Socialized Psychopath Taking Questions

[Blair]

You are not a psychopath, just a (-rather dull) garden variety sociopath with narcissistic tendencies. You will grow out of it. Alienated young men often entertain this kind of fantasy.

Charisma you have not.

It will all pass in time.

[Lentitudo]

You are not a psychopath, just a (-rather dull) garden variety sociopath with narcissistic tendencies. You will grow out of it. Alienated young men often entertain this kind of fantasy.

Charisma you have not.

It will all pass in time.

The only difference between sociopaths and psychopaths is that sociopathy is engendered by experiences with society, psychopaths are born as such.

[Alex T. Jacob]

I'm feeling really short-changed here. Do y'all need more Coyote stories, or what? This is disthpicable!

[Tomas]

.


-Lentitudo-
With my first thread here I believe I should allow a glimpse of my mind to you, for I am in fact a psychopath.

-tomas-
Having dropped LSD all those years ago, odd that a character like you should show up here.


-Lentitudo-
Now it may seem unlikely to many of you that I should wish to reveal my guise
but the intellectual and the philosopher within me have tempted me to do so.

-tomas-
Euwww, so you have a split personage. Which is the image (you wish to portray)
and the other physically thinks (as some on this forum will do) when motivated
by the natural processes divined by the like-minded gods of this universe?


-Lentitudo-
Originally I assured myself that I completely understood my mind but as of
late it appears I was wrong, I wish to discover as much of myself as I can.

-tomas-
Well then, it must (should?) begin with your birth parents as in every family
tree there lies within a tempest of pent-up hostility that was non of your
doing. Examine each parent from say, age-5 and again at age-10. "They"
have led you to where you are today.. did either parent have a "family nut"
that would not adapt to the norms of society. Please remember that our
masters are everywhere from grade school teachers to the friendly mailman
who is nothing more than a snoop who reports all peculiar humans to a
centralized committee of the State (city, county what-have-you).



-Lentitudo-
However I will ask you to remember that it is my hardware which is damaged, not my software.

-tomas-
Of course, a lifetime of propaganda from fellow humans has its share of short circuitry :-(


-Lentitudo-
I am perfectly capable of philosophical and intellectual thought.

-tomas-
Good, that is as it should be!


-Lentitudo-
That should be enough explanation, ask whatever questions you wish and I shall answer.

-tomas-
Have you physically seen a whooping crane in flight?

PS - All serious comments :-)

[otiosedodge]

Hi Lentitudo,

First of all, last time I checked, there's absolutely no hard evidence from science that psychopathy is fully caused by hardware. In fact, as far as I know (and Wikipedia knows), the mechanism in the brain which would purportedly cause psychopathy (in part or in full) has not yet been identified. In addition, you said earlier that you weren't clear on whether an event in your childhood had influenced your psychopathy or whether you had always been the way you are.

A second, general point about purely logical thought: there's really no such thing. If you really think about it, there's an emotional state associated with every kind of thought. Even when we're solving a math problem, one can say that the underlying emotional state is one of calmness (unless you're pissed off at the same time, etc.).

Finally, I would suggest looking at other posts on this forum, particularly ones linked to the ultimate nature of reality and emptiness. If you have a penchant for philosophy, you may find useful things. For example, you may find that if you're intellectually honest, you will realize that things like power, control, and the pleasure you derive from these two (along with just about anything else) do not ultimately exist. You will find (to your dismay, perhaps) that ultimately, there is only a non-conceptual peace (though words can't really describe it).

[Anders Schlander]

Well, i wouldn't call being calm an emotion, not neccesarily. Purely logical thought to me is the mind coming to a logical conclusion based on thought, without any disturbances, and that ofcourse would be meaningless without poor thought that is incoherent and unable to come to logical conclusions....Whether you seem to feel your breathing, or a calm silent atmosphere is besides the question, since it is about a line of logical thought with a logical conclusion at that moment, and nothing else.

[otiosedodge]

Hi Anders,

Hmm, an interesting (perhaps overly semantic) question. I would argue that so-called pure logic needs to happen in a calm context. I don't think there's any way to escape that. This contention of yours seems to imply that the mind can somehow separate entirely from the body, in a manner of speaking. Now that I think about it, it seems to resonate quite deeply with the mind-body problem. But the fact that our bodies need homeostasis in order to properly process logic seems to close the door on your argument. Without a calm body, how can there be a correctly logical mind?

The same can be said of the uber-logical computer, in a sense. If the circuits aren't overheated ("calm"), then binary processing works properly. In short, since all things are grounded in physical reality, they can't be said to function entirely in a rarified, purely logical realm.

[Nick]

In short, since all things are grounded in physical reality, they can't be said to function entirely in a rarified, purely logical realm.

