Podcast: the Grave of Right and Wrong fixed!
As we move further along the path of personal clarity and rewilding, we may discover things that hold us back, such as concepts of ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’. In this episode I talk about finding better measures for evaluating the feedback the world gives us, to improve our relationships in real ways. I also talk about implications of making these changes, of abandoning judgement as a primary tool of relating, and how this will change the way we communicate.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I once read the book ‘people of the lie’ by m.scott peck. I have wanted to go back and read it again, some of the ideas he outlined deeply affected my perception of human interactions. if you haven’t read it, the basis of the book is that there are some people who fit a particular pattern of behavior that is both personally destructive and destructive to others, and due to the nature of that behavior, there is absolutely no way to break through to those people to help them. they refuse to see, to the point of fabrication in order to maintain their grip on their reality. here’s a short quote that sums up the behavior:
He states: “In addition to the abrogation of responsibility that characterizes all personality disorder, this one would specifically be distinguished by: (a) consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which my often be quite subtle. (b) Excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury. (c) Pronounced concern with a pubic image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life-style but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives. (d) Intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophreniclike disturbance of thinking at times of stress.”
I would note that in ‘a language older than words’, derek’s description of his father puts his father quite squarely in this category.
I propose that evil, always associated with darkness, is manifested in people by a willing choice to remain in the dark - that is, to willingly not see.
what they are not willing to see is that right and wrong are subjective and thus not real. because the concepts of right and wrong are the tools they use to maintain their wall, anything that might threaten the usefulness of those tools will be avoided at all costs.
does that make it possible that the concepts of right and wrong are solely the tools of evil?
May 11th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
i love your theory!! i have read that book.
yes, if i wanted to cast a cloud of confusion over someone’s ability to sort out their own needs, feelings, and actions, i would mire them in a cloud of evaluations of “right and wrong”.
the funny thing about the “evil people” in that book; I’ve never met one, personally (not and known it, anyway). So I don’t really have any information about that. We abuse the term “evil” so much (I almost never hear it saved for Scott Peck’s definition), that it has lost a lot of value for me.
Whatever the force, syndrome, sickness that encourages ongoing denial of our humanity, I take a stand against it, in my own life. I can certainly say that.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
This reminds me of something. I was recently eating dinner with my best friend and we began talking about, of all things, biofuels. God what a boring subject! Well, by the end of dinner some hour and a half later, I had succeeded in arguing with him about why biofuels and civilization are so evil, but I hadn’t succeeded in having a nourishing conversation with him. I felt awful at the end of it, apologizing to him as we walked back to his house for acting like such an asshole.
It really didn’t make sense either, the whole argument. This is a person I’ve known practically my whole life and even though we don’t always see eye to eye (thank the gods), we have always managed to have really positive, nourishing interactions that allow us to challenge and stimulate growth in each other without ever having to take that hard line of advice or that modality of argument.
Why the slip up in my behavior? I don’t know, precisely. But I am thankful that our relationship is strong enough that these kinds of anomalies don’t break the bank, so to speak.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
kodama-
that all sounds very familiar to me.
yep. cheers to choosing nourishing conversations!
June 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I need to find a pair of headsets so I can listen to this - ever since hearing someone or another - I’d drop the name if I could recall it - say : “morality, which is not moral”, a short circuiting statement if I’ve ever heard one - I’ve been frequently about this topic. How confusing. I thought I knew, right? With the manifold and diverse instances of suffering - something we all have the inborn ability to sense, we know when it happens to us, we know it when we perceive it, with or without words like virtue or whatnot - letting any experience filter through that far too simple dichotomy has the same conseqences as a surgeon trading in their scalpal for a shoehorn at the inception of a possibly life saving operation. It’s also quite arrogant, saying I know the way to behave and I can always identify it, as if any human mind could fathom the entire complexity of every situation.