Exchange of Ideas: Lisa and Rathpig

[dug_down_deep]

This exclusive engagement thread is only open to Lisa0315 and Rathpig. The peanut gallery for this thread is here (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7621). Any posts mistakenly made here by other members will be moved to the peanut gallery thread.

Lisa has provided the OP:

I do not understand many of the things Rath talks about. I want to know about his world view and would like to share mine with him. (No, I am not about to witness to him.) This is simply an opportunity to get to know each other better and share ideas.

Lisa
Engage...

[Rathpig]

How may I help you Lisa?



Perhaps we should begin with a Nietzsche quote:

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

[Lisa0315]

I will be back later this afternoon. What label do you prefer? :) That would help me begin asking questions.

You said something in the other thread that intrigued me. It was something to the effect that you disdained all authority. Can you elaborate?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and for the peanut gallery. I have been married for 22 years. I am not FLIRTING with Rathpig, or at least that is not the PURPOSE of the thread. I pretty much flirt with everyone. :dunno: So, y'all all lose the bets. :D

Lisa

[Rathpig]

What label do you prefer?

I do not self-attach labels. The only thing close would be "libertine", but this is an attitude rather than a label.

It was something to the effect that you disdained all authority.

The question is Lisa, why do you not disdain all authority?

Authority only comes through force and is therefore illegitimate in any other justification. If an authority says, "We rule by force and by force you must obey", then this is at least honest. Such is the reality of authority anyway because no form of authority can exist without force. Now this force may be in forms from the carrot to the stick, but it is still an exercise in force of one human over the sovereignty of another.

How can one not have disdain for such a construct?

To willingly submit to authority is the most repugnant and ultimately inhuman act a person can commit. This is the slave-morality and the ideal of herd animals.

[Rathpig]

Oh, and for the peanut gallery. ...

Perhaps they simply don't realize that it is not your body I seek to ravish, but your mind. The former heals.

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and for the peanut gallery. ...

Perhaps they simply don't realize that it is not your body I seek to ravish, but your mind. The former heals.

Zactly! :D

[Lisa0315]

The question is Lisa, why do you not disdain all authority?

Authority only comes through force and is therefore illegitimate in any other justification. If an authority says, "We rule by force and by force you must obey", then this is at least honest. Such is the reality of authority anyway because no form of authority can exist without force. Now this force may be in forms from the carrot to the stick, but it is still an exercise in force of one human over the sovereignty of another.

How can one not have disdain for such a construct?

To willingly submit to authority is the most repugnant and ultimately inhuman act a person can commit. This is the slave-morality and the ideal of herd animals.


I have never thought about it to tell you the truth. I accept authority, I suppose because I believe authority is necessary to contain chaos. It is definitely something that I was taught from an early age and it is definitely something I had a problem with from a very young age. To me, one should obey, not from fear, but from love and respect. So, I easily accept authority from those I respect.

When you say that you disdain all authority, do you really mean ALL or do you simply not respect most authority? Are there exceptions? Are there people that you do accept authority from?

I am going to think about the second part of your statement. Can authority exist without force, and I assume you also mean threat of force?

Lisa

[Rathpig]

To me, one should obey, not from fear, but from love and respect. So, I easily accept authority from those I respect.

If you love and respect someone, why are they exerting authority over you? perhaps they are using "love and respect" as a way to manipulate your obedience?

Respect must be mutual and in that case the outcome of a decision should be mutual. If the spectre of authority enters the relationship, how can this be love and respect?

When you say that you disdain all authority, do you really mean ALL or do you simply not respect most authority? Are there exceptions? Are there people that you do accept authority from?

Perhaps I should define my use of "authority". One can be an "authority" on an topic or subject which is vastly different from being an "authority over". I am using the word in the latter sense as an authority seeking subjection. The difference is "authority on" and "authority over".

All "authority over" is without merit or respect because it seeks to subjugate the self-determinate. To submit to authority one must dehumanize themselves. One must slave themselves and submit their will if one recognizes an authority over. Animals are kept through the "authority over". Humans must not be treated in this manner if they are to retain humanity.

Submitting to authority whether from the carrot or the stick is to become untermenschen. The sub-human.

Can authority exist without force, and I assume you also mean threat of force?

