RichardY

From Google Extortion; the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. The onus should be on you to prove why the threat has to be violent, given standard definitions. The threat could be of a psychological nature, such as extorting old people for money, for home or vehicle maintenance. As I said, incomplete knowledge.

How can you apply logic to Aggression. There is an implied change in your counter question, from my initial question "How can you apply logic to Aggression." As a subject applying logic to their own aggression, with imperfect information. Which I would say they can't. The best they can do, is rationalise with statistics. Maybe they could apply a commandment (thou shalt not covet), in order to do that there has to be an external observer i.e God or reflective self. But, what if coveting is weakness, perhaps one should not covet purely out of that. I used the word commandment as was trying to avoid using the word morality. To "How can I apply logic to Aggression" as an impartial informed observer. With Perfect Information, but incomplete knowledge. --- All of them are potentially aggression to an outside observer. 1. Extorting money. 2. Acting like a lunatic.Intimidation potentially. 3. Extorting money. 4. Trying to break up a marriage. What I'm getting at is applying logic to the motivation behind the aggression. Whether to be Moral no matter what "I have the High ground", operate along some form of statistics, "What is good for mans life is good for man.", game theory, or just go nuts; maybe look for an outlet for aggression "what makes the grass grow, blood blood blood."

Zulu Dawn?

I think conscientiousness is also correlated to collectivism, as people seek to impose order, like the Germans.... Perhaps not so much now, as with all the "refugees" being let in, contributing to disorder, exploitation and crime.

I think Agreeableness is correlated with Collectivism, as is Low Openness to Experience. The Nordic countries being low in Agreeableness and High in Openness, are Individualists. Compared to Collectivist Asian countries that are high in Agreeableness and low in Openness. Any authority in Individualist societies, are based on local competence. Collectivists, God Emperor.

@Mark G Q1 If you are super high in neuroticim why seek "pressure"? I know being High in Neuroticism and Low in Conscientiousness myself, the idea of being forced to act often comes to mind. Back against the wall kind of thinking. Though I'm also very low in Agreeableness, so that doesn't provide much innate incentive to socialise. Ever had a suspension of consciousness at all? Being in high in neuroticism I passed my driving test having no memory of the route. There's something called associaitive memory that allows a person to function even if they don't have consciousness. Read about in a book the Power of Habit. When you say Tyrannical Mother. Do you mean High in conscientiousness, as an excess of order is typically what a tyranical parent is, plus being low in openess so they won't always accept evidence and are very skeptical. The fact you say your mother helicoptered and did not show indifference, also makes me doubt the tyrannical aspect. Plus the ACE score, tyrannical parents imo would go nuts with so much chaos. My father is pretty tyrannical if there's a receipt missing for even 50 pence he'll go nuts, shout about it for ages, maintains a pretty immaculate appearance in public and even at home, though casual. Q2 I think you are looking for stability. I mean the term going Postal(go crazy), refers to less stable ex-military, police or other people looking for a bit of stability. Maybe it's unfairly used, still it's an expression. Learn to embrace the ups and downs, if you have another purpose others than Wedding photography to go along with for stability, family if done well would be the best. Social groups if you are agreeable. Q3 Killing animals isn't about being indifferent, leaving them to slowly starve to death is.(Unless you are putting them out of their misery, or really need a bite to eat) Perhaps you are being dissociated, as opposed to indifferent and looking for a way to take out your anger indirectly. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as an alternative path is cold rage. Find a way to focus your anger. “If we have our own why in life, we shall get along with almost any how. Man does not strive for pleasure; only the Englishman does.” - Nietzsche, Twilight of The Idols

