ILovePhilosophy.com

Personally, I think iambiguous is a psychopath.

There's a saying in psychology, "not every narcissist is a psychopath, but every psychopath is a narcissist"

Just a question if you know, is Abusive Narcissist Disorder the same as psychopathy?

barbarianhorde wrote:Just a question if you know, is Abusive Narcissist Disorder the same as psychopathy?

If you mean a mental disorder, perhaps that would depend on someone's own perception.


https://mindcology.com/narcissist/so-wh ... tic-abuse/

I would say so. If it is a diagnosis and it is, I think that psychiatrists and psychologists would think of it as a mental disorder.

Antisocial Personality Disorder
Like individuals with NPD, men and women who are diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) feel little or no empathy at all towards others. APD is defined by a disregard for morals and other’s rights and feelings. APD individuals lack the ability or will to differentiate between right and wrong. They are impulsive and occasionally violent; like individuals diagnosed with NPD, men and women with NPD believe that they are above the law and other rules/regulation. This often leads to criminal behavior and drug and alcohol abuse.

Comes close to sounding somewhat like a psychopath.

The worst kind of puppeteers. I call them vampires since they like to suck the very life's blood, spiritually and physically (in a sense) out of their victims.
The best thing to do is to RUN FROM THEM, just as fast and as far as one can.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

iambiguous wrote:I don't have any problem with that. I merely explore the extent to which it strikes me as a polemical bent [which I often pursue myself] or a hostility based on the assumption that they really do believe that, with respect to the existential juncture revolving around identity, value judgments and political power, my own argument is genuinely worthy of hostility.

Read this a couple of times: IT IS NOT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT IS WORTHY OR NOT OF HOSTILITY, IT IS YOUR BEHAVIOR THAT PISSSES ME OFF.

My behavior here is the same as yours. I create posts. I read and react to the posts of others.

Piling words in a particular order in order to explore the question, "how ought one to live"? More or less existentially.

I'm proposing one possible answer to that question and that revolves around my own rendition of moral nihilism. And this has always basically been what my behavior has been here.

Then you come back with stuff like this:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I have made that clear time and again. How did I make this clear? By specifically referring to your behavior, in specfic examples, often quoted quite clearly which I then respond to. I do this in sequence in the thread where they happened. As concrete and clear as possible.

Words piled up in a particular order, true, but nowhere near as "concreate and clear" as I make the attempt myself here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

We just don't approach the question in the same way at all. Or, rather, it seems that way to me.

Indeed, you just give us more of the same:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It means that you assume people get mad at you because of the philosophical questions you are asking and the philosophical position you present. It seems inconceivable to you that the things you do, here, the way you respond, that is, your behavior here, could be what pisses people off. Even when I specifically mention specific behavior here, you still write, even in this last post, you still assume that it has nothing to do with how you interact with people.

For someone yearning so hard to find out how one ought to live, it is ironic in the extreme that you cannot even conceive of the fact that HOW you interact might affect other people and piss them off.

And so, instead of noticing what I react to, as clearly laid out, you assume, again, we are afraid of your argument or whatever motivations you attribute to us, rather than actually reacting to the way you interact with us.

You keep telling me that I must have a contraption and that's why I don't react to non-ocbjectivism like you do.

You consistantly frame my reactions in objectivist language and viewpoints, as you do in this post.

I become the argument and you commense to huff and to puff to others about the manner in which I insist that arguments of this sort must be taken out into the world of actual conflicting goods construed from the perspective of "I" as an existential contraption.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: For example asking how I know my actions and preferences are more rational than other people's, when I have made it clear I don't think like that. And then when I point this out, you can't just admit you made a mistake lumping a request to me and Phyllo that really only could apply to Phyllo.

Again, you and I and Phyllo and any others interested in these fundamentally important human relationships, need to focus in on a particular context. Note the components of our own moral philosophies as we react to conflicting behaviors that revolve around conflicting goods that revolve around conflicting points of view.

After all, what in particular does it mean here to speak of arguments as being more or less rational? Or more or less virtuous?

iambiguous wrote:After all, what in particular does it mean here to speak of arguments as being more or less rational? Or more or less virtuous?

Alright, debate me then. You're trolling this stuff every second you choose not to debate me in the debate section.

Ecmandu wrote:

iambiguous wrote:After all, what in particular does it mean here to speak of arguments as being more or less rational? Or more or less virtuous?

