Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

[Cory Duchesne]

Is that essentially the same as asking: what causes a genius to value notions of good and bad?

Or is there a significant difference between the questions?

A genius would probably have a different conception of "good" and "bad".

Different from whom? and why do you say probably?

In David's case, anything that inhibits the pursuit or pursuit to spread truth being "bad", and anything that aids him in it being "good".

It seems to me that the thing causing him to value notions of good and bad, is his very conception of genius.

Killing, for example, is not inherently "bad". In fact, all life revolves around it.

Killing is not inherently "good" either. In fact, a tremendous amount of delusion and superfluous activity is often concomitant with killing.

We can not survive without killing other life.

Well, there is a big difference between killing for food and killing in order to feed vindictive & infantile psychological cravings.

However, since people don't understand reality, killing has become deemed "bad"

Many people understandably find excessive killing, ugly. Whereas, a very logical, unemotional person I think finds killing that goes above and beyond basic survival needs to be impractical and even counterproductive to his values. I also don't think an unemotional, logical person is devoid of a sense of cruelty, and thus, if he can minimize it without hampering the survival of wisdom, he will.

- People have separated themselves from the animals through artificial means; this was required since we cannot avoid killing lower life forms.

Right, but your original contribution to this thread was suggesting a wise man, or a genius if you will, can have the appetites and drives of a serial killer. I am suggesting that the two mental attitudes are indeed exclusive, and cannot share the same host.

- People believe that we all inherently exist and therefore it is some horrible sin to kill others and tragedy to die by the hand of another.

Well, they have emotional bonds, attachments, and have sympathy for people who they identify with, so it's only natural that they have a sense of the tragic. Even if one can conceive of how things don't inherently exist, it's difficult not to feel sympathy and attachment to people. This is because of our mirror neurons, which I don't think should be deactivated, given that other people are logically a part of you anyway.

- The aristocracy deems killing bad because it doesn't want to be losing subjects.

Many members of an aristocracy have family, friends, as well as religious aspirations, and would deem killing bad because of those psychological factors as well.

Anyways, I want to know if there is something with understanding the nature of reality that makes killing, stealing, or any other acts considered bad by the herd, fundamentally wrong on the basis of truth.

Truth cannot exist unless there is a mind there to conceive of it. The well being of humans is necessary for truth to take root in their minds. Thus, killing them, terrorizing them, and stealing from them, hinders their well being, and thus hinders the potential of truth's prominence and survival.

[Cory Duchesne]

Just an observation: I am a complete hypocrit in this regard, but how I got here puzzles me.

I will kill a spider on sight, but I've risked rabies by coaxing a bat to crawl onto a broom for transport to the nearest window On TWO speperate occasions.

The reason why might be analogous to why a person typically pays little heed to common stone, but might be quick to take possession of a rare gem. There is also a natural tendency to have less of a problem killing life forms that are lower on the evolutionary chain (e.g., plants and insects)

But the most obvious factor, which you yourself mention, is that, on a practical level, it's easier to kill a spider. There is a natural aversion to committing an act that would create more work and unpleasant feelings than an alternative act.

The idea that a splattered bat, or a shotgun blast to the ceiling of the house may influence this decision is likely pertinent.
I am neither appalled by hunting nor impressed with the arguments against it, but I wouldn't go hunting if asked.

Why?

I would go along for the walk. I am a carnavoire, more like an omnivoire... hell, I'll eat chemicals alone. Here's the kicker, I no longer fish, but when I was very young, say age 4 until about 12, I lived to fish. I caught cleaned, and cooked what I caught before I started school. I'm not so certain that I could accomplish that feat any longer.

Why? It sounds to me like you've just become a bit sensitive to aesthetically displeasing imagery (e.g, gutting a fish, watching an animal gasp for life after putting a bullet into it)

I know this is all rather mundane, but something is occuring behind the scenes that I've not paid sufficient attention to.

You've become conditioned to be comforted by images of life, and have become revolted by images of death?

Hmmm, won't kill a bat, but loathe to say it, if you intentionally harmed my dog, I'd have to remove myself from your presence as you would be in danger.

You likely have affection for your dog and derive comfort from the companionship. Unfortunately, such positive emotions carry in them the seeds of hatred.

Why morality?

Because we have notions of good and bad.

