Open Letter to Milestone Two, Lana Mitchell & Tom Martiniano re: your allegations

[uniquemand]

It seems to me that ethics should be a little more pointed outward than a self absorbed view. What would be helpful to someone as an enrichment of life experience, reading, writing, education, artistic release, healthy physical,

mental, spiritual growth. Those actions that open up these opportunities to people beginning at birth. The decisions made by oneself that may cause one to forgo something they desire in order to benefit another's life enrichment.

The concern for others put before the desires of oneself.

That's a great way to look at it, but it's not some sort of absolute truth. If those are your ideals, and I think they are good, communally oriented ideals, then I'm glad you have them. If you had no choice, though, to decide which was more important, but were simply programmed to hold those views and take those actions, it wouldn't be ethical for you to take them or unethical not to do so. It's the CHOICE that makes things ethical or unethical. I concern myself with that sort of choice, and with improving a person's ability to see more options and take responsibility for the selections of the options they chose from.

Okay, so lets talk about drugs.

The Game of Life is set up to give us pleasure if we do certain things. Some of these things, like forming and sustaining a 2D relationship, is a lot of work, and indeed, many people fail at it.

Drugs are an attempt to short-circuit this mechanism by gaining pleasure without doing the hard work. I suspect most of the people who complain the most about "drugs in our society" are those who resent the idea of others gaining easily what they had to struggle for.

Which is not to say using drugs to gain pleasure always works, either. And there are pitfalls to using drugs, legal and otherwise.

Lastly, when I say "drugs" I'm not trying to differentiate between different types of drugs and their effects. For brevity's sake, I'm just going over the general principles here.

Helena

The Game of Life, if some such exists, also gives us the ability to make and do drugs. It's hard work to walk home, but people still drive or fly. Work is not a measure of whether doing something is right, or choosing the hardest way would always be right, and that is clearly stupid.

 

[Intentionally Blank]

<snip>

In my experience, there are very few people that are interested in being or doing evil, if any at all. Some think they are, but really, they're accepting other people's evaluation that what they think should be done is evil, and adopting that. So they might say that doing drugs, or selling drugs, etc., is evil, but that's only because they've accepted other people's evaluation. The reason THEY are doing drugs or selling drugs usually has more to do with something they consider a good, if only for themselves (dulling of pain, reaching new insights, enjoying a sensation with friends, etc.). When people do something that is really harmful to other people (say trafficking or slavery or exploitation), I may see it as evil, but I doubt that person does.

So, I'm of the belief that people are usually "good" (they seek pleasure, learning, communion with others and try to create environments where that is taking place), but it can happen that they have a warped perception of one or more of those components of what I consider "good".

Thank you for expanding on your original statement. While I would not say my definition of ethics is entirely congruent, I do agree completely with your statement, above.

I, too, have a difficult time defining either 'good' or 'evil'. While it's an easy statement to say a socio/psychopath is 'evil' if, as science tells us today, these people are incapable of regret, remorse, guilt, empathy, or compassion then aren't they simply acting from their inherent nature? To call them 'evil' seems to me to be analogous to calling a tiger 'evil' because it mauls and eats other creatures. It's just what their nature is all about. That's not to negate the harm they do nor to suggest we don't need to create societal boundaries for protection against their actions - just that I don't know that I can define them as 'evil'.

And then there are the folks who perpetrate harmful acts based on fear or anger or some other afflictive emotion. I don't know that I could call that 'evil' either. I think, as you say, most people want to behave in ways that give value to others, society, and themselves - and typically that doesn't happen by perpetrating acts that disconnect and disengage us from our fellow humans. But all of us make choices of disconnection when we are in less than optimal states - tired, stressed, afraid, angry....

It seems to me that ethics should be a little more pointed outward than a self absorbed view. What would be helpful to someone as an enrichment of life experience, reading, writing, education, artistic release, healthy physical,

mental, spiritual growth. Those actions that open up these opportunities to people beginning at birth. The decisions made by oneself that may cause one to forgo something they desire in order to benefit another's life enrichment.

The concern for others put before the desires of oneself.

I see ethically positive behavior as that which balances both our own desire to seek happiness and avoid suffering with that of our fellow travelers - and as actions that are contemplated and chosen from a mind/heart place of empathy, compassion, good boundaries, and rational thought.