How can you apply logic to aggression? (Base mechanics). If it's a life boat scenario, just kill the other person. But what if that other person is a child? What if using aggression maybe a way of preventing a catastrophe. I'm not saying that blackmail is a necessarily a particular effective form of aggression, it won't work against purely a philosopher, but what person is purely a philosopher? Maybe the blackmail is all bluff and has no substance to it what so ever. Maybe the person is a criminal seeking a bribe. The blackmail being implicit, rather than explicit. Or it could be the explicit withold of certain rewards. Or it might be just say nice things about us. Like at the end of the movie "Catch 22". I wouldn't see it as a moral issue( or even morality). More the case of "what judgement you meet it shall be meeted you." Though still a social animal. Say something, don't say something. Though their are consequences either way. Moral Obligation, though if you don't generally like people or even at all, I'm not sure how morality would apply. Not that you wouldn't necessarily like the stuff they produce, or them ground up into pate. (Problem still am a person, the pate thought came from the film "War of the Roses", not particularly practical, plus emotional attachment) .On an individual level it might be different, I genuinely think the best nationalites are Anglo-Sphere ones. USA > New Zealand> Canada > Australia > Ireland > The UK. I hate using google search because I don't agree with many definitions, but unless you have better. Noun 1. the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them. Verb. force (someone) to do something by using threats or manipulating their feelings. Blackmail, ethymology Black Speech. The point is compromising. So unless you are Diogenes and have no shame or are purely a philospher, perhaps divine. I consider blackmail aggression. It might not involving anything particularly substantial, perhaps symbolic (Kiss the ring of power). Not that I wouldn't necessarily use aggression, but seems a poor tactic against a Diogenes or a Philosopher.

Maybe a good specualtion might be in having another passport if you can. Some flexibility. As I said I don't trust crypto, but plenty of people do (Stefan) and don't (PeterSchiff). There's something called the "crack up boom" in Austrian economics where cash goes into physical assets, the only thing would be later liquidating those assets. I think many people in the Uk don't trust the pension system. Most of my family are/were saver types, though the pensions don't payout what they use to and even if they did, what's the point with taxes. Flexibilty is important. Keep your options open, as Trump says in his book.

More like imposing or not imposing structure on the world. (I remember my father saying once that his sister called the ocean "A big bath.") If god does not exist and is a delusion, why not take it a step further to Iconaclasm. Be like erasing former(liquidated) members of the Communist Party from photos. Or Islam not permitting the depiction of religious figures. Though I would the regret of destroying ancient artefacts, to the point of it even outweighing human lives, but not necessarily human suffering. Not arguing for, more like the state of my mind. Awareness, but not consciousness, or at least lack of it. I do not go to any religious instituitions.(technically not correct, but spiritually so.) I'm interested in the psychological knowledge and how many many common expressions are from Shakespeare or the bible. I'd like to gain a wider context as opposed to focusing on one sentence. Perhaps why Baptism was/is practiced. I had a grandfather who had a baptism of sorts, when he was set on fire and crash landed into the sea. (WW2) I think the churches and people in the USA probably do much to help the unfortunate. The ones in Europe are content to take their 30 pieces of silver. I think the "zeal"(abuse) does more harm than good. I guess if christianity moves to a decentralised model of something like Francisican monks and away from the church it may do much good. Small bands of devout Christians.

Going insane, possibly crazy. Not a pot to p*ss in. Massive taxes on pensions anyway, and the money gets pressganged into "safe assets". Providing you have a decent pot anyway. Land is fu*king expensive 150,000GBP for an acre with a rundown barn conversion approved, near where my parents live. Property is like over 5 times more expensive than it was 20 years a go. I guess if you wanted to make some money, get to know the councils, scumbags. Property developers and weapons on the conservative side. Unions and social housing on the other. Be a slumlandlord, even if you get fined, the fine is less then what you could make. With all the thermal imaging cameras why not throw people out onto, the street enforce the law, in the major cities. BITCOIN!!! - I don't trust it though. Prefer chunks of metal or fruit. Though in terms of risk adverse activities what can you do?

@heartoftherebelI don't know, what have you done that is good? Personally I don't want acknowledgement, but significance.