Alright, debate me then. You're trolling this stuff every second you choose not to debate me in the debate section.

Well that's one way to get him to debate you, but citing trolling to get him to is a misuse of the word, and therefore slanderous.

MagsJ wrote:

Ecmandu wrote:

iambiguous wrote:After all, what in particular does it mean here to speak of arguments as being more or less rational? Or more or less virtuous?

Alright, debate me then. You're trolling this stuff every second you choose not to debate me in the debate section.

Well that's one way to get him to debate you, but citing trolling to get him to is a misuse of the word, and therefore slanderous.

Actually it's not , he is being slanderous by saying that nobody on these boards is arguing the meaning of saying something is more or less virtuous, when he damn well knows that I do it in all my replies to him. That's also called trolling. He knows for a fact that he's lying, he's doing it to incite, just like he does with his winks and dancing bananas every time I make an argument he can't refute, which is also used to incite. He is by the most serious definition ... trolling, not interested in rational discourse

Ecmandu wrote:

iambiguous wrote:After all, what in particular does it mean here to speak of arguments as being more or less rational? Or more or less virtuous?

Alright, debate me then. You're trolling this stuff every second you choose not to debate me in the debate section.

Read his quote, I gave the meaning... he knows if I win the debate (and he knows that I will win it), that he has no rational reason to continue his posting history from then on in a way that he's comfortable getting lots of attention for.

He just winked at me (psychopathic behavior), not rational discourse

Read above post as well.

I have a soft spot for Christians. Anyway naturally kids who believe in fairy tales are going to be bullied by the stronger kids of the playground. Its just natural.

I would have no problem with Christians if they were just some kind of crazy minority. The problem I have is when they don't separate Church and State, and try to legisLate. I have no problem with churches, I just have problem with churches telling me what to do by using police pig proxies. I think most of the people who attack Christians mainly feel resentful and oppressed by the pig proxies. So attacking Christians online is more of a defensive maneuver.

Ecmandu wrote:Personally, I think iambiguous is a psychopath.

There's a saying in psychology, "not every narcissist is a psychopath, but every psychopath is a narcissist"

We both know what he is. His narcissism is beyond even narcissist's levels. Because noone would in their right mind would bump their own topic to the point of 640 pages and no replies. A regular narcissist would give up bumping their own topic and try to find validation some other way. But if he's happy at least let him be. I don't really think iambiguous deserves to suffer or have a bad life. If he is a happy person, I say just let him be and let sleeping dogs lie. You know he will never admit losing in a debate.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Comes close to sounding somewhat like a psychopath.

The worst kind of puppeteers. I call them vampires since they like to suck the very life's blood, spiritually and physically (in a sense) out of their victims.
The best thing to do is to RUN FROM THEM, just as fast and as far as one can.

I would say your description is more closely fitting of modern females than it is of Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Anti-socialism is usually a male thing anyway. Anti-social people can barely tolerate people long enough to even use them as puppets. Using people as puppets is the female skillset, a woman's job. As much as I would love to run from the toxic women who proliferate our society, my loins do not permit me to run from the cure.

MagsJ wrote:

Ecmandu wrote:

iambiguous wrote:After all, what in particular does it mean here to speak of arguments as being more or less rational? Or more or less virtuous?

Alright, debate me then. You're trolling this stuff every second you choose not to debate me in the debate section.

Well that's one way to get him to debate you, but citing trolling to get him to is a misuse of the word, and therefore slanderous.

From my frame of mind, he is just one of the many, many Kids that pop up here over and again.

You know, whatever that means.

But for the life of me, I'm unable to decide if the stuff that he posts here reflect things that he really does believe are true, or if the whole effort is just an exercise in irony: a device used to expose as gibberish the sort of things that other Kids post here.

Or, sure, maybe his points are brilliant. And the problem here is my inability to grasp this.

And, indeed, anyone here able to convey to me why the points that he raises might in fact be just the antidote I'm looking for in order to yank myself up out of my hole...I'm all ears.

Otherwise I'll continue to react to him as this weird guy who says a lot of strange things that I for one am not able to relate to the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions.

But, by all means, that's just me. Others here seem able to actually engage his posts as though he was not that sort at all. In other words, they take him seriously. I'm just not able to.

Yet.

duplicate post. although it did bear repeating perhaps.

MagsJ,

QED, look how iambiguous treats me!

That's his response to this:

viewtopic.php?p=2710288#p2710288

Iambiguous is trying to play dumb here, he knows EXACTLY what my post there means...!!!