I don't see any good reason to divide reality into a physical realm and a logical realm in the context you're doing it. Logic can simply be described as the instruction manual for reality. We can read it, understand it, and/or live according to it, or pay no attention to it at all, i.e. we can behave logically or illogically, simple as that.

[otiosedodge]

I certainly don't see any hard evidence that everything in the universe can be described with the rules of logic. That's mere conjecture. In fact, ultimate reality certainly doesn't function according to logical principles. In any case, the point I was trying to make was that our ability to reason needs a context of calmness. No calmness, no ability to reason clearly. It's not an absence of emotion, merely a certain kind of emotion, even if a subtle one.

[Foreigner]

Hello Lentitudo, may i ......

With my first thread here I believe I should allow a glimpse of my mind to you, for I am in fact a psychopath.

When did you first realize this, L, at what age? (your actual nature i mean, understood without flicker; And not necessarily the meaning of the word, say, had you been still a youngster at the time)

Now it may seem unlikely to many of you that I should wish to reveal my guise but the intellectual and the philosopher within me have tempted me to do so.

And im glad they did-- but why do you say "guise"?

Originally I assured myself that I completely understood my mind but as of late it appears I was wrong, I wish to discover as much of myself as I can.

OK, so what then has happened as of late, please tell us, and why was it so compelling?

However I will ask you to remember that it is my hardware which is damaged, not my software. I am perfectly capable of philosophical and intellectual thought.

That much is clear. However what would you say to the idea that actually all of our software are indeed damaged, misprogrammed, in need of correction. And that the solution to what you here seek, as well as the remedy to this universal software malfunction, is one and the same thing!

[Anders Schlander]

Hi Anders,

Hmm, an interesting (perhaps overly semantic) question. I would argue that so-called pure logic needs to happen in a calm context. I don't think there's any way to escape that. This contention of yours seems to imply that the mind can somehow separate entirely from the body, in a manner of speaking. Now that I think about it, it seems to resonate quite deeply with the mind-body problem. But the fact that our bodies need homeostasis in order to properly process logic seems to close the door on your argument. Without a calm body, how can there be a correctly logical mind?

The same can be said of the uber-logical computer, in a sense. If the circuits aren't overheated ("calm"), then binary processing works properly. In short, since all things are grounded in physical reality, they can't be said to function entirely in a rarified, purely logical realm.

I see your point, but aren't you really saying that it has causes? Since all things must have causes, they can't purely be themselves, but need other things. Hence, no nothing can be pure except Reality. But the point im making is, that causes can cause a perfectly logical mind aswell as a perfectly un-logical incoherent mind :) the more i think about it, i think we were dealing with semantics rather than a real difference.

Still, i disagree with you that there is an emotion state associated with every thought, because emotion's are about the ego, and posessiveness of that ego, and you can have a state of mind, without having an ego. Calmness certainly doesn't neccesarily require egoistic emotions, nor would i completely rule out the fact that the absence of egotistic anxiety can momentarily cause you to be calm, it is in fact because the ego rests for a minute that we can be calm, so the ego's absence of reign can cause it, aswell as a total destruction of it, by understanding it's illusive nature.

[otiosedodge]

Anders: Still, i disagree with you that there is an emotion state associated with every thought, because emotion's are about the ego, and posessiveness of that ego, and you can have a state of mind, without having an ego.

Me: But isn't mind a feature of ego?

Anders: Calmness certainly doesn't neccesarily require egoistic emotions, nor would i completely rule out the fact that the absence of egotistic anxiety can momentarily cause you to be calm, it is in fact because the ego rests for a minute that we can be calm, so the ego's absence of reign can cause it, aswell as a total destruction of it, by understanding it's illusive nature.

Me: It seems to me that you're speaking from the ultimate level of reality here, which isn't really relevant. In that, I agree with you fully that the ego and calm don't ultimately exist. But as far as conventional reality goes, I still don't see how you can deny that the mind, being somehow embedded in or a higher-order feature of the body, needs the body to be calm (to a certain extent, at least) to think logically.

[Nick]

I certainly don't see any hard evidence that everything in the universe can be described with the rules of logic.

What do you mean by "hard evidence"?

That's mere conjecture.

Oh? Please, do tell me exactly what I'm overlooking. If reality doesn't operate on logical principles; does it operate on fairy dust and sorcery or something along those lines?

In fact, ultimate reality certainly doesn't function according to logical principles.

So what kind of principles does it function according to?

In any case, the point I was trying to make was that our ability to reason needs a context of calmness.

You haven't really described what this "context for calmness" actually means. What's to stop one from being able to reason when they are stressed out and emotions are running high?

No calmness, no ability to reason clearly.

Talk about a conjecture...

It's not an absence of emotion, merely a certain kind of emotion, even if a subtle one.

