When in Doubt, Change the Rules

[Plato]

When in doubt, change the rules.

This is a rather cunning trick I've been learning recently. When I reach an impasse, or I feel stuck in a dilemma, the key to escaping it is to change the rules until I am able to win.

Realising this is possible... it's like being handed a whole pile of cheats for real life.

When learning to value myself, I had to flip my personal values from externally defined models, given to me through social conditioning, to the things that I happen to do very well.

Now, I value the courage to be fascinating and abnormal in a judgmental society, above all things. I value undermining social norms, and shocking people out of their rutted and dogmatic ways of thinking. It really makes me feel good. Through this I get a great deal of amusement, and also contribute to making the world a more interesting place.

I value people who define their own tables of values, not accepting what is foisted upon them. This is the sign of greatness, to me.

For a long time I was stuck being nervous in social situations. I wanted people to like me, but I was fighting against a force of nature. There's no way everyone can like me.

Time to change the rules! Through the help of various people who have passed the same way, I realised that a much better paradigm is to aim at amusing myself, rather than having people like me. It's far more effective, and waaay more enjoyable.

Frustration, overwhelm and failure (there is no failure of course, in reality, only experience) are simply a result of setting yourself up for a loss by playing a game you can't win. The art of life is to turn it into a game that's the right difficulty level for you, as well as absolutely compelling.

[Salivanth]

Now that is an EXCELLENT idea. I'll have to start trying it!

[GHI]

Bravo!

So simple... yet, life transforming.

How come I didn't think of that myself?

Marvelous. Thanks, Plato.

[coLLege kid07]

very informative and insightful.

I too try and "get people to like me". Maybe I'll try your change on for size.

Just curious if you've gotten to this yet. When do you feel is the proper time to be nice to someone and courteous. I know I've kinda been force fed that stuff. For example, "hold doors for people, help old ladies cross the street ect."

Upon further analyzing it, I think it has something to do with caring what people think about you.

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by Plato

When in doubt, change the rules.

This is a rather cunning trick I've been learning recently. When I reach an impasse, or I feel stuck in a dilemma, the key to escaping it is to change the rules until I am able to win.

How very… darkworkerish of you. For someone who hasn’t polarized, your suggestion sounds very polarized to me. Which is probably why I like it!

[yossarian]

This is the definition of narcissism. The postmodern idea that reality is your plaything that you can manipulate in whatever which way to amuse you.

It is very much a popular belief these days but I find it to be ultimately unfulfilling. It's guaranteed to end in depression over and over until you eventually are forced to admit that there is such a thing as truth and you aren't omnipotent - you can't change reality simply by changing your definition of reality.

Narcissism is the rejection of any solid ground and any objective form of reality. Narcissism is trying to find meaning and happiness and fulfillment in dancing shadows. You chase a shadow which keeps you occupied, some shadows you achieve and in their achievement you find them empty. Other shadows you fail to achieve, and in this frustration, you reject the shadow and say "Well I never really wanted you anyway! Hmmph!" and then chase after some other shadow.

Today you are manipulating people for your own amusement, tomorrow you are cutting them open to see what's inside. It's a bottomless pit.

Originally Posted by Plato

I value shocking people out of their rutted and dogmatic ways of thinking. It really makes me feel good.

This is practically the definition of narcissism. Enjoy your downward spiral.

[Black Spring]

I do this constantly. Plato, thank god, you get it.

Yossarian, you need to relax. Did you not amuse yourself, writing such a painfully mis-diagnosed generalization? Did you get **** on at work today or what?

[yossarian]

Changing the rules because you don't like them is being in denial. It's a conscious attempt to cause mental schism to insulate that part of your psyche which finds reality unacceptable.

When reality is too painful for a person to bear, they unconsciously dissociate as a defense mechanism. "Changing the rules" is just dissociating consciously - dissociating "on purpose".

You don't change reality by denying it. You just dig yourself deeper into the hole of delusion.