Ecmandu wrote:
That's his response to this:

viewtopic.php?p=2710288#p2710288

Iambiguous is trying to play dumb here, he knows EXACTLY what my post there means...!!!

Okay, Kid, it looks like I'm stuck with you.

On that particular thread I noted this:

In all honesty, the posts from Ecmandu here are practically gibberish to me. I almost never see any real connection between the points I make and the points he makes.

It's as though he really has concocted this made up "world of words" inside his head; and everything flows from those assumptions.

For example what on earth does it mean to speak of a "prime logos" [or a "non sero sum"] with respect to ones own conflicting interactions with others?

He'll either go are [and illustrate the text] or he won't. Or, if he already has, I would appreciate being linked to it.

So, will you take you philosophy [your challenge] there or not?

You choose the context and the behaviors. Note your own moral narrative and political prejudice in regard to the "conflicting goods" that pop up all along the ideological/deontological spectrum.

Just be forewarned that to the extent you resort to arguments that go around and around in circles [re an internal logic all your own] I'm going to call you on it.

Bring that "prime logos" "non zero sum" shit down to earth.

I'm guessing that you can't.

Or, again, that your contributions here are an exercise in irony.

iambiguous wrote:

Ecmandu wrote:
That's his response to this:

viewtopic.php?p=2710288#p2710288

Iambiguous is trying to play dumb here, he knows EXACTLY what my post there means...!!!

Okay, Kid, it looks like I'm stuck with you.

On that particular thread I noted this:

In all honesty, the posts from Ecmandu here are practically gibberish to me. I almost never see any real connection between the points I make and the points he makes.

It's as though he really has concocted this made up "world of words" inside his head; and everything flows from those assumptions.

For example what on earth does it mean to speak of a "prime logos" [or a "non sero sum"] with respect to ones own conflicting interactions with others?

He'll either go are [and illustrate the text] or he won't. Or, if he already has, I would appreciate being linked to it.

So, will you take you philosophy [your challenge] there or not?

You choose the context and the behaviors. Note your own moral narrative and political prejudice in regard to the "conflicting goods" that pop up all along the ideological/deontological spectrum.

Just be forewarned that to the extent you resort to arguments that go around and around in circles [re an internal logic all your own] I'm going to call you on it.

Bring that "prime logos" "non zero sum" shit down to earth.

I'm guessing that you can't.

Or, again, that your contributions here are an exercise in irony.

Everyone has experience with their consent being directly violated, or at least, they can imagine scenarios as such.

Everyone has also had the opposite, things going their way by surprise or not.

You can ask everyone on this earth, was it worth having your consent violated? Some will say yes, others will say no.

Nobody wants a polio vaccine as a child, but they can all say that they're glad they got it.

This is key.

It violates everyone's consent that polio exists, such that everyone would rather not have polio exist, than get the shot.

This is the equivalent of Christian apologetics for the argument of evil. Christians say that god sent us the polio vaccine, but, one step above, why does polio exist in the first place.

What we can actually state one level up, for all possible scenarios, is that consent violation is always bad, even though people try to apologize for it because of a psychological condition of always trying to justify their exact meaning in their life story. But this is just a lie.

What we gleen from this, is that for every being, no means no. In the absence of that, we can define the reality as truly evil, whether we have a solution or not. We define this from the times things went our way. We can define this reality where consent violations occur as inherently evil. That's not a difficult exersize.

We can imagine inherent good from all of our experiences, an objective good that doesn't violate the consent of a possibly infinite number of beings.

Even in a consensual reality, we can all take voyages into the difficult and say no at any point, and still be able to learn the difference between right and wrong, but at our own pace. The issue with evil, is that it's not at our own pace, with autonomy, with freedom.

This isn't my existential contraption, it's true for everyone in existence, from a bacterium to a human.

We all know this reality is inherently evil, maybe people like you are afraid to admit it, maybe that's your existential contraption, because you have a need to justify meaning for your life where it doesn't actually exist,

I'll stop there for now .

Read the above reply Iambiguous.

There's something I've wanted to say to you for a while.

Your fractured "I" is actually a very ancient teaching in Buddhism.

Once you realize that the you in dreams is as real as the you here, that they are both dreams, you have attained the state of realizing the emptiness of all phenomenon. This is a classic Buddhist teaching. Enlightenment is waking from the dream, and to do this, you must understand the emptiness of all phenomenon. The Buddha is called the "awakened one" for a reason.