It doesn't make any sense at all to tie reason and emotion together in the manner you're doing it here. You're making things way more messy than they need to be.

[otiosedodge]

Nick: What do you mean by "hard evidence"?

Me: Conclusive evidence.

Nick: Oh? Please, do tell me exactly what I'm overlooking. If reality doesn't operate on logical principles; does it operate on fairy dust and sorcery or something along those lines?

Me: I don't know. Note that I was referring to all of reality. And you don't know either. Who says that I have to know? I'll just take the liberty of reiterating that we can't assert that all of reality works according to logic.

Nick: So what kind of principles does it function according to?

Me: "It" doesn't "function". That would make it into a thing.

Nick: You haven't really described what this "context for calmness" actually means. What's to stop one from being able to reason when they are stressed out and emotions are running high?

Me: I mean homeostasis. Thought I was pretty clear about that... About being able to reason when they're stressed out: point taken.

Me: No calmness, no ability to reason clearly.

Nick: Talk about a conjecture...

Me: Yes, you're right.

Nick: It doesn't make any sense at all to tie reason and emotion together in the manner you're doing it here. You're making things way more messy than they need to be.

Me: I think they're intimately tied together. Can you give me one example of a thought state that doesn't have an associated emotional state?

[Nick]

Conclusive evidence.

If you're willing to let go of the false absolute that all us uncertain, you'll find that absolute truth is right in front of your eyes.

I don't know.

Obviously you think you know enough to tell me that what I said was a conjecture. Stop being a pussy and just be honest with yourself that you think you know better than others and myself do.

Note that I was referring to all of reality. And you don't know either. Who says that I have to know?

If you can tell me that I don't know the truth about something, by necessity you must be thinking that you do. The problem is you're just not being up front about it.

I'll just take the liberty of reiterating that we can't assert that all of reality works according to logic.

You have the liberty to reiterate whatever you want over and over again, but the flaws in your reasoning that I pointed out to you remain.

"It" doesn't "function". That would make it into a thing.

Whoa wait a second, if what were talking about isn't a thing, then how the hell are we talking about it!? Certainly if we're talking able to talk about "it", it must be "functioning" in some sense.

I think they're intimately tied together.

Again, not in the manner you seem to be implying.

Can you give me one example of a thought state that doesn't have an associated emotional state?

If you use your imagination it's not that hard. Just imagine a conscious entity, human or otherwise, thinking without experiencing any emotion, and there you have it.

[Manatron]

Lentitudo look, first -> (i do not take drugs, my psychoses are a result of profound meditation induced by advanced means (in the west i must say...help ? no no.))

I myself am a psychopath, and from my psychotic experiences i learned much about the world and not about myself. If you are being directed in a certain way (directed by humans), then it means they only see irrationality and political aspirations because of your gaps in your reasoning. It is not your fault if people do not understand you. You are simply further ahead than the rest. A solution is; seeing this for yourself (which you do) but leave politics aside. Science is the right way for you. If you are psychotic, then it means that unrelated things are related. How is this possible ? Because in your psychosis the world is one. Choose mathematics but screw the law of the excluded middle, be intuitionistic. You cannot reason ? You have gaps in your reasoning and mathematics is not about that you almost hear say from outside ? haha...look, Psychosis and constructivism in its literal sense are intimately linked. Create new mathematics and discover yourself as a self organizing system. People project their political aspirations on you but in the end it is 'they' which form a unity. You are standing alone like a creative genius. Again, be convinced ---> mathematics and general systems theory is for you and people are hating this (subconsciously) because you are far more intelligent. This is the philosophers stone...seeing through lies and deceit and manipulations of others. You say you like to manipulate others, but you are lying to yourself because a psychopath is a mirror of the world...the thoughts you have are the thoughts of others. Think about that. Do not manipulate because you feel manipulated...you are lowering yourself in this way and acknowledging their collectivism. For example; in my case..sometimes (actually most of the time) i feel emotions and i get some thoughts that are not of myself but from someone in my neighborhood. If someone gets sad or angry and they succeed in conceiling it...then i become angry or sad but my awareness tells me it is not me, but it is this someone. If i then say don't be angry, the other would ask: (if he is honest) how do you know ? ....in this way my intuition tells me everything about the world because i am a mirror. Neophyte psychopths make often the mistake of killing in this case out of rage, but it is not you trust me. you are mirror and you are growing holo-awareness...and satan is just a stupid term.

thus: psychopath and politics and schizophrenics do not go together.
psychopaths and mathematics and schizophrenics do go together even if your expressions have gaps. Sounds crazy but it is like this. Try to formalize things and you are in your element. Model uncharted territories of your nervous system. Its all about neural networks in the end. At least for me.