Force can be a carrot or a stick in this instance. Force is inherent in the threat as well as the deed. Without something to use as a form of manipulation, authority is meaningless. Going back to your original example, if you feel you are submitting to authority through love and respect, then you are merely being manipulated. If I feed you and demand your obedience then I have exercised force. If I am kind to you and demand your obedience then I have exercised force. It is much more honest to strike you down and demand obedience than to use more subtle manipulations. Of course the subtle manipulation will lull you into a feeling of cooperation. Honey catches flies much more efficiently than vinegar; however the efficiency of the trap does not negate the intent.

If a condition of love or respect exists then authority is unnecessary. Even if someone could through the carrot or stick subjugate you, they will not act in this way if they have love or respect.



Of course this is only one of many topics, if you are curious about anything else please go ahead and add it to the mixture.

[Lisa0315]

If you love and respect someone, why are they exerting authority over you? perhaps they are using "love and respect" as a way to manipulate your obedience?

Respect must be mutual and in that case the outcome of a decision should be mutual. If the spectre of authority enters the relationship, how can this be love and respect?
Perhaps I should define my use of "authority". One can be an "authority" on an topic or subject which is vastly different from being an "authority over". I am using the word in the latter sense as an authority seeking subjection. The difference is "authority on" and "authority over".

All "authority over" is without merit or respect because it seeks to subjugate the self-determinate. To submit to authority one must dehumanize themselves. One must slave themselves and submit their will if one recognizes an authority over. Animals are kept through the "authority over". Humans must not be treated in this manner if they are to retain humanity.

Submitting to authority whether from the carrot or the stick is to become untermenschen. The sub-human.
Force can be a carrot or a stick in this instance. Force is inherent in the threat as well as the deed. Without something to use as a form of manipulation, authority is meaningless. Going back to your original example, if you feel you are submitting to authority through love and respect, then you are merely being manipulated. If I feed you and demand your obedience then I have exercised force. If I am kind to you and demand your obedience then I have exercised force. It is much more honest to strike you down and demand obedience than to use more subtle manipulations. Of course the subtle manipulation will lull you into a feeling of cooperation. Honey catches flies much more efficiently than vinegar; however the efficiency of the trap does not negate the intent.

If a condition of love or respect exists then authority is unnecessary. Even if someone could through the carrot or stick subjugate you, they will not act in this way if they have love or respect.



Of course this is only one of many topics, if you are curious about anything else please go ahead and add it to the mixture.

Well, the proper use of authority, let us call it leadership, is service. You know I am a Christian, so let me illustrate what I mean.

Jesus, of course, was the leader and in authority over the disciples, right? Yet, he demonstrated this service by washing the disciple’s feet. He said that whoever was first should be last, and whoever was last should be first. In other words, to be in authority, to lead well, you are first a servant. You lead by serving. You are obeyed not from manipulation but because you have given something of yourself and have become worthy of your followers.

There was no demand for obedience, but instead, an intoxicating desire to obey based on love towards the Master that was so great because of who He was and what He did, not to people, but FOR people.

So, yes, I can certainly see why most authority should be disdained because they do not lead by service, but by manipulation.

That does not mean that there aren’t some leaders/authorities who are worthy of our obedience.

Getting off of the religious theme, obedience to authority is also a good thing to avoid chaos. If one were to do exactly as they wished without any consequence, wouldn’t we have many more petty dictators who grasp power rather than are placed in the position of authority due to having been deemed worthy by society?

Another point is that there will always be disagreement and someone has to make the hard decisions. Sometimes, not making a decision is worse than making the wrong decision. What happens in the world when there is no compromise and no one to make the hard decisions?

Lisa

[Rathpig]

Jesus also teaches that if you do not submit to his will that you will be damned to torture for eternity and if you do submit you will be rewarded.

Jesus is the ultimate example of what I am discussing. Jesus is the ultimate tyrant. Jesus abuses the idea of love, and Jesus manipulates the emotions of the crowd to facilitate the result. (Of course I am using "Jesus" as a place-holder for "those who use the mythology" because no evidence exists that Jesus is a distinct entity.)


Had Jesus said Heaven is for everyone and even those who reject me will be vastly rewarded, then you may have a point. But Jesus is all stick and all carrot. This mythology displays a perfect example of my point. Without the punishment and reward, Jesus has no authority. The love and sacrifice and leadership is all a silly pretext for the real goal which is accept my authority or burn!


(I was going to use the silly exchange between Damian and I in the Peanut Gallery as an example of how dehumanizing/demansculizing can be used to assert authority, but the Jesus example proves my point greatly.)