We can take the same action - grounding a child for example - from two entirely different places. If we come from a place of compassion we ground the child because we love her and want to help her understand consequences of her actions so she can make better choices in the future. In this heart space we are able and willing (regardless of the mindset of the child) to have conversations about good choices, model caring behavior, and we understand her choices are not about us but about her internal landscape.

OTOH if we ground the child from a place of shame and anger, we do so in order to mitigate our own negative emotions rather than to assist someone we love in choosing better. We are more likely to shame the child, talk at her (rather than converse with), and to create barriers to helping her make good choices instead of creating connection and learning.

And of course, one needs to define (NOT word clear!!) what we mean by happiness and suffering.

Blanky

 

[degraded being]

I don't know that it does, directly, except that a person who has agency decides between options, selecting one that fits their goals and purposes (or simple expedience). If they are a good person in your estimation, then they'll likely choose an option which seems good to you (and them). Increasing a person's awareness of their options, as well as their ability to create new options, rather than feeling they are compelled to follow a script handed to them through parental training, societal conditioning, triggering of trauma-related scripts... well, this allows the person greater responsibility and control over their lives. It would be impossible to call a robot good or evil, though it could be said they were a pawn or extension of something that was good or evil. Thus, a person becomes capable of good or evil to the extent that they determine their own actions, and fully has agency to the extent that they KNOW they are responsible and are selecting their own intentions and actions.

In my experience, there are very few people that are interested in being or doing evil, if any at all. Some think they are, but really, they're accepting other people's evaluation that what they think should be done is evil, and adopting that. So they might say that doing drugs, or selling drugs, etc., is evil, but that's only because they've accepted other people's evaluation. The reason THEY are doing drugs or selling drugs usually has more to do with something they consider a good, if only for themselves (dulling of pain, reaching new insights, enjoying a sensation with friends, etc.). When people do something that is really harmful to other people (say trafficking or slavery or exploitation), I may see it as evil, but I doubt that person does.

So, I'm of the belief that people are usually "good" (they seek pleasure, learning, communion with others and try to create environments where that is taking place), but it can happen that they have a warped perception of one or more of those components of what I consider "good".

You seem to want it both ways.
1. Use the Metapsychology definition of ethics, which is actually ethics REDEFINED -as cults redefine words. There is nothing in your definition about good, or morals.

2. When you talk about ethics as it would play out in peoples lives, you keep introducing moral considerations including what might be "good", and how people would probably follow your script, if they had options, etc. AFAICS A lot of people seem to have options and awareness and choose to function out of self interest with little regard for others. According to your definition of ethics, they could be quite ethical.

 

[Little David]

Narcotics, alcohol, opiates, phony cults. Seems like Mathieson was aware of the mind-numbing addiction of the cult addict.

He knew LRH was a phony and the creator of a phony cult. It might have been a combination insult towards LRH and a warning to his customers to stay away from Scientology and other "phony cults".

 

[lotus]

Helena,

I'll make other proposals here in red!

Okay, so lets talk about drugs.

The Game of Life is set up to give us pleasure if we do certain things.

What if life is not a game!
What if life is just life, not at all a game,
and set a way we experience joy and pain.
Pain that can be avoid and pain that can't be avoid
What if human being only try to avoid such pain!
Some try artificial pleasures to reproduce joy or avoid pain, some face what it is!
:confused2:

Some of these things, like forming and sustaining a 2D relationship, is a lot of work, and indeed, many people fail at it.

What if loving relationship is only an experience of love and joy people try to create???
With or without succes - but to experience the joy of sharing love and companionship???
:confused2:

Drugs are an attempt to short-circuit this mechanism by gaining pleasure without doing the hard work. I suspect most of the people who complain the most about "drugs in our society" are those who resent the idea of others gaining easily what they had to struggle for.

Which is not to say using drugs to gain pleasure always works, either. And there are pitfalls to using drugs, legal and otherwise.

Lastly, when I say "drugs" I'm not trying to differentiate between different types of drugs and their effects. For brevity's sake, I'm just going over the general principles here.

Helena

 

[Claire Swazey]

God, wut a pair o dbags.

 

[anonomog]

God, wut a pair o dbags.

And continuing in the category of summing up the entire m2 experience in 6 words or less...

Bitter apostate internet fringe dwellers.



I am going to hell.