Amusement is such a low bar, such a cheap substitute for true meaning. It's a distraction, nothing else. A momentary, fleeting distraction that makes you forget for one short moment. You "shock" someone out of their sad view and you steal a bit of their energy. It's vampiric. Your thirst for shocking people will grow insatiably like any other addiction to an outside substance.

You think you're filling yourself up by "shocking people" but you're actually slowly killing yourself.

Does reality frustrate you?

Originally Posted by Plato

When I reach an impasse the key to escaping it is to change the rules until I am able to win.

You try to achieve something, you fail, so you deny reality by redefining the definition of "win". If this really worked, you would be able to define your current state as "winning" and then you would instantly have "achieved" your goal that you so desperately seek.

There is no possible goalpost that will satisfy you. Accept reality as it is even if you don't like it.

[inverse Paranoid]

May we all be free enough to make our own rules!

Freedom comes in fully remembering that you can't do this wrong. A good rule of thumb is that whenever you feel you have to conform, get creative. There are no boxes unless we create them.

Remember, the beauty of life is more than reality deep.

[GHI]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Changing the rules because you don't like them is being in denial

Correction:

Unsuccessfully attempting to change the rules because you don't like them is being in denial.

If you succeed in changing the rules, then you're obviously not in denial, right?

You don't change reality by denying it. You just dig yourself deeper into the hole of delusion.

Exactly.

You cannot change reality by denying it. The only way you can change reality, is to look it squarely in the eye, figuring out what went wrong, and fixing it.

And sometimes the only needed "fix" is to change your perspective. To change the rules. And remember - It is not the rules of "reality" that limit you, but the rules you've made up in your head.

You try to achieve something, you fail, so you deny reality by redefining the definition of "win".

Sometimes redefining the definition of "win" is exactly what a person needs to be happy.

Sure, you could also use this strategy as a cop-out whenever things get a little difficult, but that isn't what Plato meant. If you genuinely feel, deep inside, that your old rules no longer make any sense, then formulating new rules isn't "being in denial". It's simply being smart.

[DJCT]

yossarian:

When Plato talks about changing the rules maybe he means the "assumed rules". This is the simple trick to thinking out side the box. The box is formed of all your assumptions or RULES, some of which are not actually yours but were foisted on you by family, friends, society, etc. To think outside the box, think outside those assumptions and rules.

Narcissism is the love of self to the exclusion of others. Look it up. I see nothing narcissistic in what Plato has said. In fact, I think this was a great post. Bravo Plato.

If you don't like what Plato has pointed out, maybe you should reflect on what about it bothers you so much. Have you placed so much faith in "rules" that it bothers you when others don't and yet things work out fine for them? Doesn't that tell you just how much such rules are worth?

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by yossarian

This is the definition of narcissism. The postmodern idea that reality is your plaything that you can manipulate in whatever which way to amuse you.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by “reality”. I interpreted Plato’s post to be more about social norms than anything objective and tangible. I agree, I can’t change the rules of gravity by merely wishing them away. If I jump off the roof of the Empire State building, I will fall to my death regardless of how much I may wish to fly like Superman instead. If, on the other hand, I think I have to live up to the societal rules that the great unthinking collective tell me are important… I am free to decide those rules are irrelevant and create my own, ones that increase the probability of me achieving success on my terms. Society may not like that, but who gives a damn so long as I play the game intelligently?

[yossarian]

I think you guys have misinterpreted Plato to be saying something that is more acceptable to you guys. But I don't think you guys were reading very closely what he said.

He isn't talking about changing perspective. Changing perspective is an entirely different thing. He's talking about changing "the rules" entirely because he can't "win".

The defining feature of narcissism is rejecting objective truth in favor of a fantasy. In order to do this, the mind must exert constant endless pressure in repressing reality and affirming the fantasy. As the person starts to affirm the fantasy onto themself, they naturally feel the need to affirm it onto others. Their fantasy becomes a weapon which they can use to bludgeon others with and in the process steal some of that person's energy in a form of energy vampirism.

