"Mean Spirited" typically goes hand in hand with either "spoiled", "neglected", or "abused".
Infants aren't mean spirited. On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > She boiled her baby because a series of > childhood traumas and negative adult life events led her to a crystal > meth addiction which so impaired her judgement that she quite > literally lost her mind. Neither of these hypothetical examples is in > any way supportive of the concept of innate evil. <<<CJ > > > Actually she was a mean spirited little girl whose parents sent her > off to live in a convent under the loving care of nuns who nurtured > her into a tender loving woman, so kind and sweet she was, until that > day came, the day that no one understands, the day that she killed her > husband and boiled her baby.................but the scientific > community said it was just postpartum disorder, a simple hormonal mood > swing, not to worry. > > On Mar 20, 11:39 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > How can something be both innate, and learned?<<CJ >> >> > I see a problem here on the interpretive level. >> >> > I said clearly......... "As much as we can accept the (possibility) >> > that good and >> > evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we (can't rule out) >> > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt >> > influence upon our action. >> >> > The content is clearly not a statement of absolutes. What is >> > unrecognized are the variable aspects of innateness, ie; the degree of >> > the good/evil personae. Take for example a crime witness quote "I new >> > he was bad but I didn't think he was capable of such a heinous act". >> > OR "I know she was a bad mother but don't understand what possessed >> > her to boil her baby". >> >> ...and I opened with a reference to Russell's Teapot. "Not ruling out" >> leaves a wide swath for speculation. I recognized that you >> specifically weren't making an absolute statement. I'm referring to >> the concepts of good and evil, which are themselves statements of >> absolute judgment. The crime witness statements you are talking about >> are not some recognition of any real quality, but an example of >> cognitive bias on the part of the witness. >> >> >> >> > So there is a "degree" of innate good/evil but in reiteration, we >> > can't rule out the forces/energies can have or attempt influence on a >> > person. >> >> You've moved now into a QED follow up without ever having supported >> your initial statement. I see nowhere where you have demonstrated from >> the hypothetical witness statements how that supports an idea of an >> innate good or evil. >> >> He was capable of such a heinous act because he was a progressively >> degenerative schizophrenic. She boiled her baby because a series of >> childhood traumas and negative adult life events led her to a crystal >> meth addiction which so impaired her judgement that she quite >> literally lost her mind. Neither of these hypothetical examples is in >> any way supportive of the concept of innate evil. >> >> Also as had been discussed early in the thread, the >> >> > interpretation of good/evil is in how it is defined. So what I'm >> > trying to get at here is that a person can have qualities that are >> > innate and yet be influenced by said other. Might hatred be innate >> > but not murder? >> >> innate >> Adjective >> existing from birth, rather than acquired; inborn >> >> Where would hatred be stored in an infant? Have you seen some research >> somewhere that suggests a "Hatred Gene"? >> >> >> >> > You state factually "We are taught what good and evil are, not born >> > with it." <<CJ >> >> > That is a matter of opinion, one that I disagree with. >> >> Actually, no. That is a matter of the preponderance of scientific >> thought in the psychological, sociological, and anthropological fields >> based on clinical and field study. You are free to disagree with the >> conclusions drawn, but understand that the reason I state it factually >> is because it is accepted as fact. >> >> I look at >> >> > people like Dahmer who, during early childhood without parental >> > knowledge, already exhibited patterns of morbid interests, defined by >> > society as evil. You think he was "taught" this but I think he was >> > born that way and so are many other children that display similar >> > (evil) tendencies. The same goes for the "good". >> >> Interesting speculation, but without the facts, it's nothing more. For >> the vast majority of sociopaths and psychopaths, there is a clear >> pathology, typically schizophrenia of some sort, aggravated by >> childhood trauma. Minus the trauma which triggers the maladjustment, >> the vast majority of schizophrenics can live a fairly functional or >> even high functioning life...I'd hope that mental illness isn't the >> "innate evil" quality that you're referring to. >> >> >> >> > If you spend some time in a room with a large group of one year old >> > children, you can easily see the good/bad, which at that age is hardly >> > learned. What children "learn" is what aspects of their (innate) >> > behavior is unacceptable in our/their society and which aspects are >> > perceived by our/their society as good and evil. >> >> I wonder what "good/bad" you are referring to? Being a father of two, >> and part of a large family, I've certainly had many opportunities to >> witness large groups of small children at play. One year olds are a >> perfect example of humans in their natural form...selfish, not >> understanding of the group dynamic, eager to play and learn and fit >> in, but also wanting every toy for themselves. I've never seen a one >> year