One more thought, senseless slaughter of animals is not only a waste of resources, it diminishes your humanity.

If humanity means your ability to think clearly, with relatively high intelligence, and to have a sense of cruelty and gentleness, and to value gentleness (as long as it doesn't hinder mental clarity, intelligence) - then I agree.

It certainly has nothing to do with me having evolved... (?)!

Are you talking about a Lamarckian sort of directionalism, where evolution is pulled and guided by some mystical force towards greater goodness and perfection?

[windhawk]

Good questions all, Corey.

Certainly, there is a bit of timidity about it; but gosh, if I was a willing executioner at the age of four (OK, challenge, fun, boats, example of others, simple curiosity... points taken), what made me stop liking it? This would be a simple question, except that I never taught my own sons how to fish, and it is an indispensable technique of survival. I am an adherent of the school that says my children are important; not on an intellectual level, but in the sense that my life is less important then thiers.

This parenting thing, this runs deep in our psyche. I'd suggest that any change beyond what my parents did (which, really means what my grandparents transmitted), is somehow important.

Which leads gracefully, and ominiously, to the point that if you threaten my children, you die.

I didn't want to bring that up earlier, but it seems... inescapable?

How is such sentiment compatible with... [love]? Turn the other side?

A barbarian? Probably, but then why bother with this string of ideas about morality at all? Let's not use any euphemisms. Why is it that if I'm sufficiently provoked (my wife, my children...)? I might kill you; no, more than that, I would try with all of my might?

This is a strange dichotomy; and blessed are they that never need to think in this manner. Are we somehow condemned to this via testosterone? Is this why women love us?

Is there any way out? Perhaps, if we all agree to stop?

[Cory Duchesne]

Good questions all, Corey.

Certainly, there is a bit of timidity about it; but gosh, if I was a willing executioner at the age of four (OK, challenge, fun, boats, example of others, simple curiosity... points taken), what made me stop liking it?

You tell me. What's your theory?

This would be a simple question, except that I never taught my own sons how to fish, and it is an indispensable technique of survival. I am an adherent of the school that says my children are important; not on an intellectual level, but in the sense that my life is less important then thiers.

Your logic here implies that you believe your children are important, yet you don't value their survival...

This parenting thing, this runs deep in our psyche. I'd suggest that any change beyond what my parents did (which, really means what my grandparents transmitted), is somehow important.

What do you mean by important? Do you mean to say that you believe any deviations away from your parents method of upbringing, is a positive evolution? Didn't your father teach you to fish? And isn't fishing indispensable for survival? And isn't survival important? Thus, why is deviating away from fishing, important?

Which leads gracefully, and ominiously, to the point that if you threaten my children, you die.

I didn't want to bring that up earlier, but it seems... inescapable?

How is such sentiment compatible with... [love]? Turn the other side?

The emotion of love carries within it the seeds of hatred.

A barbarian? Probably, but then why bother with this string of ideas about morality at all?

Morality doesn't necessarily have to be based on emotions like love that leads to attachment, does it?

Why is it that if I'm sufficiently provoked (my wife, my children...)? I might kill you; no, more than that, I would try with all of my might?

Why does the aggressive animal strike viciously at the object causing discomfort?

To have your wife and children attacked, is to be attacked yourself. The nature of love is attachment, oneness. You literally become a part of the people you love. They are extensions of yourself. If they are attacked, you are attacked. And what does the animal with the potential for aggression do when he is attacked?

This is a strange dichotomy; and blessed are they that never need to think in this manner. Are we somehow condemned to this via testosterone? Is this why women love us?

I would say that a woman will more readily love whatever appears to offer protection, immunity, even immortality. Men also seek this very feeling as well, through their wives, religion, work, etc.

Is there any way out? Perhaps, if we all agree to stop?

Stop what?

[Imadrongo]

WW: A genius would probably have a different conception of "good" and "bad".

CD: Different from whom? and why do you say probably?

Different from a non-genius. I say probably because it is likely that someone who understands the nature of reality will understand how the mainstream conception of "good and bad" came about and think beyond that.

WW: In David's case, anything that inhibits the pursuit or pursuit to spread truth being "bad", and anything that aids him in it being "good".

CD: It seems to me that the thing causing him to value notions of good and bad, is his very conception of genius.

I don't understand how you come to this.