The entire idea of "shocking people" is offensive by definition. He has "changed the rules" to where being offensive is a good thing and the only ultimate truth is his own amusement and his own insatiable appetite for stimulation. His own amusement is more important than the wishes of others not to be "shocked". Their opinions are irrelevant - he has changed the rules such that they no longer matter. He dissociates from them by labeling them "rutted and dogmatic." They are no longer human beings, just objects there to be played with in the attempt to satisfy an unsatiable appetite.

It stems from his unwillingness to accept a reality which he doesn't like. The narcissist puts his appetites above everything, even above reality itself, literally rejecting reality because reality isn't offering him the "amusement" he craves.

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I think you guys have misinterpreted Plato to be saying something that is more acceptable to you guys. But I don't think you guys were reading very closely what he said.

I for one interpreted Plato to be talking about something entirely subjective. For example, In his original post, Plato used words like:
stuck in a dilemma, personal values, judgmental society, social norms, shocking people, rutted and dogmatic ways of thinking, feel, social situations, amusing myself, frustration, overwhelm and failure and so on.

All of these words are subjective and personal in nature. My interpretation is entirely reasonable given the specific language Plato used. Now as far as I can tell, there is no hard, tangible and objective reality to any of the terms listed other than the obvious fact that groups of people have “decided” to act as if these words described something that exists outside of their feelings and beliefs about their feelings. (And yes, I know it’s nowhere near that simple, but for my purposes that isn’t important.) We're talking about human psychology and not math. Are you saying that social norms and traditions are objectively true and therefore should be adhered to and that only the narcissistic or the insane would dare do otherwise?

He isn't talking about changing perspective. Changing perspective is an entirely different thing. He's talking about changing "the rules" entirely because he can't "win".

That’s just it. What rules are they? Gravity? Physics? Or social norms, traditions, and varieties of human psychology? You're right. You can't win against gravity without the aid of science and technology. You play by the rules of gravity or you die. But you most certainly can decide to ignore social norms or change them in your own mind in ways that make sense to you. Social norms are entirely malleable.

The defining feature of narcissism is rejecting objective truth in favor of a fantasy. In order to do this, the mind must exert constant endless pressure in repressing reality and affirming the fantasy. As the person starts to affirm the fantasy onto themself, they naturally feel the need to affirm it onto others. Their fantasy becomes a weapon which they can use to bludgeon others with and in the process steal some of that person's energy in a form of energy vampirism.

I might agree with you if that’s what Plato was talking about. I see no reason to suppose that he was though.

The entire idea of "shocking people" is offensive by definition.

It is? Says who?

He has "changed the rules" to where being offensive is a good thing and the only ultimate truth is his own amusement and his own insatiable appetite for stimulation. His own amusement is more important than the wishes of others not to be "shocked". Their opinions are irrelevant - he has changed the rules such that they no longer matter. He dissociates from them by labeling them "rutted and dogmatic." They are no longer human beings, just objects there to be played with in the attempt to satisfy an unsatiable appetite.

Ok… What if he were doing all of that? So what? He’s "wrong" because you say so?

It stems from his unwillingness to accept a reality which he doesn't like.

Or does your disapproval stem from your unwillingness to accept that others interpret reality in ways that you don’t like?

[pterodactyl]

"... rejecting objective truth in favor of a fantasy. In order to do this, the mind must exert constant endless pressure in repressing reality and affirming the fantasy. As the person starts to affirm the fantasy onto themself, they naturally feel the need to affirm it onto others."

This is a very interesting statement coming from you, yossarian, in light of your recent posts on idealized human relationships, to which you devoted several pages' worth of writing in attempt to persuade others to your point of view.