[Manatron]

No i am not in a sensei; am called a psycho. I am collected dust. I represent the fears, hopes, and desires of others. Therefore, i don't like being immersed in negativity because as an example; if there are Three murderers in 1 street and i am walking down this street, i feel like i have the power and intelligence of three killers combined.(i would feel this tendency even as i don't know that there are killers on the street i know it through gnosis or whatever you may call it...like a voice that is saying...KILL KILL...i don't get mad..i simply know that there is something wrong in the neighborhood)..thank general systems theory that i have cultivated some meta awareness. This awareness in turn commands their elementals who have entered my body trying to steer me in the wrong direction. Alchemy is the key. If these elementals (synthesized) do get power over me, then my killings would be devastating. It means i sacrificed myself for these murderers because i acted out the murders...the murderers on the street feel liberated (unconsciously) because i killed for them, so...they don't have to kill anymore because that tendency came to me. At a later date perhaps...they will...but this proves that i am not the ultimate cause of everything (bacause i destroyed their stupid elementals..and look..if i reflect them or mold them and then project them back..well then..i would be a "haste magus" (they will kill sooner than they planned) and murderer, so then Christ would be absent and they would go to jail sooner because i changed their DNA configuration while being in very high state of consciousness but people are murdered so..its better to destroy demons)...you may argue that the only thing that is changed is my own DNA or view..somewhere you woulod be right..but don't be fooled by duality)..in the end its a mystery even for me
Don't ask me what happens if i enter a perfume store. The only drawbacks of this state is that you are standing alone in a certain sensei..at least that is what people think while they are being ignorant of the universal mirror.

[otiosedodge]

Nick: If you're willing to let go of the false absolute that all us uncertain, you'll find that absolute truth is right in front of your eyes.

Me: I never said that everything was uncertain. I merely said that we certainly haven't explained everything in the universe with logic.

Nick: Obviously you think you know enough to tell me that what I said was a conjecture. Stop being a pussy and just be honest with yourself that you think you know better than others and myself do.

Me: See above.

Nick: If you can tell me that I don't know the truth about something, by necessity you must be thinking that you do. The problem is you're just not being up front about it.

Me: Can't the other possibility be that you don't know and I don't know either, but that I'm the only one willing to admit that I don't know?

Nick: You have the liberty to reiterate whatever you want over and over again, but the flaws in your reasoning that I pointed out to you remain.

Me: The bottom line is that you can't tell me that you know for sure that everything in the universe functions according to the laws of cause and effect (logic).

Nick: Whoa wait a second, if what were talking about isn't a thing, then how the hell are we talking about it!? Certainly if we're talking able to talk about "it", it must be "functioning" in some sense.

Me: We can talk about "it", but what we say about it is only a pointer for something that can't ultimate be described by concepts.

Me: I think they're intimately tied together.

Nick: Again, not in the manner you seem to be implying.

Me: Then how are they tied together?

Me: Can you give me one example of a thought state that doesn't have an associated emotional state?

Nick: If you use your imagination it's not that hard. Just imagine a conscious entity, human or otherwise, thinking without experiencing any emotion, and there you have it.

Me: I can also imagine a giraffe reading a newspaper in perfect English. Does that make it real?

[Manatron]

Me: Can you give me one example of a thought state that doesn't have an associated emotional state?

Nick in time (not johnny depp): If you use your emergent ghost then it's not that hard. Just imagine an unconscious entity, sub-human or otherwise, thinking without experiencing any activation of autopilot, and there you have it not, because the object of desire is still floating somewhere in the extended and infused personal space (with life and an aural peripherical membrane that is not infused but emerged) somewhere in town.

in the end its a lie because it is the autopilot taking you to the emotion you lack; situated somewhere in 3D physical space. You just have to enjoy the ride and all your dreams are being fullfilled in a beautiful nightfare where f = inversion(w)....what if this is the secret of controlling your emotions ? an eastern truth ? luckily the majority in the east see emotion as an illusion...because if they didn't....they would be amoral like almost everyone here in the west. Don't go after the emotions or desire for your own safety because in this way your goal is controlling people rather than your emotions. Be free but not that free..or..if you find yourself in such a situation....and there is no turning back...use the power of your imagination wisely. Manipulate symbols, not humans...in this way..when something is constructed...you won't let it fall in the hands of politicians or true lunatics. Because if you would give the gold in their hands..a lot more people are controlled against their will. Its a risk.

[Valis]

You write that you have been examined with respect to the Hare profile analysis. By a qualified researcher?

Have you had cat scans to verify abnormality of the corpus callosum and amygdala?

Research indicates born psycopaths score differently than "sociopaths" on the Hare tests. What do your results indicate?

Although others have written that it unlikely a true path would be engaging others in this fashion, I figger it is a diversion at best. More likely a trolling for victims.

But, mostly you are having a bit of fun. You may not be normal. But a Path? Not likely.