old child I thought was a "bad" child. I've certainly, however, >> seen all of us acting as parents, teaching them what is "right and >> wrong", and imprinting our social mores upon them. We subvert the >> basic animal instinct that all living things are born with, the >> Darwinian imperative, which is to horde resources, and procreate as >> frequently as possible, and replace them with whichever social mores >> reflect the social system we are born into...and thus our concept of >> good and evil are born. >> >> >> >> > There was a thread not long ago, chris, in which a new member >> > misinterpreted your post about how children break their toys. While >> > you were intending to make another point the member took it as a >> > declaration that negativity was a good thing. You do remember? >> > This is typical of internet discussion dynamics. Sometimes we need to >> > slow down to understand each other and clarify content. >> >> Indeed...in fact, you also misunderstood me in an earlier post, when I >> sought to delineate fact knowledge from faith knowledge. I suggested >> that in a dialectic pursuit, it was important to separate what you >> know, from what you know. I'm comfortable with the fact that I will be >> sometimes misunderstood in intent or tone. That's the nature of the >> beast. I don't let it distract my focus from the conversation at hand. >> >> >> >> > Slip >> >> > On Mar 19, 10:44 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Nor can we rule out that Russell's Teapot is orbiting Saturn, but we >> >> don't entertain serious conversation about it. What's intersting to me is >> >> that you don't note the contradictory nature of your paragraph. How can >> >> something be both innate, and learned? You recognize in your post that >> >> concepts of good and evil are fluid, and I'm sure you've experienced >> >> shifts in your moral compass even in your own lifetime. Something which >> >> was truly innate would not be so infinitely flexible, no? We are taught >> >> what good and evil are, not born with it, and what's more, can be >> >> "un-taught" it, converted, deprogrammed, brainwashed, or have that >> >> tenuous understanding shifted in countless ways. >> >> >> The concept of Universal Good and Evil was one even Kant kouldn't make >> >> stick. ;-) It still relies on subjective interpretation, and has never >> >> been shown to have manifested sans social mores. >> >> >> [ Attached Message ]From:Slip Disc <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" >> >> <[email protected]>Date:Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:18:19 -0700 >> >> (PDT)Local:Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:18 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Does evil >> >> exist? >> >> >> and then we >> >> truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside >> >> ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are >> >> "evil". <<CJ >> >> >> Nothing forces us to do anything. We still have choice, awareness, >> >> rationale. As much as we can accept the possibility that good and >> >> evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we can't rule out >> >> that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt >> >> influence upon our action. There are no fixed perspectives or >> >> absolutes concerning good or evil other than those established by >> >> individual or group choice, for whatever reason. They still float >> >> about in the opinion pool. >> >> >> On Mar 18, 11:30 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > Thank *insert deity* you're here, Michael. I was hoping someone was >> >> > going to point out that everyone seemed to be making the point that >> >> > Good and Evil were subjective ("Without cold there would be no >> >> > hot..."), and then turning right around and following that up with >> >> > something that seemed to imply they were somehow objective. >> >> >> > The problem with fixed perspectives of moral absolutes of good and >> >> > evil, such as those handed out by a purportedly objectivist view, is >> >> > that they can't possibly be such, and fail in scenarios which require >> >> > moral relativism. Not every situation does, and some might argue few >> >> > situations truly do, but some situations certainly do, or we wouldn't >> >> > be able to sit up here and play "What would you do if a madman pulled >> >> > a gun and said bomb the tube or I kill your daughter?" Belief in a god >> >> > given moral set is the only possible justification humans can give for >> >> > moral absolutes, because it's the only explanation which over rides >> >> > the common sense which suggests that sometimes, it's ok to break the >> >> > rules. >> >> >> > We further delude ourselves with this concept that our natural human >> >> > instincts to eat, and take, and fight and fuck are wrong, and then we >> >> > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside >> >> > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are "evil". >> >> > We are not evil ourselves. There must be something outside ourselves >> >> > which is evil. QED, there must be something good, and that something >> >> > good can save us. >> >> >> > The premise is based on a flawed assumption to begin with; that our >> >> > natural hungers and desires are themselves, not a normal, healthy >> >> > expression of us. That we should all be naturally, unassumingly >> >> > altrustic, and that to feel any other way is a sign of negative >> >> > outside influence. Once we dispel that myth, and recognize that our >> >> > conscious choices to become altruistic as a method for the improvement >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