Yeah with me though I'm too addicted to mind, neurotic and attached, probably have to crash & burn. Get distracted too easy, low conscientiousness. Problem would be if it's fixed, I was higher in conscientiousness but never particularly high. I remember the coherence therapy which I thought had the best model from a post you mentioned the therapists in before.

@heartoftherebel So would you say that you are enlightened? Who is your master? To what do you exert your strength towards? Mostly playing around with ideas. Saw that you mentioned shakespeare in another post. Was reading through the complete works a while a go(never finished it) but I did finish the Tempest. Which seemed to incorporate elements of mastery. Prosperity (Prospero) and Calibos, which I guess would be nature.

What the fuck. I can't believe that blackmail does not violate the NAP. Children and adults commit suicide over such things. People get buried alive in "honor killings" in Turkey. (not that I care, but as an example) 1) Either it doesn't, in which case the NAP is crap & clinging to it is cowardly. 2) It does violate the NAP, in which case I think you are both using confirmation bias to justify blackmail. In the case of @smarterthanone working in the Porn industry. And in the case of @Ronin_3000, playing dumb as if blackmail is not evil and calling me a pothead. Why do people call it blackmail instead of dealmaking or leverage if blackmail isn't evil. Someone is infected with an STD and you say nothing, and that isn't passive aggression. At the least you have violated that person's trust and what else is there. Might as well abandon the NAP and gobble people up as base appeptite. No one else think that blackmail violates the NAP or at the least is evil. Who else is Holier than thou? Not that I don't necessarily want to be beyond good and evil. -------------------------------------------------------------- (I like the wider context.) Isaiah 65 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. 2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; 3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; 4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels 5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day. 6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, 7 Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the Lord, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

You see this is my point my. If atheism is advocating that people become without God, what is this God they are advocating to come without? If God is a delusion, then shouldn't we see those who talk of god and to themselves as mad, insane or mistaken? What is more, what is an atheist who makes an intellectual position out of refuting a delusion they themselves, must hold, Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. If to be an Atheist is to be without God, what steps into fill the vacuum? Arguably the self, but why would this not make the self be extroverted in personality, what draws the line? Perhaps no self. If not the self then why is not Satanism a plausible position of Atheism. To go one further why not some kind of gladiator Doom Style or Nietzschean overman. If God is eliminated or circumvented what is the alternative. Atheism is an umbrella term for all sort of ideas contrary to God, but not the nullification of God, which is what I'm thinking about. To essentially erase the error of God. What I'm advocating for is not a practical mundane view of God but, a specific subset of alternatives to God., not Atheism. The word Atheism seems to say as much about God, as Theism does. Although if I were to accept the concept of God. I think that a Deist model of god outside of time(inspired by norse mythology) would be more sensible then a Theist model of divine revelation. Though this leaves a God for all practical purposes that does not require praying to or worship. Functionally no different to atheism, God as metadata. Would it be a good idea though to fully eliminate the concept of God as a kind of metadata, perhaps embracing the idea of God may lead to Schizophrenia. I don't know. Perhaps God is merely another way of saying self. In which case is without self Good or Bad? Perhap if the Self is an impossible concept to define, maybe turning back on oneself too much may cause a kind of unraveling of the person. Become too rational to the point where a person loses the concept of themself as a subject. At best God as aliens, presents a regression problem.

Looks like it.

Schizophrenia? Can't say I have any specific knowledge of God. To me it is a concept without form or substance; undefined(the closest I figure is Chance, maybe limited conceptually by dimensions.). I guess the Deist model (read some of @Phillip Brix former posts) of God being outside of time, would be more rational than the theist model of divine revelation. Been thinking recently that the term Atheism is untenable, and that Paganism, Satanism, Determinism, Freewill, Gladiator. May make more sense. Read some stuff that God is the principle of creation. And Satan(lucifier?) is the principle of individuation. In Jungian Psychology. Wonder what's it's like to lose or breakdown the concept of the self at least temporarily. Some of Phillip Brix formers posts looked a bit like shuffling cards, to use a crude analogy perhaps.