There is also the teaching of no self. Everyone at some time has become so engrossed with a task, they never think of themselves for a while. Like weeding or painting...

Buddhists consider these two things to be stages to the path of enlightenment ... not a permanent existential hole.

Ecmandu wrote:Read the above reply Iambiguous.

There's something I've wanted to say to you for a while.

Your fractured "I" is actually a very ancient teaching in Buddhism.

Once you realize that the you in dreams is as real as the you here, that they are both dreams, you have attained the state of realizing the emptiness of all phenomenon. This is a classic Buddhist teaching. Enlightenment is waking from the dream, and to do this, you must understand the emptiness of all phenomenon. The Buddha is called the "awakened one" for a reason.

There is also the teaching of no self. Everyone at some time has become so engrossed with a task, they never think of themselves for a while. Like weeding or painting...

Buddhists consider these two things to be stages to the path of enlightenment ... not a permanent existential hole.

Of course, all that said, I don't consider the Buddhas teachings good.

My challenge:

iambiguous wrote:You choose the context and the behaviors. Note your own moral narrative and political agenda in regard to "conflicting goods" that pop up all along the ideological/deontological spectrum.

Bring [such things as] "prime logos" and "non zero sum" down to earth.

Ecmandu wrote: Everyone has experience with their consent being directly violated, or at least, they can imagine scenarios as such.

Everyone has also had the opposite, things going their way by surprise or not.

You can ask everyone on this earth, was it worth having your consent violated? Some will say yes, others will say no.

Nobody wants a polio vaccine as a child, but they can all say that they're glad they got it.

This is key.

It violates everyone's consent that polio exists, such that everyone would rather not have polio exist, than get the shot.

This is the equivalent of Christian apologetics for the argument of evil. Christians say that god sent us the polio vaccine, but, one step above, why does polio exist in the first place.

What we can actually state one level up, for all possible scenarios, is that consent violation is always bad, even though people try to apologize for it because of a psychological condition of always trying to justify their exact meaning in their life story. But this is just a lie.

Even in a consensual reality, we can all take voyages into the difficult and say no at any point, and still be able to learn the difference between right and wrong, but at our own pace. The issue with evil, is that it's not at our own pace, with autonomy, with freedom.

What we gleen from this, is that for every being, no means no. In the absence of that, we can define the reality as truly evil, whether we have a solution or not. We define this from the times things went our way. We can define this reality where consent violations occur as inherently evil. That's not a difficult exersize.

Okay, but how is any of this really related to my own challenge above?

To get or not to get your child vaccinated is a controversial issue today. It revolves around yet another set of "conflicting goods": https://vaccines.procon.org/

So what becomes crucial here is the extent to which either side is or is not able to demonstrate that their own arguments are more solidly embedded in what can be established as "the facts".

But suppose the law requires certain vaccinations and certain parents refuse to do it. Ought the government be empowered to force them to?

Or what of those religious fundamentalists who refuse to take their children to doctors or hospitals? Again, ought the government be empowered to force them to?

How do "prime logos" and "non sero sum" factor into something like this?

Ecmandu wrote: We can imagine inherent good from all of our experiences, an objective good that doesn't violate the consent of a possibly infinite number of beings.

We can imagine lots of things. But to what extent are we able to demonstrate [re vaccination, abortion, animal rights, gun control etc.] that what we imagine is true is in fact true for all reasonable men and women?

And then to what extent are we able to demonstrate that what we believe is rational is synonymous with what we believe is virtuous? How are our moral narratives and political agendas not "existential contraptions" here?

And, again, lets aim the discussion at a particular context involving a particular set of conflicting goods.

Ecmandu wrote: We all know this reality is inherently evil, maybe people like you are afraid to admit it, maybe that's your existential contraption, because you have a need to justify meaning for your life where it doesn't actually exist,

No, as matter of fact, we don't all know this. Instead, different people in different contexts see different things as evil. We then need to focus the discussion in on particular realities construed from particular points of view either able to be or not able to be demonstrated as rational or virtuous.

Ecmandu wrote:Read the above reply Iambiguous.

There's something I've wanted to say to you for a while.

Your fractured "I" is actually a very ancient teaching in Buddhism.

