Lermanet_com
Gold Meritorious Patron
Someone said that "The truth is somewhere in the middle" recently and I believe this commonly held and quite reasonable sounding idea needs to be discussed, especially in light of the revelations in the book Political Ponerology.
"Some excerpts from Political Ponerology:
"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. "
Page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
I believe this paragraph above is so important to deserve a separate thread, to merely discuss this one idea. This idea above explained so much to me at the age of 60 years, I wish I'd grown up with this in mind...
In Scientology litigation, $cientology depends upon a judge taking the safe, policitically correct route through opposing views, tending to compromize, believing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.(note)
In the middle of what?
Let us say A says the sky is blue, but B says the sky is black
If the truth were in the middle, then they sky would be adjudicated as grey...
In RTC vs Lerma and BPI vs FACTNet the consternation that we felt cant be described. One side is telling the truth, the other side, emulating a sociopath, is telling BIG lies, most of which were cloaked by use of IMPLICATON and omission... like six inches of verbosity in an ex-parte pleading to get a RAID that fails to mention the document in question was an unsealed copy of a public court record at that time.
But, see how a psychopath deals with truth:
"In their paper, "Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a Community Sample... Salekin, Trobst, and Krioukova write "Psychopathy as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941) is not limited to engagement in illegal activities, but rather encompasses such personality characteristics as manipulativeness, insincerity, egocentricity , and lack of guilt - characteristics clearly present in criminals but also in spouses, parents, bosses, attorneys and politicians, and CEOs, to name but a few. (bursten. 1973; Stewart, 1991)...As such. psychopathy may be characterized...as involving a tendency towards dominance and coldness. Wiggens (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings..indicates such persons are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation-seeking, Machiavellian, vindictive and out for their own gain. With respect to their patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. " Page 89, Political Ponerology, footnote
===
I have observed that two people can always work out their differences but only IF neither side is lying (includes lying to oneself) and only if neither side has been fed enough lies about the other party, to cause sufficient dehumanization that pathological blindness becomes the solution to the pain of consideration.
"Defamatory suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are not entirely normal, whose behavior tends to be a projection onto other people of one's own self-critical associations. A normal person strikes a sociopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in barely comprehensible theories; calling him "crazy" is not that far away" page 180
I always believed that the truth can NEVER be found in the middle.
Truth does not have shades of grey.
The truth stands alone.
What do you think?
Arnie Lerma
(note) An exception might be divorce proceedings when both sides are willing to lie to keep their kids... then the with both sides lying, the truth might be in the middle. But the only cases where the middle might be true are if both sides are lying.
“That hatred springs more from self-contempt than from a legitimate grievance is seen in the intimate connection between hatred and a guilty conscience. There is perhaps no surer way of infecting ourselves with virulent hatred toward a person than by doing him a grave injustice. That others have a just grievance against us is a more potent reason for hating them than that we have a just grievance against them. ……Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us.” Eric Hoffer, "True Believer" More like this in my Essential Reading thread HERE
"Some excerpts from Political Ponerology:
"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. "
Page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
I believe this paragraph above is so important to deserve a separate thread, to merely discuss this one idea. This idea above explained so much to me at the age of 60 years, I wish I'd grown up with this in mind...
In Scientology litigation, $cientology depends upon a judge taking the safe, policitically correct route through opposing views, tending to compromize, believing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.(note)
In the middle of what?
Let us say A says the sky is blue, but B says the sky is black
If the truth were in the middle, then they sky would be adjudicated as grey...
In RTC vs Lerma and BPI vs FACTNet the consternation that we felt cant be described. One side is telling the truth, the other side, emulating a sociopath, is telling BIG lies, most of which were cloaked by use of IMPLICATON and omission... like six inches of verbosity in an ex-parte pleading to get a RAID that fails to mention the document in question was an unsealed copy of a public court record at that time.
But, see how a psychopath deals with truth:
"In their paper, "Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a Community Sample... Salekin, Trobst, and Krioukova write "Psychopathy as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941) is not limited to engagement in illegal activities, but rather encompasses such personality characteristics as manipulativeness, insincerity, egocentricity , and lack of guilt - characteristics clearly present in criminals but also in spouses, parents, bosses, attorneys and politicians, and CEOs, to name but a few. (bursten. 1973; Stewart, 1991)...As such. psychopathy may be characterized...as involving a tendency towards dominance and coldness. Wiggens (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings..indicates such persons are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation-seeking, Machiavellian, vindictive and out for their own gain. With respect to their patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. " Page 89, Political Ponerology, footnote
===
I have observed that two people can always work out their differences but only IF neither side is lying (includes lying to oneself) and only if neither side has been fed enough lies about the other party, to cause sufficient dehumanization that pathological blindness becomes the solution to the pain of consideration.
"Defamatory suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are not entirely normal, whose behavior tends to be a projection onto other people of one's own self-critical associations. A normal person strikes a sociopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in barely comprehensible theories; calling him "crazy" is not that far away" page 180
I always believed that the truth can NEVER be found in the middle.
Truth does not have shades of grey.
The truth stands alone.
What do you think?
Arnie Lerma
(note) An exception might be divorce proceedings when both sides are willing to lie to keep their kids... then the with both sides lying, the truth might be in the middle. But the only cases where the middle might be true are if both sides are lying.
“That hatred springs more from self-contempt than from a legitimate grievance is seen in the intimate connection between hatred and a guilty conscience. There is perhaps no surer way of infecting ourselves with virulent hatred toward a person than by doing him a grave injustice. That others have a just grievance against us is a more potent reason for hating them than that we have a just grievance against them. ……Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us.” Eric Hoffer, "True Believer" More like this in my Essential Reading thread HERE
Last edited: