Paul Levy on Wetiko psychosis

[upsidedown]

To consider these people as victims is to miss the point entirely - and to risk getting lost in a fog of 'those poor psychopathic personalities'.

Anart, I appreciate your suggestion that the first order of business is to educate the masses. We need to get a handle on it somehow. I guess I would have to disagree though that considering psychopaths as victims is missing the point. No, you will not go into a fog if you exercise compassion. Compassion is not synonymous with weakness. They are victimized by their illness, disease, or whatever you choose to call it. I would say they are victims before they are perpetrators. If you want to educate people it is important to know what causes psychopathy in the first place. Maybe we don't know for sure, or all we have are theories, and we think that all we can do is to treat them or lock them up and throw away the key. If we can't put aside our neophobia and go deeply into that though in search of a cure, and realize that the cause of psychopathy is the real perpetrator, the one we are really after, then what's the point of doing anything else?

 

[Beau]

Anart, I appreciate your suggestion that the first order of business is to educate the masses. We need to get a handle on it somehow. I guess I would have to disagree though that considering psychopaths as victims is missing the point. No, you will not go into a fog if you exercise compassion. Compassion is not synonymous with weakness. They are victimized by their illness, disease, or whatever you choose to call it. I would say they are victims before they are perpetrators. If you want to educate people it is important to know what causes psychopathy in the first place. Maybe we don't know for sure, or all we have are theories, and we think that all we can do is to treat them or lock them up and throw away the key. If we can't put aside our neophobia and go deeply into that though in search of a cure, and realize that the cause of psychopathy is the real perpetrator, the one we are really after, then what's the point of doing anything else?

A psychopath that is born that way is not a victim. You seem to think it is a case of society, or familial upbringing, that is what causes to people to "lose" empathy or compassion. That is faulty. Many are not the victim of circumstance. Many are just who they are. And we need to understand who they are in order not to be hurt by them. They never had the ability to feel for others to start with. Too many people believe psychopaths are made that way over time. That's the first problem with the above. Secondly, no one is saying we should lock them up and throw away the key. But we certainly want to do all we can to avoid being hurt by them. Your pity for their condition does not change the fact that their is no changing it.

 

[anart]

To consider these people as victims is to miss the point entirely - and to risk getting lost in a fog of 'those poor psychopathic personalities'.

Anart, I appreciate your suggestion that the first order of business is to educate the masses. We need to get a handle on it somehow. I guess I would have to disagree though that considering psychopaths as victims is missing the point. No, you will not go into a fog if you exercise compassion. Compassion is not synonymous with weakness. They are victimized by their illness, disease, or whatever you choose to call it. I would say they are victims before they are perpetrators. If you want to educate people it is important to know what causes psychopathy in the first place. Maybe we don't know for sure, or all we have are theories, and we think that all we can do is to treat them or lock them up and throw away the key. If we can't put aside our neophobia and go deeply into that though in search of a cure, and realize that the cause of psychopathy is the real perpetrator, the one we are really after, then what's the point of doing anything else?

I think the problem here may be that you have a different definition of psychopath than the one that is generally understood here. Have you had a chance to read Political Ponerology yet? It does a really good job of breaking the types of psychopaths down, so one can really understand the general scheme of things. I am not saying that compassion is synonymous with weakness, and you have a tendency to make great leaps of logic when interpreting what I am saying, which is a little discouraging.

One isn't compassionate to a crocodile - they recognize it for what it is and get out of its way. When dealing with an essential psychopath, there is no need for compassion - there is only a need for recognition, definition, awareness and educating others to minimize the harm that always follows. Essential psychopaths are born this way - they are not 'made', they cannot be 'victims'. If you get a chance to read up on the information available on this forum and its associated web pages regarding psychopathology, it will take you a long way toward understanding what it is we are really dealing with here.

 

[HiThere]

To consider these people as victims is to miss the point entirely - and to risk getting lost in a fog of 'those poor psychopathic personalities'.

Anart, I appreciate your suggestion that the first order of business is to educate the masses. We need to get a handle on it somehow. I guess I would have to disagree though that considering psychopaths as victims is missing the point. No, you will not go into a fog if you exercise compassion. Compassion is not synonymous with weakness. They are victimized by their illness, disease, or whatever you choose to call it. I would say they are victims before they are perpetrators. If you want to educate people it is important to know what causes psychopathy in the first place. Maybe we don't know for sure, or all we have are theories, and we think that all we can do is to treat them or lock them up and throw away the key. If we can't put aside our neophobia and go deeply into that though in search of a cure, and realize that the cause of psychopathy is the real perpetrator, the one we are really after, then what's the point of doing anything else?