Once you realize that the you in dreams is as real as the you here, that they are both dreams, you have attained the state of realizing the emptiness of all phenomenon. This is a classic Buddhist teaching. Enlightenment is waking from the dream, and to do this, you must understand the emptiness of all phenomenon. The Buddha is called the "awakened one" for a reason.

There is also the teaching of no self. Everyone at some time has become so engrossed with a task, they never think of themselves for a while. Like weeding or painting...

Buddhists consider these two things to be stages to the path of enlightenment ... not a permanent existential hole.

Again, entirely abstract.

The manner in which I construe "I" here [at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power] is embedded in this frame of mind: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Please provide us with a similar trajectory regarding a value judgment of your own.

Note to the Buddhists among us:

Feel free to participate.

I'll keep this sweet and simple, and it is very down to earth.

Everything you note as an exception, is in fact a consent violation.

My point still stands.

Realities that violate consent are evil by nature.

If, consent violating realities are the only realities that we have access to (forever), then all of us should decide to be evil, because it brings us the most good.

You're stuck in a false dichotomy at a lower level of cognition ...

The mere idea that we have conflicting goods, is a consent violation by definition.

But you can't bring yourself to say that it's objectively evil on its face, in fact, your entire shtick is to DEFEND evil so you can have your little, and I mean very little argument.

Who would iambiguous be if he couldn't regurgitate the same nonsense forever!

Ecmandu wrote:I'll keep this sweet and simple, and it is very down to earth.

Everything you note as an exception, is in fact a consent violation.

My point still stands.

Realities that violate consent are evil by nature.

If, consent violating realities are the only realities that we have access to (forever), then all of us should decide to be evil, because it brings us the most good.

You're stuck in a false dichotomy at a lower level of cognition ...

The mere idea that we have conflicting goods, is a consent violation by definition.

But you can't bring yourself to say that it's objectively evil on its face, in fact, your entire shtick is to DEFEND evil so you can have your little, and I mean very little argument.

Who would iambiguous be if he couldn't regurgitate the same nonsense forever!

Again, note an actual context in which some give their consent to a particular moral narrative or political agenda, and some do not.

How does one go about determining evil objectively then?

And, in regard to the vaccination arguments noted above [pro and con], where and when are particular behaviors to be understood as evil --- given the manner in which you construe the meaning of a "consent violation" here?

Note to others:

What on earth am I missing in his assessment above? And why on earth should he be taken seriously?

Do you take him seriously? If so, an explanation please.

iambiguous wrote:

Ecmandu wrote:I'll keep this sweet and simple, and it is very down to earth.

Everything you note as an exception, is in fact a consent violation.

My point still stands.

Realities that violate consent are evil by nature.

If, consent violating realities are the only realities that we have access to (forever), then all of us should decide to be evil, because it brings us the most good.

You're stuck in a false dichotomy at a lower level of cognition ...

The mere idea that we have conflicting goods, is a consent violation by definition.

But you can't bring yourself to say that it's objectively evil on its face, in fact, your entire shtick is to DEFEND evil so you can have your little, and I mean very little argument.

Who would iambiguous be if he couldn't regurgitate the same nonsense forever!

Again, note an actual context in which some give their consent to a particular moral narrative or political agenda, and some do not.

How does one go about determining evil objectively then?

And, in regard to the vaccination arguments noted above [pro and con], where and when are particular behaviors to be understood as evil --- given the manner in which you construe the meaning of a "consent violation" here?

Note to others:

What on earth am I missing in his assessment above? And why on earth should he be taken seriously?

Do you take him seriously? If so, an explanation please.

You're still stuck on realities with more than one person who is the actual and not an image or reflection of the actual.

You can have a philosophic zombie reality or even better, a hyperdimensional mirror reality, where everything goes exactly as each person in their own reality wants it to go, since each person is in their own reality, it's impossible to violate theirs or our consent.

From this, we can discern that consent violating realities (the kind we're in) are inherently evil.

But actually, we don't even need a solution, like the two I gave above to draw this conclusion.

Another way to say this is that conflicting good realities are evil. You keep asking me to give you a conflicting good, as if you're a computer program, when I made it very clear that conflicting good realities are evil. Shifting it to conflicting consents, just solves the same way.

Edited my post.

Bottom line: Where did what go?

iambiguous wrote:Bottom line: Where did what go?

A computer cannot beat me here.

I stated"everything goes the way they want it to go in their own reality"

That you would even ask that question in the context of my reply, shows that your program is malfunctioning from limits beyond your programming.

Humans don't respond like that.