Personally I think the trait agreeableness makes racism worse. At the end of the day what is agreeableness based on, if not preference for one's geneset. Funny how the Democrats in the USA have former Klan members and the Labour Party in the UK, has widely publicised racism, despite being tough on racism..... "There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless." Gunnery Hartman, Full Metal Jacket.

Ok, you say. "I don't want to frame blackmail as non aggression.", then say "it doesn't violate the NAP." Which leaves the 3rd option of "I know nothing Mr Fawlty, I am from Barcelona." (a plea of innocence). I would say you can have "leverage" in a deal, which Trump talks a lot about in his Book "Art of the Deal." But leverage and keeping secrets is not the same as blackmail. It would be like saying I have no idea what evil is, therefore I can't do evil. Blackmail is not fundamentally about money. Blackmail is more about domination and aggression. You may say, well I and everyone else has absolute freewill and therefore blackmail is impossible, it's not like I'm being physically moved against my will like a rag doll. Though I would say freewill is a potentiality and not everyone has 100% consciousness(not even Stefan), especially younger and older people. Those who pursue the truth above all(family, friends, money, career and therefore a potential living, own children) or those who are just outright hedonists are not subject to blackmail. Against a 100% conscious person, aggression would be impossible. "Forgive them Lord for they know, not what they do." Is a wasp or ant being aggressive when it stings? To the other insects, maybe(chemical signals), to the person being stung it's just an insect and any aggression is a stylization of language. Blackmail mitgated by laws in the state? I would say the state increases the potential for blackmail. "As the only thing the state does is remove freedom of choice". -Peter Schiff.

You still didn't answer my question. I answered yours.

Sounds like masquerading determinism. In which case there is no ethical responsibility, fellow TV set. Solipsitic Universe "Do as thou wilt."

1. Has a child from a previous partner and is not a widow. 2. Has credit card debt. 3. Is Fat. "Curvy". 4. Is Dumb. 5. Likes to party. 6. Is Overly Agreeable. 7. Health & Beauty student. 8. Is excessively quiet, or too talkative. 9. Has no ethos/ethics implicit or explicit. 10. Is a femminist.

Yeah well, I consider blackmail to be aggression, I can't see why else someone would do it. I think making a principle of non aggression is denying a part of human nature, when it could be embraced and managed. "Price of everything, Value of nothing". Though why you want to justify blackmail to yourself, as non aggression?

I would say that it is amoral, though I do not subscribe to the NAP or morality, as I believe there are some instances where Agression maybe required, though it is more of a last resort a tactic, end resort is someone ends up injured or dead, when some controlled aggression could have been used, flexing muscle or "showing teeth" to avoid fighting or killing for instance. Morality I liken to the Nietzschean herd instinct. Although I do subscribe to a silver rule of Ethics, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." People may likely ostrasize you, especially the less intelligent and more agreeable ones. If you can repay in kind, but that isn't always feasible tempermentally or practically.

I think Intellectuals are a personality type, with IQ being incidental. With low IQ generally being selected out of the personality group. High Openess to Experience & Low Agreeableness, being common to the group. It being possible to have an high I.Q in not an intellectual personality type. Also perhaps noteworthy is the propensity to consume resources rather than to produce resources directly and often indirectly. INTP - "The Architect" Low Conscientiousness, High Neuroticism?, Low Extroversion Plato Socrates Melancholic (Not Social) Phlegmatic (Getting)? ENTP - "The Inventor" Low Conscientiousness?, Low Neuroticism?, High Extroversion DaVinci Sanguine (Social) INTJ - "Scientist" High Conscietiousness, High Neuroticism Thomas Edison? Melancholic ENTJ - "Fieldmarshal" High Conscientiousness, Low Neuroticism Aristotle Sanguine Choleric (Ruling)? Middle 2 may vary more in temperment and agreeableness. Scientists & Inventors dependent on some consensus. Temperments inspired by Hans Eysenck. Temperments are different in Mbti David Keirsey. (Wikipedia)