I look upon it more as a question of development. The psycopaths haven't developed higher centers yet, and are having experiences relative to their level of development. This is a more polarized experience, with a focus on the newly formed individual soul, seen as being in constant competition with all other living things - Darwinian existence. There is no way to make these people something other than what they are, no more than you can learn a dog how to play poker. In studies among people with personality disorder one has found that approx 2% of them are willing to admit that they themselves might be part of the problem when they have to change jobs or spouses because of conflicts. Of these 2% approx 25% SAY they have achieved some kind of new insights about themselves after years in group therapy. So the results aren't good.

Anart beat me to it, even used an animal metaphor as I did! :)

 

[Renaissance]

To consider these people as victims is to miss the point entirely - and to risk getting lost in a fog of 'those poor psychopathic personalities'.

Anart, I appreciate your suggestion that the first order of business is to educate the masses. We need to get a handle on it somehow. I guess I would have to disagree though that considering psychopaths as victims is missing the point. No, you will not go into a fog if you exercise compassion. Compassion is not synonymous with weakness. They are victimized by their illness, disease, or whatever you choose to call it. I would say they are victims before they are perpetrators. If you want to educate people it is important to know what causes psychopathy in the first place. Maybe we don't know for sure, or all we have are theories, and we think that all we can do is to treat them or lock them up and throw away the key. If we can't put aside our neophobia and go deeply into that though in search of a cure, and realize that the cause of psychopathy is the real perpetrator, the one we are really after, then what's the point of doing anything else?

Upsidedown, have you done any reading on psychopathy? I ask because you have many misconceptions that can be quite dangerous. Psychopaths cannot be treated. It is who they are. They do not have a mental disorder in the same sense of other mental disorders. They have a pervasive and permanent set of behaviors and trying to treat them makes them better manipulators. They could be called a different type of species. Please check out the recommended books on the subject.

 

[upsidedown]

Shane, I actually haven't done much reading on psychopathy, but I will because I am terribly interested in the subject. I am studying abnormal behavior anyway, so I am sure I will get to know quite a lot. At any rate, what I have a problem with is the way in which people who deal with horrendous things (such as psychopathy, or the Wetikonomy), seem to get lost in the fight and lose touch with the things that are meant to support our humanity . Compassion is one of them. Treating people with dignity and respect is another. To say that there is no place for these things in dealing with a psychopath, or a vampire squid, just seems, well, rather upsidedown to me.

I apologize Anart if you feel that I have been making logical leaps in my responses to you. I think maybe I was feeling the same way with what you were suggesting. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will try to be more careful with how I say things, and I will try to listen more than I speak. There is a way to have compassion though, even for a crocodile, and I will firmly stand on that conviction. Love is the only way out of the egophrenia that Levy is suggesting we are plagued with. Love is not a weakness. It is a way of healing, no matter what the malady is that we are plagued with. I guess that is all I am supposed to say here.

 

[anart]

There is a way to have compassion though, even for a crocodile, and I will firmly stand on that conviction. Love is the only way out of the egophrenia that Levy is suggesting we are plagued with. Love is not a weakness. It is a way of healing, no matter what the malady is that we are plagued with. I guess that is all I am supposed to say here.

You're doing it again ;) - I never said that love is a weakness. What I am saying is that if you 'love' a psychopath, it only makes them smile as they eat you. Make no mistake - a predator is a predator and pretending they are anything else makes you lunch, figuratively or literally. I think you'll really enjoy the reading on psychopathology and that you might revisit this conversation after your reading with a different take on what has been said to you. :)

 

[upsidedown]

You're doing it again - I never said that love is a weakness. What I am saying is that if you 'love' a psychopath, it only makes them smile as they eat you. Make no mistake - a predator is a predator and pretending they are anything else makes you lunch, figuratively or literally. I think you'll really enjoy the reading on psychopathology and that you might revisit this conversation after your reading with a different take on what has been said to you.

