them and their origins, but they can also put you off-track. E.g, doing hard things that are not enjoyable but will have longer-term payoff. It doesn't feel good but it is good. That can be super hard, though, especially if you're already in the habit of following impulse and passion. That's where structured and thought-out morals can be helpful (though obviously they can be unhelpful in other situations).

As an aside to the festivities here, it's interesting that you personally emphasize this because Kepinski's involvement with axiology, or the study of value, is part of what induced me to think that he was an EII (see here). Insofar as I see IJs requiring a strong sense of cohesion in their thoughts as well as an inclination to order the external world according to the idealizations of the inner, the formalization of morals you've mentioned seems well suited to the psychological nature and needs of someone attitudinally oriented to Fi+Ne. Of course this can apply to other types as well, but your remarks reminded me of similar recent thoughts, particularly the objectification of ideals as they're reflected in creative works, and how this can point to valued functions.

A few relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Value
http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/axiology.asp

[Absurd]

Well then, Aquagraph's enneagram issue solved itself, providing there was one to begin with.

[Minde]

As an aside to the festivities here, it's interesting that you personally emphasize this because Kepinski's involvement with axiology, or the study of value, is part of what induced me to think that he was an EII (see here). Insofar as I see IJs requiring a strong sense of cohesion in their thoughts as well as an inclination to order the external world according to the idealizations of the inner, the formalization of morals you've mentioned seems well suited to the psychological nature and needs of someone attitudinally oriented to Fi+Ne. Of course this can apply to other types as well, but your remarks reminded me of similar recent thoughts, particularly the objectification of ideals as they're reflected in creative works, and how this can point to valued functions.

A few relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Value
http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/axiology.asp

Huh, interesting.

It does help me to have that structure, yes, though I realize not everyone is the same as me in that regard. Also, too rigid and unadaptable a structure can lead to lots of harm. For me, structured morals need to be constantly (or regularly) aware of reality, what actually happens/ed.

[Creepy-male]

The question though, appears to be this: now you've learnt about the ill-effects of douchebaggery are you going to be kind to yourself and avoid this kind of internal conflict?

avoid conflict many times has the unintended consequence of isolation.

One could entirely isolate themselves from others and have little conflict, or one could isolate themselves from others which are not within a group where it is easier to manage conflict and develop harmony. At the furthest extreme one could not isolate themselves from anything and constantly be exposed to conflict at all times. I think most people without realizing make these decisions impulsively -- but to me this is the real challenge... how to make the best decision to connect with people without creating too much conflict and pain.

Your statement seems as though its coming from the perspective of one looking to isolate themselves more from others -- where as in my position I'd almost see things the opposite, as someone who is looking to confront things more because they feel too isolated.

[squirreltual]

avoid conflict many times has the unintended consequence of isolation.

One could entirely isolate themselves from others and have little conflict, or one could isolate themselves from others which are not within a group where it is easier to manage conflict and develop harmony. At the furthest extreme one could not isolate themselves from anything and constantly be exposed to conflict at all times. I think most people without realizing make these decisions impulsively -- but to me this is the real challenge... how to make the best decision to connect with people without creating too much conflict and pain.

Your statement seems as though its coming from the perspective of one looking to isolate themselves more from others -- where as in my position I'd almost see things the opposite, as someone who is looking to confront things more because they feel too isolated.

I was talking about avoiding personal inner conflict i.e. guilt, shame, self-punishment etc. Can you elaborate on how are you linking this with the external world and isolation please? I'd take external conflict over internal any day and have no wish to isolate myself.

[strangeling]

I just edited it something too personal out and turned it into less personal without taking anything vital. I'm getting sick of myself talking about my sex life and the more I think about it's latest motives, the more they seem personal manically moral crisis. Lately a new stream of piss has risen in my skull and I'm deflushing.

 

Maybe I subconsciously chosen to involve it in the OP because the intuitive disgust that I still have for my actions makes me reconsider my stance about it. I'll either feel too guilty about it and stop or will convince the rational part of my conscience that I didn't act wrong. This is basically me experimenting with guilt. I actually thought about making this thread yesterday when I was smoking pot, hangover, feeling secretly guilty and lowly while others considered the story about my return to be funny. My childhood friend said that I'm ruthless and laughed cheerily. I think I learn through taking things too far and then coming crashing down. The number of mistakes is crucial to the rate of the learning and now I think I might have hit my limits. I probably wouldn't do it again, whatever it is I how I would have rationalize it. Even if I could, I wouldn't want to get used to this feeling I still have. Yuck, indeed.

I've been romantically enabled a person cheat before but that was very different, though I wanted to think it over. The couple's situation was very elaborate but basically that person I had an affair months ago was forced to stay in that relationship due to coercion. It didn't also feel that bad because it was pretty romantic in comparison to fucking a taken woman on her birthday with the guy's snoring being as a background music...

If put in placebonics, it would be a highly valued Ti at the expense of Fi or something. Would probably also explain lungs' stance.

Well then I guess I don't know what you said. But it kind of sucks that people are against you being honest. You sound pretty human to me and you aren't hurting anyone by being honest about yourself in order to better understand things. Expressing yourself isn't bad just because someone doesn't like it; it's their fucking intolerant bigoted problem.
And I wonder why Lungs feels it worth the energy to complain about you when you aren't hurting her freedoms in any way or making her out to be something she isn't. Maybe she could clarify.

And for what it's worth, I relate to everything you've said and I'm pretty sure I'm Fi/Te valuing.

If put in placebonics, it would be a highly valued Ti at the expense of Fi or something. Would probably also explain lungs' stance.

Well Lungs also seems pretty bitchy in general; I don't think it's quite fair to take all the blame through...placebonics? I'm not sure I get it, lol.