Originally Posted by renie408
A) Wikipedia is not a viable source. It is put together by anybody that wants to contribute. Do not ever use it on any other website if you get into a serious debate. They will rip you to shreds. Especially political or science forums. Shreds. Really.
B) "But our personal judgments on what is considered "good" and "evil" are simply our own perspectives in the end. Our own subjective views on things. " "Any moral judgments we make and labels we call them are simply our own point of view."
So, since Jeffrey Dahmer thought it was okey-dokey fine to kidnap young men, chop them up, stick them in the fridge and save them for snacks the rest of us shouldn't apply our limited viewpoints by determining this to be undesirable behavior? I understand that cannabalism is a little bit down the 'ick' road from greed, but is life THAT subjective? "If I think its fine, it is"...is that really going to work for the human race?
All those 'hammer' and 'saw' analogies are mere sophistry. Essentially, you are saying that if it is your inclination to walk over the top of other people to get what you want because you are driven by lust and greed...no problem as long as that agrees with your basic nature and YOU don't have a problem with your behavior. This is a 'It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose" mentality.
In the end, I think the polarity concept is too simplistic. It sounds slick, but doesn't really work once you start picking it apart. There are plenty of people manifesting plenty of stuff who do not fall into one of two categories. I don't have a problem with the basic motivators for most behaviors being based in either love or fear (except I think that 'ego' works better than 'fear'). I can see that might be the case. I have a problem assuming that to be effective a person has to be one or the other all the time. In other words, I think you might be fear(ego) based in business and love based in relationships. I know plenty of hard nosed businessmen who love their families and are kind and giving at home. And I don't think they look at their family members for what they can get out of them. I also think that you might start off fear(ego) based and grow to being love based. I also think single events can be polarized, I don't think a whole person has to be. You might find yourself in competition and become an aggressive, ego based competitor and as soon as the game is over, head off to the homeless shelter to offer loving, selfless, ego-less aid.
I realize wikipedia isn't considered a viable source. Although, one might argue the very point that it can represent the distilled thoughts of thousands rather than what one small group considers to be a definition, and that could make it a viable source of information, from a point. I know that many "scholarly" people are disdainful of wikipedia. For certainly, the common person could never have knowledge on a subject which is correct. One wonders why those same people wouldn't use the site to put their input on the subject? Ah... I remember now... some University professors I knew REALLY didn't like it when you questioned their knowledge. To think of putting their thoughts in a venue which allowed them to be changed is abhorrent.
Personally, I think people shouldn't always take the views of a single source as fact. Knowledge evolves... and sources have been proven wrong before.
Besides... it was a quick google search on the words and wikipedia comes up first. Interestingly... other sites close by, such as about.com, simply use word for word, the wikipedia info
For the sake of clarity:
Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
1. intense sexual desire or appetite. 2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
–verb (used without object)
6. to have intense sexual desire.
7. to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving (often fol. by for or after).
- Websters Dictionary - online
Note: I put in bold the part of the definition you chose to list earlier
There is a point of view in some areas of the world, or was at one time, that cannibalism is a completely normal way of life. Some used to believe that eating the heart of a victim grants their strength, yadda yadda.
Do we condone cannibalism? Of course we don't... because we believe certain things and attribute certain values on the practice. I remember a story about some people trapped on a mountain from a plane crash... then ended up resorting to cannibalism to survive. Jeffry Dahmer's they were not... but in the end the results were similar i.e. eating people. The difference was the intention behind it. I would agree with anyone that Jeffry Dahmer was a criminal. He murdered people... and obviously we cannot have complete anarchy, because that would cause our society to cease. It would be very non self-serving to let people like that to run around
. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any labels or values... I'm only saying that the ones we choose to believe and follow are simply the group point of view sometimes. Perhaps they could have been different, where cannibalism was the norm... and we would grow up and be taught those values as truth... and who would know otherwise?
From a purely objective viewpoint... I would say that Jeffry Dahmer was able to manifest his desires... he was a successful "darkworker" if you wanted to apply the label to it (not to say that "darkworkers" = Jeffery Dahmer - unless of course you are a murderous cannibal). His polarity was from a negative, fear based side. I would say his energy levels were probably off the scale when it came to his ability to focus them to achieve his goals. But his levels were extreme, and so was his payment... which was extracted from him, and not given as would be required from a love polarity. If you can get past the disgust of his actions, he represents someone who was very powerful at IM, even if we don't agree with what he did.
We have come a long way from the initial post though
We agree on the hammer and saw analogies.
You hit the nail on the head so to speak. It is what it is... obviously you see a problem with walking over people. Others do not... for they do it all the time. Again, to them, there is nothing wrong with it. Some people ARE only in it to win the game... and they will break or bend the rules to do it.
You make great points about the simplistic view on polarization. I wouldn't argue with them at all as you have offered many of your own opinions on the elements involved. If those work for you in the end, then perfect! I certainly can't tell you what would really work for you, or what wouldn't, you have to make that decision for yourself.
Personally I have taken what I can from Steves articles on polarity. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said... but he has offered me a new view on old ideas. And many things make sense, to me and my life, when viewed through those parameters. Questions I would never have asked are popping up in my head, and that is a good thing... for me. If these help me manifest my desires more quickly, then that is good too.
Anyway... back to work... this web site sucks my time away like nothing I've experienced before. LOL