GENIUS FORUMS

In a recent conversation with a co-worker I brought up a dilemma I have found difficult. The discussion went like this:

"I know there are certain psychological techniques that one can use to influence the decisions of others and to do this seems morally reprehensible, but at the same time these same techniques are used unwittingly by everyone and their dog. In the latter scenario the behaviour seems excusable on grounds of ignorance."

"Yea, that is a major difference, if you know something is wrong you shouldn't do it, but if you don't know something is wrong, well, that's a different story."

To give a context, the techniques I refer to are basic. They cover all of the everyday facial gestures, hand gestures, vocal variations, etc... It is easy enough to masquerade as a person's double by mimicking them (a common technique used in hypnosis) in order to "hook" the subconscious. If you can make a person like you, you can influence them a lot more. So this is just what people do all the time, but they don't do it with deliberate intent.

I basically don't do it with deliberate intent, I intentionally deliver things in a dead-pan format, but this has its own effect which is usually off-putting.

But of I am consciously attending to the flow while others are unconscious. Its sort of like a martial arts master going up against a couch potato. I guess its the "higher" thing to do for the master to strike precisely and swiftly and deliver the lesson in the most altruistic way, seeking not to destroy their opponent but protect them from their own stupidity.

And doesn't this whole idea of intentionality make ignorance a more attractive state? If I'm unintentionally harmful then I'm not as responsible as when I'm a master who screws up. The former doesn't even make an effort, surely they are responsible for that?

This is basically the problem of responsibility in law concerning a martial arts master and an average untrained individual. The dilemma is then applied to knowing about human consciousness and unconscious processes. Being in a "higher" state of awareness in this regard is a bit like being a martial arts master as regards responsibility and the intentionality relation.

Thoughts?

Are you saying that you don't like having the responsibility of a conscience? If so, why would you not want to know what's right and wrong, true and false, so that you can wisely shape the effects of your thoughts and actions? Is bumbling through life blind folded by ignorance, causing all kinds of, what would be from your perspective, unseen problems and trouble really that appealing?

I'm not talking about my motives at all Nick. I've simply taken a dilemma in law and applied it to "enlightenment".

Well... I... um... nevermind...

Animus wrote:To give a context, the techniques I refer to are basic. They cover all of the everyday facial gestures, hand gestures, vocal variations, etc... It is easy enough to masquerade as a person's double by mimicking them (a common technique used in hypnosis) in order to "hook" the subconscious. If you can make a person like you, you can influence them a lot more. So this is just what people do all the time, but they don't do it with deliberate intent.

I don't see anything wrong with this type of manipulation so long as one is not harming people.

I basically don't do it with deliberate intent, I intentionally deliver things in a dead-pan format, but this has its own effect which is usually off-putting.

But of I am consciously attending to the flow while others are unconscious. Its sort of like a martial arts master going up against a couch potato. I guess its the "higher" thing to do for the master to strike precisely and swiftly and deliver the lesson in the most altruistic way, seeking not to destroy their opponent but protect them from their own stupidity.

Is manipulating someone really delivering a lesson?

And doesn't this whole idea of intentionality make ignorance a more attractive state?

Attractive? I don't think consciousness or unconsciousness are intrinsically more attractive, or even objectively better. Or maybe I do. In any case, one of them is not going to be attractive for those people predisposed for the other.

"Blessed is he who has a soul, blessed is he who has none, but woe and grief to him who has it in embryo." G.I. Gurdjieff

If I'm unintentionally harmful then I'm not as responsible as when I'm a master who screws up. The former doesn't even make an effort, surely they are responsible for that?

The ignorant one is responsible. The conscious one is more responsible.

"If you already know it is bad and do it, you commit a sin difficult to redress." G.I. Gurdjieff

This is basically the problem of responsibility in law concerning a martial arts master and an average untrained individual. The dilemma is then applied to knowing about human consciousness and unconscious processes. Being in a "higher" state of awareness in this regard is a bit like being a martial arts master as regards responsibility and the intentionality relation.

Agreed. The master is bound by a higher law, a greater degree of responsibility. The greatest are world-carriers.