Skip to main content

1) TRUST


Words relating to motive are very interesting because they are not communicative when the underlying principles are associated with moral judgments and values. Unlike “Chair” or “God” their application absolutely must be deconstructed into separate principles.  The principles expose deeply attached needs to control and influence, and I suspect these principles sabotage freedom to live authentically.

Let s start with a short, sweet contentious issue.  I’m going to put forward that the notion of trustworthiness as an absolutely noble quality is highly corrupting of self awareness, and is one of the subtlest mechanisms of control parading as worthiness.

Without even getting into the political reasons why trustworthiness is afforded, we can expose the control mechanism in principle, as a fundamental fraud.

Let’s look at romantic relationships, universally relatable as part of the human condition.

Scenario 1)
One partner expects a certain code of conduct to be forthcoming in order to remain part of a relationship, perhaps monogamy or certain social or family involvements.  A closed parameter is created, rules and set up and the contract is negotiated.  That is the requirement of this partner.  If the other partner values the union they will need to conduct themselves in accordance with this requirement to keep the relationship going.
With this barrier in place the second partner is no longer free to act in a way that may have been consistent with their unrestricted nature, perhaps shagging everything that moves, and the first partner has declared that their interest is not in getting to know how partner number 2 functions, but in controlling or moderating their behavior. Partner 2 has been restrained, and partner 1 will police this issue indefinitely because because a natural behavior has been adjusted.  Will partner 1 ever be able to "trust" partner 2 with this element in play?

Scenario 2)
Now let turn the approach around.  Partner number 1 meets partner number 2 and no rules are established. The objective is establishing compatibility, Partner 1 gets to observe partner 2 operating freely and is able to evaluate their natural un-moderated behavior and make a decision I consider to be well informed.  Perhaps partner number 1 decides that this aspect (The excessive need for sexual partners) is (understandably) a deal breaker and the 2 separate as a result. “We want different things”

Scenario 3)
Partner number 2 from each of the above hook up, and express mutual interest in swinging or shagging the town red together.  They get to have this relationship together and enjoy it for whatever it offers them, and deal with whatever fallout emerges.  Consequences can be freely assessed and moderation to their behaviors can be self realized rather than policed.

The same could be said for the goals, IE do you want children?  The values of finding someone who wants what you want are just as or more important except the values and judgment are less inherent.  If we are deceived here (it happens) you would have been unlikely to pose the question "can I trust you to want children" since it is recognized as a choice with slightly less judgment of right and wrong either way, which free's us somewhat to negotiate the terms for what they are rather than bringing trust into the equation.

Trust is earned, it's the product of upholding your end of the deal and delivering on promises, not a tool to get there.

These are scenarios are contrived to illustrate my point, but I see a clear case being made for the benefit of being able to truly evaluate and ascertain reality in order to best manage it, rather than live an illusion based on control and manipulation, all along feeling justified because you are in the right and as result have no understanding of the need to be free from fantasy.

There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…