I do not see anything truly negative or dangerous about what Plato is proposing to do. He is doing what humans do best when they are learning-- creating, and playing, a game. As a single individual without much power, his actions would, at worst, be annoying to the sort of person who takes social norms as the gospel truth and would be deeply offended by someone upsetting the apple cart. He is not going to run around nailing his '99 theses' to people's foreheads; we may only have to read some invigorated posts on his new game theory development and its effects. His adherence to 'morality' is his own responsibility and concern, not ours.

Far from fearing his mindset, I find his approach invigorating. Wanting to win and create a situation where one can win is a natural human desire. It'll be interesting to see what his concept of winning is, and how well this approach will help him accomplish it.

History shows us that quantum leaps to advance in any realm-- creative, social, technological-- are nearly always associated with some flagrant violation of established rules, including social norms. 'Reality' is subjective and its meaning from moment to moment and person to person is dynamic and flexible. The people who made the greatest historical impact were the original game players, and yes, many were considered narcissistic, but what did they accomplish? Why not implement their strategies in daily life and see what happens? Plato is merely telling us there is a flaw in the system and he is letting us know that he is developing a workaround. If these models were truly effective, why would anyone even want to change them?

[Bliss Sage]

He has "changed the rules" to where being offensive is a good thing and the only ultimate truth is his own amusement and his own insatiable appetite for stimulation. His own amusement is more important than the wishes of others not to be "shocked". Their opinions are irrelevant - he has changed the rules such that they no longer matter. He dissociates from them by labeling them "rutted and dogmatic." They are no longer human beings, just objects there to be played with in the attempt to satisfy an unsatiable appetite.

Originally Posted by Daniel Birdick

Ok… What if he were doing all of that? So what? He’s "wrong" because you say so?

If the first quote is a true representation of what is going on, then he's not "wrong" because Yossarian says he's wrong, he's wrong because it's wrong to abuse and/or use others in that way. And if someone doesn't understand the value of respecting another human being, then he has lost all of the conscience he was born with and has no place deciding what is right and wrong.

[DJCT]

Uh huh.

Where are you getting this definition of narcissism? It doesn't seem to jibe with the definitions I'm finding.

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

If the first quote is a true representation of what is going on, then he's not "wrong" because Yossarian says he's wrong, he's wrong because it's wrong to abuse and/or use others in that way.

I say it's right. See? We’re in the same boat. You have made a declaration and so have I. Neither of us have proved nothing other than we have differing views of what is and is not moral.

And if someone doesn't understand the value of respecting another human being, then he has lost all of the conscience he was born with and has no place deciding what is right and wrong.

I agree. It’s a decision and not an observation. Calling grass green is in one sense an observation. (Yes, I know there’s more involved…) Calling something wrong is a decision. One could be called a fact while the other is a decision to interpret particular actions in a certain way, nothing more. See the point I'm trying to make?

[yossarian]

The key is not how you define reality but why you define reality.

We all try to understand the world around us by creating ideas about how it works. The most important question is why you chose the beliefs you chose.

Did you choose those beliefs because they satisfy some appetite of yours? Because those beliefs amuse you? If yes, that is narcissism.

If you choose your beliefs because you genuinely think those beliefs are closest to the truth, and they bring happiness to the world, that is not narcissism. Narcissism is a pathology that takes over a person's mind by making that person a slave to the lowest impulses.

Impulses like pride. A narcissist is a slave to his pride, so he redefines the world to be a place where pride is a good thing. He rejects the rules of society not because he thinks they are incorrect, but simply because he doesn't like them. He rejects the rules of society because they don't feel good, or they don't feed his ego.

I'm not perfect by any means, but when I post in this thread right now, I'm not doing it for amusement or to change social norms. I do it quite truly because I care about Plato and it pains me to see him chasing after an empty concept. It is very clear to me that Plato can "change the rules" in an infinite variety of ways but he'll never find what he's looking for with that method.

Much better is to accept the world as it is even if there is pain in doing so.