Anart, I never said you said love is not a weakness. I was just saying love is not a weakness. I should have clarified that too and said, love in the true sense of the word is not a weakness. Love that gives without any kind of wisdom about how that is supposed to be done is a weakness, but it's also not really love in the true sense, even though the intention is there. I think most of us don't know what real love is, though we might be able to have some recognition of it. That is why we are here on this planet having to figure it out. Still, it remains as something that I would consider to be the ultimate solution to everything. But only if it embodies true wisdom. :)

I believe what you say, that a predator is a predator. But according to the law of opposites, a predator is also a victim, and a victim can be a predator. It depends on if you're in the wave mode of that or the particle mode. I know this language is loose and ethereal, but I don't know any other way to say it.

So, what if I never read anything on psychopathology? Does that disqualify me from commenting on Levy's article? (I sure hope that was not a logical leap.) Maybe I could offer something to this conversation as one who is coming at it from a different angle. I don't know everything. But I might know something. Maybe.

 

[upsidedown]

My bad here, Anart, I never said you said love is not a weakness. Take not out of that. Thank you.

 

[anart]

But according to the law of opposites, a predator is also a victim, and a victim can be a predator.

What is the 'law of opposites'? Can you give sources, as I'm unfamiliar.

So, what if I never read anything on psychopathology? Does that disqualify me from commenting on Levy's article? (I sure hope that was not a logical leap.) Maybe I could offer something to this conversation as one who is coming at it from a different angle. I don't know everything. But I might know something. Maybe.

If you don't have a basic understanding of the definition and causes of psychopathology, then this simply means that your comments are noise, in relation to the signal of objective information being presented. Most people don't want to introduce noise into a discussion, they want to introduce signal - truth - objective data from which a deeper understanding can develop. Since this is a research forum, it is really important to keep the signal to noise ratio high - I hope that makes sense. This thread on opinions might help as well.

 

[truth seeker]

Hi upsidedown,

Perhaps the definition of love you speak of is subjective:

The subjective kind of love is attached to one's own idea of the other or to what can be gained or obtained from the other. People call the most various desires love. These can have to do with social status, addiction to power over or domination of another, sexual interest and so forth. The emotion fluctuates between satisfaction of getting and fear of losing and is generally centered on the self. Subjective love seeks to somehow forcibly appropriate another into one's extended self. One example of this is showing off what a clever or good-looking partner or child one has in order to somehow increase oneself. Any games of domination or co-dependence which often involve the term love fall in this category.

Are you willing to consider for a moment that this form of love (which we are all susceptible to) may cause more harm than good when we are willing to throw out discernment in favor of feeling good about the fact that we "love" everyone? If you can, appreciate for a moment how the very idea of love has been distorted. We are made to feel that if we are truly good people, then we must love everyone. While that would be a wonderful thing in a world where everyone were truly well meaning, unfortunately it doesn't work in this world. So who does this distorted view of love really benefit? It would seem to me that it would most benefit psychopaths as it allows people to continue to hold good thoughts even as they are being victimized.

If someone were to victimize you or someone you love, would you become a victimizer yourself? Would that then make it okay for you to harm others because you have been harmed?

When we "love" someone in the general sense of the word and attempt to "be nice", we harm both the other person and ourselves because we prevent them from learning lessons that appear via consequences. We rob them and ourselves of this opportunity to take responsibility.

 

[upsidedown]

Truth Seeker: Perhaps the definition of love that I was speaking of was not necessarily subjective. I was talking about love that is embodied with wisdom.

By the way, since you feel that you know what love is, can you tell me what truth is? Or are you still searching?

Anart: You can research the 'law of opposites' on your own. That would be the best way to learn. If you get it from me, it might not be received all that well. I haven't had much success with enlightening you on anything. I see that you are separating noise from what you call "objective" truth and say that I should take a look at my sin of having an opinion. If you don't like my noise, then why do you give me your attention?

By the way, since you know what an opinion is, can you tell me what a "fact" is? Or is that something esoteric that I am not supposed to know about.

In the beginning, I came here with a question. I wanted to know what others thought about how Levy was using a particular phrase because I was looking for some clarity. Now I see that there has been only a scant mention about Levy's article. Instead, I have been bombarded on all sides by everyone trying to teach me what they know about psychopathy, which I appreciate, but, what about the article, and what about my question?

Could be that I am just in the wrong camp altogether. If I need to leave I will. I would appreciate an invitation to "somewhere else" if anybody can do that.

 

[truth seeker]

Truth Seeker: Perhaps the definition of love that I was speaking of was not necessarily subjective. I was talking about love that is embodied with wisdom.

By the way, since you feel that you know what love is, can you tell me what truth is? Or are you still searching?