Let me add to that last part:

Jesus became human and stepped down from being "God" to create a vast charade of authority building. This clearly illustrates the dehumanizing aspects of the acceptance of authority. Jesus has to submit to a lower state to satisfy the Will of God, and the lower state humans have to accept this authority blindly to ascend to a higher state. Authority is the use of state status and positioning. This is why bowing to royalty was once required. This is why you stand for the judge and why judges sit on a platform. This is why Jesus ascended upward and Satan in "down in Hell".

Authority is a status building exercise. This excludes completely concepts such as love, respect, service, or other manipulations.

[Lisa0315]

Jesus also teaches that if you do not submit to his will that you will be damned to torture for eternity and if you do submit you will be rewarded.

Jesus is the ultimate example of what I am discussing. Jesus is the ultimate tyrant. Jesus abuses the idea of love, and Jesus manipulates the emotions of the crowd to facilitate the result. (Of course I am using "Jesus" as a place-holder for "those who use the mythology" because no evidence exists that Jesus is a distinct entity.)


Had Jesus said Heaven is for everyone and even those who reject me will be vastly rewarded, then you may have a point. But Jesus is all stick and all carrot. This mythology displays a perfect example of my point. Without the punishment and reward, Jesus has no authority. The love and sacrifice and leadership is all a silly pretext for the real goal which is accept my authority or burn!

Whoa. So, you definitely do not accept authority for the sake of authority regardless of how benevolent the authority may be.


(I was going to use the silly exchange between Damian and I in the Peanut Gallery as an example of how dehumanizing/demansculizing can be used to assert authority, but the Jesus example proves my point greatly.)


Let me add to that last part:

Jesus became human and stepped down from being "God" to create a vast charade of authority building. This clearly illustrates the dehumanizing aspects of the acceptance of authority. Jesus has to submit to a lower state to satisfy the Will of God, and the lower state humans have to accept this authority blindly to ascend to a higher state. Authority is the use of state status and positioning. This is why bowing to royalty was once required. This is why you stand for the judge and why judges sit on a platform. This is why Jesus ascended upward and Satan in "down in Hell".

Authority is a status building exercise. This excludes completely concepts such as love, respect, service, or other manipulations.

Okay, as it is, all men are created equal, or born equal or whatever…you do not accept that authority sometimes is necessary at all? What of the parent/child relationship when authority is used to protect the child, and authority is relinquished as the child becomes more and more able to protect himself?

Let’s move on to another area now. What, if any, authority do you accept? How should we be governed? How should law be developed and who has the right to enforce it?

[Rathpig]

Whoa. So, you definitely do not accept authority for the sake of authority regardless of how benevolent the authority may be.

I have seen no evidence of "benevolent" authority. Christianity is one of the least benevolent examples you could possibly cite. All Abrahamism has been a scourge on humanity and will only be beneficial through eradication.


Okay, as it is, all men are created equal, or born equal or whatever…you do not accept that authority sometimes is necessary at all?

All men are not born "equal" this is a mistaken assumption. Some men are born weak. Some are born ignorant. Some are born into poverty. Some are born into foolish superstition.

The acceptance of authority is only a necessity because of benefit or force. Sometimes the acceptance of authority is needed to undermine that very authority.

What of the parent/child relationship when authority is used to protect the child, and authority is relinquished as the child becomes more and more able to protect himself?

This is a perfect example and should be called what it is: an unequal relationship predicated through necessity. Any emotion attached to the relationship is psychologically beneficial, but it doesn't change the situation. Some beings are dependent. They must accept this or perish. Until the last half of the 20th century, childhood existed almost exclusively as a training ground for one's position in life. Egalitarianism is a recent idea, and children were literally beaten into their place in life. And for all the rhetoric to the contrary this place was firmly set for the vast majority of people.

The real question is whether authority is ever "relinquished" or merely transfered to other entities. Very few people train their children to think for themselves. People train their children to think like themselves and their cultural norm.

Let’s move on to another area now. What, if any, authority do you accept?

I "accept" literally a wide range of authority. Such is the necessity of reality unless I wish to perish. Were you to ask which authority I "accept" philosophically, I would say that no authority is legitimate simply because it holds power.

How should we be governed?

However you desire to be governed. Personally, I am a Jeffersonian Agrarian, but the world has moved on from that era even though in many ways it is a life I can fortunately live. With 6 billion people in the world, some form of authoritarian construct is necessary. Few humans have moved beyond the human oh so human and almost no one can govern themselves or be allowed to try.