WW: We can not survive without killing other life.

CD: Well, there is a big difference between killing for food and killing in order to feed vindictive & infantile psychological cravings.

What makes you think that a genius who commits mass murders does it "to feed vindictive & infantile psychological cravings"? A killer may do his killings on purely rational grounds.

And what is this big difference you speak of? In one case someone kills or steals because they value the continuation of their life over the continuation of anothers' life. In the other, they value the death of another or their happiness over the continuation of another's life.

WW: However, since people don't understand reality, killing has become deemed "bad"

CD: Many people understandably find excessive killing, ugly. Whereas, a very logical, unemotional person I think finds killing that goes above and beyond basic survival needs to be impractical and even counterproductive to his values.

This is ridiculous. You think wrong if you categorize all killers as irrational and/or emotional.

CD: I also don't think an unemotional, logical person is devoid of a sense of cruelty, and thus, if he can minimize it without hampering the survival of wisdom, he will.

What is cruelty? Is it not emotional? Why does a logical, unemotional person inherently value the survival of wisdom in your "thinking"?

CD: Right, but your original contribution to this thread was suggesting a wise man, or a genius if you will, can have the appetites and drives of a serial killer.

Incorrect. My original question was: 'Can one not understand the nature of reality and at the same time kill, steal, or commit any other "immoral" acts?' I was not talking about serial killers. I imagine you have some psychological definition attached to "serial killer", but I don't think someone who murders lots of people is necessarily a non-genius.

CD: I am suggesting that the two mental attitudes are indeed exclusive, and cannot share the same host.

Any proof?

CD: Even if one can conceive of how things don't inherently exist, it's difficult not to feel sympathy and attachment to people. This is because of our mirror neurons, which I don't think should be deactivated, given that other people are logically a part of you anyway.

Why shouldn't we kill or steal from others even if they are logically a part of us? Maybe it isn't really stealing if that CD player is already a part of me.... :-)

WW: Anyways, I want to know if there is something with understanding the nature of reality that makes killing, stealing, or any other acts considered bad by the herd, fundamentally wrong on the basis of truth.

CD: Truth cannot exist unless there is a mind there to conceive of it. The well being of humans is necessary for truth to take root in their minds. Thus, killing them, terrorizing them, and stealing from them, hinders their well being, and thus hinders the potential of truth's prominence and survival.

Nice try. Few problems:
1) I simply said "understanding the nature of reality", which is genius as defined by this forum. That is not synonymous with caring about the preservation of wisdom or spread of truth to other people's minds.
2) Overpopulation would threaten us with an Easter Island scenario on a global proportion. Killing could be the rational way to go even for a genius that holds your sentimental values, if we advanced further into prolonging life and got overpopulated more.

PS - Are you from edmonton?

[Cory Duchesne]

WW: A genius would probably have a different conception of "good" and "bad".

CD: Different from whom? and why do you say probably?

Different from a non-genius. I say probably because it is likely that someone who understands the nature of reality will understand how the mainstream conception of "good and bad" came about and think beyond that.

Thinking beyond mainstream conceptions of good and bad happens after one understands the nature of reality? I don't think so. Thinking beyond mainstream conceptions of good and bad, I would say, is a prerequisite for understanding the nature of reality.

WW: In David's case, anything that inhibits the pursuit or pursuit to spread truth being "bad", and anything that aids him in it being "good".

CD: It seems to me that the thing causing him to value notions of good and bad, is his very conception of genius.

I don't understand how you come to this.

Genius, wisdom, cannot be achieved without being motivated by a vague idea of what choices are superior. We pursue that which appears good, superior. However, what we discover as a result of effort is contrary to our expectations. Discovery is involuntary, and following that discovery, a new notion of good is established. Notions of good and evil are incidental by-products of what we involuntarily discover about reality.

WW: We can not survive without killing other life.

CD: Well, there is a big difference between killing for food and killing in order to feed vindictive & infantile psychological cravings.

What makes you think that a genius who commits mass murders does it "to feed vindictive & infantile psychological cravings"?

The way you word the above is funny. I hope you don't think that a single man can go on a killing spree that would impact the world in a very significant way. It would be more effective to simply stay alive, work on further perfecting yourself, and serve as an example and teacher to those who are open minded.

And what is this big difference you speak of?