Reality is real whether you like it or not. The truth is true whether you sanction it or not. This doesn't just apply to gravity, it applies to psychology as well, it applies to the mind.

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Reality is real whether you like it or not. The truth is true whether you sanction it or not. This doesn't just apply to gravity, it applies to psychology as well, it applies to the mind.

Sorry man, but all you’ve done is made a series of assertions. You have not demonstrated why your interpretation of Plato's post is the most accurate one. You might as well be handing down 10 Commandments or preaching the Sermon on the Mount. “THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. Why? Because Yossarian says so!” Now if that isn’t narcissistic I don’t know what is.

[yossarian]

I never made any claims about what is true.

I just stated that if you base your beliefs around what satisfies your appetites, that is narcissism and that is ultimately unfulfilling. It's chasing your tail. Navel gazing. Spinning your wheels.

The actual question about "what is real" is a very complicated question that humans have been investigating for ever. That's for a different thread I think.

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I never made any claims about what is true.

You aren’t?

You made a claim about how we all try to understand the world.

You declared that it is more important to know why rather than how we define reality.

You’ve defined narcissism in a way that makes it sound normative and applicable for everyone.

You’ve given what you perceive as insight into a would be narcissist’s inner world.

You’ve stated that Plato’s idea is nothing more than an empty concept.

You’ve revealed that you know what Plato really wants when he put forth his concept.

You’ve proclaimed that acceptance is intrinsically better than denial.

You’ve placed psychology on the same epistemological ground as the study of gravity.

And that’s just from your last post. Are you now saying that all of that is not true after all?

I just stated that if you base your beliefs around what satisfies your appetites, that is narcissism and that is ultimately unfulfilling. It's chasing your tail. Navel gazing. Spinning your wheels.

You really can’t see why you just saying that isn’t enough to convince others? Is the statement you made here your personal experience? Are you a recovering narcissist? Is this based on what you’ve observed in other narcissists? Are you saying this because you’ve studied the latest research findings on narcissism? Or are you stating this is true just because you say it’s true?

The actual question about "what is real" is a very complicated question that humans have been investigating for ever. That's for a different thread I think.

I agree. But you were making claims about what is real, hence the reason for asking the kinds of questions I've asked and making the statements I made.

[pterodactyl]

Yossarian, you said, "Much better is to accept the world as it is even if there is pain in doing so."


Would you have also said this to Einstein? Or any other great thinker who fundamentally changed how we view the world? I wonder if they would have agreed, because their view of the world is acceptable to them. Further, my view of the world as it is is a far cry from how you view the world. My view of the world is acceptable to me; I am "winning" in my reality. Should Plato sadly accept that he is not winning in his world, and just.. bend himself to fit a mold that does not fit him? Or, should he do the empowered thing, and test the structure instead? When you are caught in a trap, what do you do? Break out of the trap, or accept the 'trapped-ness' of your reality, and die inside it?

"Reality is real whether you like it or not. The truth is true whether you sanction it or not. This doesn't just apply to gravity, it applies to psychology as well, it applies to the mind."

Well, um, at least we agree that reality is real. Fortunately, I like what I am seeing. I disagree otherwise with your extrapolations. There is no absolute truth of the mind; scientists are questioning long-held dogmas that relate to the anatomic structure and function of the brain, so if we have yet to agree on the structure of the brain, how can we come to any consensus on the "truth" of the mind? Are you a psychologist, yossarian? Do you have any real insight here?

As to your definitions of narcissism, I'd like to see some sources or for you to explain how you derived this. Better to explain how you arrived at this conclusion before proclaiming someone has a mental disorder.

[yossarian]

This really comes down to the question of objective reality.

There is an objective reality that is the same for all people. In the most fundamental sense, an individual can discover the objective reality by observing those behaviors that produce optimal results. Optimal results are measured by those results which produce lasting, long-term happiness and meaning for not just the individual but for the whole culture.