The trick is not to fool yourself into thinking that this is legitimate simply because it is necessary or that somehow every second is not lived on the edge of chaos. Anarchy underlies it all. Peace and order are momentary illusions.

How should law be developed and who has the right to enforce it?[/FONT]

Again through necessity or legitimacy. Only the strong can make or enforce laws. The rights and emotions of the weak are subject to the tolerance of the strong. This is reality and this is necessity, but that doesn't grant it legitimacy.

The trick is not to confuse the daily mundane necessity of the slave morality with legitimacy. Government, law, order, all of these things only exist because the strong rule over the weak. This is reality. This may even be a necessity. But it should be recognized for what it happens to represent and not shrouded in the cloak of God and Glory and Right.

Everyone who values freedom should at the very least resist authority in their mind and seek to destroy authority in their emotions. You are only subjugated when you accept your fate in mind and body.

[Rathpig]

Also Lisa if you want to branch away from the Authority thing feel free.


Simply stated: Authority may be needed to rule the masses, but that doesn't make it either acceptable to the individual or the greater philosophical good.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, give me some time to absorb that. I will be back later.

[Lisa0315]

Also Lisa if you want to branch away from the Authority thing feel free.


Simply stated: Authority may be needed to rule the masses, but that doesn't make it either acceptable to the individual or the greater philosophical good.

It is a good starting point for both of us, I think. My struggle with authority has to do with benevolance vs power. I would follow you like a lap dog if your authority is from love. I resist the power based authority, but fearfully.

Lisa

[Rathpig]

Authority is never benevolence. You can never follow someone else through love.

If you follow someone from love you have to do so as an equal. This eliminates any real authority relationship. If someone holds authority through benevolence, then this is merely a a sham. Would they act benevolent without being given authority? If not then they are not truly benevolent. If so then why do they need authority to act in this manner?

Most people are conditioned to think in the manner which you are displaying. People tell you that their authority is derived from love or benevolence and this becomes accepted without question. If you follow someone it must be as an equal for either love or benevolence to exist. They must ask for, listen, and act on your input. They can't be in a true position of authority, nor should they desire to be in a true position of authority.

Psychologically this is probably most difficult for women in society because the aspects of love and benevolence are used throughout their life to manipulate their behavior. This creates a conditioned response to the stimulus presented in this manner; however it is a lie. Love will not accept authority and benevolence doesn't need authority.

Question everything.

[Lisa0315]

Authority is never benevolence. You can never follow someone else through love.

If you follow someone from love you have to do so as an equal. This eliminates any real authority relationship. If someone holds authority through benevolence, then this is merely a a sham. Would they act benevolent without being given authority? If not then they are not truly benevolent. If so then why do they need authority to act in this manner?

Most people are conditioned to think in the manner which you are displaying. People tell you that their authority is derived from love or benevolence and this becomes accepted without question. If you follow someone it must be as an equal for either love or benevolence to exist. They must ask for, listen, and act on your input. They can't be in a true position of authority, nor should they desire to be in a true position of authority.

Psychologically this is probably most difficult for women in society because the aspects of love and benevolence are used throughout their life to manipulate their behavior. This creates a conditioned response to the stimulus presented in this manner; however it is a lie. Love will not accept authority and benevolence doesn't need authority.

Question everything.

I agree with that last part about the conditioned response. Again, it is something that I have struggeled with my whole life, still do. Longing for the Daddy figure? :dunno:

Gotta go for now, but I find this interesting. Hope you do too.

Lisa

[Rathpig]

Longing for the Daddy figure?

I was not speaking to you personally as I have no idea, but in general terms females are trained to encode acceptance through concepts such as love and benevolence. Males are trained to encode acceptance through victory and prowess. No doubt these are deep-seated evolutionary traits.

What happened at some early point is that those who wished to dominate others discovered that psychological force has just as much power as physical force. The domination of females therefore has been targeted at specific areas of their emotions which often relate to concepts such as "love".

All this is not really material to my larger point though which is that authority as a concept is not derived through or maintained by any of the excuses which are readily given.

Jesus as the "shepherd of love" without Heaven and Hell strips the concept of any authority.

Parents as loving benevolent disciplinarians is meaningless without some force to maintain authority. (And this doesn't have to be physical force of course.)

Government as an entity to ensure civilization becomes even more suspect when you strip away the idea of force. What is law without force? What is a nation without force?

I think too often people become confused because they then wish to apply vague concepts such as "good and evil" to my assertions. Good and evil simply do not exist as concepts. These are merely adjectives used to describe or subjective emotions to an event.