Keep in mind, my original post was contrasting the stereotypical masculine types of sociopaths like Ted Bundy, Mark Essex, Klu-klux clan people, robbers, Simple minded Tyrants, etc to history's revered Geniuses and great thinkers, like Buddha, Socrates, Lau-tzu, Otto Weininger, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

The aim was to discuss testosterone quantity as a factor responsible for the differentiation between history's heros and villains, and to discuss what, beyond, testosterone, contributes to masculinization of mind. (e.g., structural differences in the brain, endocrine glands, etc)

But I don't mind the discussion forking off elsewhere.

CD: I also don't think an unemotional, logical person is devoid of a sense of cruelty, and thus, if he can minimize it without hampering the survival of wisdom, he will.

WW: What is cruelty?

Cruelty is however one defines it. It's entirely subjective.

Is it not emotional?

A person may react emotionally to their conception of cruelty, or they may not.

Why does a logical, unemotional person inherently value the survival of wisdom in your "thinking"?

Valuing the survival of wisdom is simply the consequence to being a genius who values survival, given that the genius, as I conceive of him, identifies himself with the truth. He is the truth. He values the survival of himself. Thus, since wisdom is the outcome of knowing the truth, he values the survival of knowing truth, as knowing wisely is, at essence, what he is. Valuing survival is wanting yourself to be spread far and wide, to thrive indefinitely.

CD: Right, but your original contribution to this thread was suggesting a wise man, or a genius if you will, can have the appetites and drives of a serial killer.

Incorrect. My original question was: 'Can one not understand the nature of reality and at the same time kill, steal, etc?

I should have realized this earlier, but like I said above, I think the trouble here is that maybe you missed the point of my first post. If a wise man were to kill or steal, that wouldn't necessarily make him worthy of the label 'robber', genocidal maniac, serial killer, etc.

Those labels are insufficient to describe him, as he is not motivated by the forces ruling the ignoble souls worthy of those labels.

I was not talking about serial killers. I imagine you have some psychological definition attached to "serial killer", but I don't think someone who murders lots of people is necessarily a non-genius.

Not that this matters a whole lot, but I'm curious, is there anyone historically that you hold in high regard, who has killed many people?

CD: I am suggesting that the two mental attitudes are indeed exclusive, and cannot share the same host.

Any proof?

Well, consider the contrasting ways in which the two types of individuals have influenced mankind. On the one hand, we have history's genocidal killers, serial killers, robbers, tyrants, etc. And on the other hand we have our great thinkers. The great thinkers are the parents of humanity, doing their best to raise humans into an awareness of the illusion of inherently existing selves.

WW: Anyways, I want to know if there is something with understanding the nature of reality that makes killing, stealing, or any other acts considered bad by the herd, fundamentally wrong on the basis of truth.

CD: Truth cannot exist unless there is a mind there to conceive of it. The well being of humans is necessary for truth to take root in their minds. Thus, killing them, terrorizing them, and stealing from them, hinders their well being, and thus hinders the potential of truth's prominence and survival.

Nice try. Few problems:

1) I simply said "understanding the nature of reality", which is genius as defined by this forum. That is not synonymous with caring about the preservation of wisdom or spread of truth to other people's minds.

What would motivate you to kill people then, if you don't care about the survival of wisdom/truth?

2) Overpopulation would threaten us with an Easter Island scenario on a global proportion. Killing could be the rational way to go even for a genius that holds your sentimental values, if we advanced further into prolonging life and got overpopulated more.

Organizing the sort of army capable of putting a significant dent in the population would require effort and resources that would be better spent on becoming clear minded. Not to mention the frightened, scrambling, vindictive, irrational reactions that would inevitably follow the attack. It's not unreasonable to suspect that your attack might be a significant set back in regards to enlightening humanities consciousness.

[Imadrongo]

Cory,

I'm not even going to respond to that. You seem to be purposely muddying the waters here.

Can you or can you not prove that someone who understands the nature of reality would not kill or steal? It is a very simple question.

Please exclude all your other preconceptions of a genius and don't fall back on historical geniuses as "evidence" that geniuses cannot act "immorally".

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

I'm not even going to respond to that. You seem to be purposely muddying the waters here.

Can you or can you not prove that someone who understands the nature of reality would not kill or steal?

Of course I can not.