You can't trust yourself to just "do whatever you want" and then get there. You have to do a systematic test if you intend to use yourself as a test dummy to discover reality. You have to do it like Steve does with strict 30 day trials. It takes years of testing to answer the simplest questions... and this is just the nature of reality. Look at how long Steve takes to figure out the simplest questions like "What is the optimal diet?" Steve has been working on that question for like 15 years. 15 years!

If it takes 15 years to answer a simple physical based question like that, which has actually be investigated by thousands of human scientists for hundreds of years, how long is it going to take to discover the optimal answers about questions which are infinitely more complex - questions based on the incredibly subtle and complex human mind?

Subjective reality is not a realistic way to approach the mind. Humans are inextricably social creatures and we must depend on others. It's not realistic for each human to individually start as a blank slate and then test out all options and discover for himself which provide long-term happiness. He won't even know which provided long-term happiness until he tests his theories in the long-term. So he'll be 80 years old and then he'll know and by then it will be too late for him anyway. His only hope is to pass on the knowledge so that when he reincarnates someone else teaches it to him.

The ego is a massive complication in the pursuit of truth because the ego necessarily distorts your thinking. In those areas where you ego is attached, you can't think straight. All you thinking will be flawed.

Say for instance you have an addiction to sex. You can't think straight about sex while you are addicted to it. Your ego will cloud your mind with countless seemingly plausible logical arguments for why you should indulge yourself. This is the nature of a human being - a human being has lower impulses but he doesn't know he has them.

The narcissist is a person who, having crooked thinking due to egoic delusion, makes excuses for his lower impulses. His ego is thwarted by social norms which say that his brand of sex is delusional and his response to this is to reject social norms. This is the ego in action. The narcissist fundamentally is a person who fails to recognize that he is not perfect and that his current thinking is not representative of objective reality.

You can't trust 100% of your thinking anymore than you can trust 100% of your feelings. You must of course think and feel, but thinking and feeling should be tempered and bounded by the wisdom of past generations. This is why in other threads I have argued in favor of respecting the ancient wisdom teachings that have been passed down to us by every major culture independently.

The Catholic and Jewish teachings for instance on morality are fundamentally rules of life, sets of basic instructions that produce long-term happiness in a human. The Indian Vedas give nearly identical teachings, as do the Confucians and the Taoists and the Hopis and every other great culture. They all say roughly the same things presented using different metaphors.

My argument is that we should not abandon our wisdom inheritance from these ancient cultures which themselves spent thousands of years experimenting on how to live and then passing on their best advice. It is notable that all the cultures which survived passed on very similar advice. Time and again those cultures which deviated from the basic instructions lost prominence.

If a human is born into the world with certain vices, narcissism is when the human refuses to recognize his vices as vices, and instead calls them virtues. When the culture-at-large does not recognize his vices as vices, he rebels from the culture and creates his own cultural tradition which is similar to the past cultural tradition except for when it comes to his particular vice.

A lot of these people seem to be to drawn to the idea of "Subjective Reality" which has a valid, but limited, philosophical point, and they misuse subjective reality as a way to justify every maladaptive vice that their ego is attached to.

The psychological condition of narcissism is easily read about on wikipedia and you'll see that it contains many elements I'm referring to. Some forms of narcissism are not directly harmful to others (as someone above pointed out) but are certainly harmful to the narcissist himself at the very least.

If you are seeking to amuse yourself, and you find "the rules" are getting in your way, the odds are good that that is because you are going to do something which is harmful to yourself or others.

If the leaders of your particular social revolution do not display good lives - like if they themselves don't lead happy lives full of happy fulfilled people - then odds are good that that social revolution is bad for everyone.

Someone above mentioned that many of the modern heroes of society are clearly narcissists with countless psychological disorders. I would agree. This is definitely true. And invariably the revolutions they thrust on the society are not good things but bad things that contribute to ego-gratification in the short-term and human suffering in the long term.