Apologies if I've upset you. I'm not sure if you had a look at the link I gave for this forum's understanding of love. Here is our current understanding of truth. These definitions are a guide to help us with our understanding, it doesn't mean we're there yet. :)

All I'm asking is for you to consider what I've said. If you feel it doesn't apply to you, so be it. You are aware that this forum is for purposes of doing the work? This entails looking deeply at ourselves and questioning even when it becomes uncomfortable. Much easier said than done. :)

Anart: You can research the 'law of opposites' on your own. That would be the best way to learn. If you get it from me, it might not be received all that well. I haven't had much success with enlightening you on anything. I see that you are separating noise from what you call "objective" truth and say that I should take a look at my sin of having an opinion. If you don't like my noise, then why do you give me your attention?

By the way, since you know what an opinion is, can you tell me what a "fact" is? Or is that something esoteric that I am not supposed to know about.

In the beginning, I came here with a question. I wanted to know what others thought about how Levy was using a particular phrase because I was looking for some clarity. Now I see that there has been only a scant mention about Levy's article. Instead, I have been bombarded on all sides by everyone trying to teach me what they know about psychopathy, which I appreciate, but, what about the article, and what about my question?

Could be that I am just in the wrong camp altogether. If I need to leave I will. I would appreciate an invitation to "somewhere else" if anybody can do that.

I would say that since you are new here, the onus lies with you to learn as opposed to teach. This doesn't mean that you have nothing to offer but simply because you are new to the forum, it's of great benefit to get up to speed so that we are all on the same page.

You haven't been bombarded, just questioned. Although it may feel personal, it isn't. In looking back on this thread, it seems your question was answered by fireshadow. The thread then morphed into a discussion regarding psychopathy because of comments made. That's what tends to happen in threads (and conversations in general) they progress organically.

In case you aren't aware of it, psychopathy is also one of the subjects of interest here as we see the effect such types have on the world so that's why it came up.

edit: clarity

 

[upsidedown]

Apology accepted truth seeker. However, I don't feel I need to know what love is or truth is if it isn't something I haven't come to understand on my own. I came here asking a question because I wanted to learn and though it was answered by firshadow, I found his answer to be insufficient. I didn't feel he saw deep enough into the question I had asked. He only saw what he thinks Levy might have meant, then proceeded to tell me how much I need to wake up. This did not satisfy me. But he is not the only one. I have asked others (not here) and they all appear to be making the same assumptions about what Levy meant. To me, the phrasing in question is a loaded gun. It is so because it points directly, and very dangerously, at the heart of human dignity. It both excuses and accuses us in the same breath as a kind of shock sensationalism that assumes we are so unaware of what is going on that we need to be bludgeoned with its urgency. I would say there is nothing more psychopathic than that. I was asking for clarity and now I can see it so much more clearly now. I am sorry for the disruption. I will leave now. Be well. :)

 

[anart]

Apology accepted truth seeker. However, I don't feel I need to know what love is or truth is if it isn't something I haven't come to understand on my own. I came here asking a question because I wanted to learn and though it was answered by firshadow, I found his answer to be insufficient. I didn't feel he saw deep enough into the question I had asked. He only saw what he thinks Levy might have meant, then proceeded to tell me how much I need to wake up. This did not satisfy me. But he is not the only one. I have asked others (not here) and they all appear to be making the same assumptions about what Levy meant. To me, the phrasing in question is a loaded gun. It is so because it points directly, and very dangerously, at the heart of human dignity. It both excuses and accuses us in the same breath as a kind of shock sensationalism that assumes we are so unaware of what is going on that we need to be bludgeoned with its urgency. I would say there is nothing more psychopathic than that. I was asking for clarity and now I can see it so much more clearly now. I am sorry for the disruption. I will leave now. Be well. :)

upsidedown, I'm curious about your thoughts about the German people in the late 30's and early 40's. Would you hold them responsible for their support of the Nazi party and all that follows? Ignorance, or even inaction, are not excuses. We ARE all responsible for the actions of humanity and if not on a personal level, then certainly on a karmic level, via our presence here. There really is not an 'ignorance' excuse because we all share this reality and if we can't get ourselves out of the way enough to make a difference, then we are to blame for doing nothing at all.

Something about this idea bothers you - perhaps it is your own responsibility. I know that my own responsibility bothers me.

Regarding your other issue with this forum, it really comes down to this - we expect forum members to be, at the very least, willing to be aware, to learn, to question themselves and to move forward. Hopefully you are willing to do that. If not, I'm sure you'll find a forum that is more to your liking.