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by Daniel Birdick

I say it's right. See? We’re in the same boat.

I don't think we are. You think we are because you are ignoring objective truth and objective right and wrong. So, from your perspective, you can make up a rule that says it's great to kill people. I say it's wrong according to an objective source, and no made-up rule will change that, and no circumstances or justification will make killing right. In a worst case scenario, you would realize just how wrong it is to kill someone when someone kills you. Or you could just decide it's ok for you to kill someone else, but it's wrong for anyone to kill you, which is pretty diabolical if you ask me.

I am using the example of killing, because it makes the wrong clear, but this principle applies to any more subtle wrong-doing, such as lying, deception, cheating, half-truths, withholding information/truth, adultery...

By your method, you can basically decide that anything you want to do to someone else is great, as long as it gets you what you want, but if the tables were turned, and that same thing was done to you, then all of a sudden you won't think it's ok.

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

I say it's wrong according to an objective source, and no made-up rule will change that, and no circumstances or justification will make killing right.

Enlighten me. What objective source would that be?

By your method, you can basically decide that anything you want to do to someone else is great, as long as it gets you what you want, but if the tables were turned, and that same thing was done to you, then all of a sudden you won't think it's ok.

Two things. First, whether I label an action as morally good or not is irrelevant. As Yossarian might say, reality is what it is. Things happen and they happen all the time. Our labels don’t change that. Second, what you’ve said above basically boils down to an appeal to consequences, which is a logical fallacy. You could be right in stating that I wouldn’t want to be lied to, for instance. But what I would or wouldn’t want for myself has absolutely no bearing on whether morality is objective or not.

[Daniel Birdick]

You make some good points. Yet those good points are mixed in with yet more bald assertions. I think we’d agree on this much: the mind’s ability to rationalize is an amazing thing to behold.

You should consider starting a religion. The argument from authority works remarkably well in that context.

Peace out.

[yossarian]

Not all authorities are bad, and authority itself is not a negative force.

Authority was invented because of its good qualities. Some authorities abuse their position, but on the whole, authority is what has produced everything that people love in life.

Without the authority of parents, kids are unable to grow up properly. Without the authority of social customs, people are unable to live together in harmony.

Authority is unrightly demonized. I have no need for "starting a new religion" because I recognize that the old religions are basically true even if they are not completely true. It is revolutionaries in society who are creating new religions, like the modern religion of permissiveness which demonizes authority and delights in self-gratification.

Moderation is the key. Rejecting all social customs is just as stupid as accepting all authority on blind faith.

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by Daniel Birdick

Enlighten me. What objective source would that be?

Second, what you’ve said above basically boils down to an appeal to consequences, which is a logical fallacy. You could be right in stating that I wouldn’t want to be lied to, for instance. But what I would or wouldn’t want for myself has absolutely no bearing on whether morality is objective or not.

Clearly if you believe that you are the only person who exists and that there are no other people except you in the world, it will be an exercise in futility for me to respond anymore. Once you acknowledge the fact that there are others in the world and that you, like they, are both human, then suddenly what you want for yourself has great bearing on whether morality is objective or not.

Obviously a person who is hell-bent on subjectivity is living inside too small of a box to see anything beyond his own walls.

[Liara Covert]

Yossarian, you make a significant point that draws people's attention to why they create a particular view of reality.

Some people unconsciously imagine conditions that perpetuate inner fear when they consciously tell themselves they do not understand what is happening. This internal disconnect is a call for re-alignment yet, it cannot occur unless the person is willing to acknowledge the source of the problem. Its much easer to see this in other people than to see it in yourself. Yet, seeing certain behavior dynamics others mirrors part of you.

You say, "Reality is real whether you like it or not. The truth is true whether you sanction it or not." This reminds people they get what they need even if circumstances are not compatible with what the conscious mind wants.