You are here

4.2.2 Controlling conditions

Elze07-07-14

A	Controlling self-management conditions righteous and unrighteous		yes	no
	Life is setting conditions. The only question is which one.
1	What is worthy is not always righteous and worthless is not always unrighteous. And what may seem divine and righteous in the short term, may turn out to be devilishly unrighteous in the long run. In order to increase the chance on a worthy life, we have -along with the distinction between worthy and worthless signals, ideas, conditions, behaviours, habits, self-images and (re)actions, also be able to make a dichotomy between righteous and unrighteous. Can you define what righteous and unrighteous signals, ideas, conditions, behaviours, habits, self-images and (re)actions are according to you?
	If so, make clear what you mean by this in a tabular overview.	If not, think about it why not and record the outcome in writing.
2	So many people, so many ideas. What is righteous for one person is unrighteous for another. What one finds acceptable, the other finds unacceptable. The common denominator could be not damaging ourselves and each other, were it not for the fact that all those who - for whatever reason [mafiose, religious, economic, family-political] - don't want to distinguish between righteous and unrighteous, are in no way served by this knowledge of good and evil. Not even if by doing so they poison themselves and others with ignorance for a long time. Do you want to behave in a righteous non-damaging way with yourself and others?
	If so, make clear in a tabular overview how far you wish to go. [See also exercise in automation 3.2.6/24]	If not, record in writing how you want to deal with yourself and others. [See also exercise in automation 3.2.6/22-23]
3	Ideas can turn out to be wrong. May be based on too little or wrong information, may have been compiled too carelessly, or may have been copied too thoughtlessly from others. Nevertheless, many people persist in sticking to it. Often against better judgement. Sometimes because it's so enjoyable: the narcissist doesn't want to see his or her illusion of being / having compiled great... ideas in realistic proportions, or doesn't want to disappoint those who have given him or her that illusion. Sometimes because they don't want others taking away their imaginary pleasure: the conformist doesn't want to give up the illusion of being social and adapted. Sometimes because they want to maintain narcissistic and conformistic habits: the addict/slave hangs on to the idea of im-possibilities. And sometimes they don't want to criticize the ideas, conditions, behaviours and habits of the family-society, which have been handed down from generation to generation, because they are afraid of the family-societal consequences if they deprive the narcissist, the conformist and the addict/slave of their illusions. Are you prepared to critically examine the ideas of yourself and others and, as far as you are concerned, to turn around in a righteous way and to confront others with them and to bear the consequences thereof?
	If so, make an overview of your various ideas, examine them according to non damaging criteria and make sure you have a plan of action to improve them.	If not, think about the personal and social consequences in the short and long term if everyone reacts in the same way as you do and put the results in writing in the form of a story.
4	To have an idea [wether or not of yourself and/or others] is one thing, to implement it is another. Especially if it has to meet righteous, yourself and others not damaging conditions. Do you know what the conditions are for putting your ideas in a fair manner into practice?
	If so, make an overview of the conditions in the short and long term and provide a step-by-step plan to implement your ideas.	If not, think about it on the basis of text and questions, record this well-organized in writing and then still make the request from the left column.

B	Controlling self-management conditions righteous and unrighteous						yes	no
5	Self-management starts with being able to make a distinction. Between you and the environment. Between your kind and time- [spirit], or identity, and that of others. Between your ideas and those of others. Between your conditions and those of others. Between your conscience/knowing and that of others. Between your behaviour and that of others. Between your habits and those of others. Between your reactions and those of others. Do you know the difference between your ideas, conditions, consciences/knowing, behaviour, habits, identities and reactions and those of others?
	If so, what is your starting point		If not, find the differences in what you think is acceptable and not and put the result in a table.
	physically	righteous
6	In line with physical elements, the advocates of the right-of-the-strongest honour the right of aggression. The idea that everything is allowed to become and remain the strongest. So also the a(u)tomatic right of disposal over others. There are four ways to achieve this: 1. by gathering as much physical, mental, economic and political power as possible, 2. by tyrannically trained group formation, 3. by democratic or manipulative democratized or democratically manipulated cooperation, and 4. by a combination of the three. In all cases, the strongest is called good [positive] and the weakest evil [negative]. Do you want openly and/or sn(e)aky, in accordance with the law of the strongest right of aggression, put your ideas into practice?
	If so, how and where is your limit? Record this in writing.		If not, then how exactly and how do you deal with overwhelming situations? Record this in writing.
7	Some supporters of [the right-of-the strongest] right of aggression try, under Platonic conditions, to transform the Roman habits of pater familias into Socratic reality and to manipulatively 'prove' and maintain their ideas in a familial way for centuries to come. They base themselves, each in their own way, on African family-history, where the youngest have to sacrifice themselves as weak sheep in order to slavishly serve the eldest, for they are more aggressive, they have, in a Greek way, a herd of Egyptic addicted followers around them Romanised. The one calls this naturally evolving, the other divinely creative, the one democratic, the other dictatorial, the one economically liberalized, the other communist politics. And for some it is everything at once: is it in a democratically dictating way divinely naturally evolving communist-capital. Do you submit to [the strongest] law of aggression?
	If not, what are your conditions		If yes, are you doing this sometimes or always
	righteous	self-willed	voluntarily		compulsive
8	For those - wether or not in a democratic culture casted - supporters of the right to aggression, who want to have unrestrained access to everything and everyone, the right to self-determination and self-management of others is an abomination. They consider this as their - wether or not collectively - privilege and will do everything that is in their power to keep it that way. That they thereby fall into their 'own' idea, because there is always something or someone or a group more aggressive than them, they only see when it is too late. When the pan with supporters of the law of aggression about the right of [self determination and [self] management [thanks to their 'natural fighting spirit'] is at the boil and they turn out to be one combative uniformity of individual and environmental characteristics. Do you have an internal and/or external conflict over [self] determination and [self] management?
8a	If so, do you have it because you want to be in control of your own actions and others torpedo you 'naturally'?
	If so, how do you solve it?		If not, do you do so because others don't do what you want?
	combative	rational
8b	If not, isn't it because you make a distinction between yourself and your environment and are able to deal with others in a reasonable way, even if they are supporters of the law of aggression?
	If not, didn't you because others do exactly what you want?		If so, is it because of
			yourself	others		both

C	Controlling self-management conditions righteous and unrighteous			yes	no
9	Thwarting each other for personal gain is of all physical times. One of the most successful and most tolerated ways to put your own ideas [and/or those of your group] into practice at the expense of others is bullying. Making fun of others individually and in groups, physically, mentally, relationally, intellectually, economically and politically intimidating, damaging, over-criticising, harassing and isolating them are the order of the day in a right-of-the-strongest culture. After all, according to the law of aggression, everything is permitted to be, to become and to remain the best, most beautiful and sweetest, richest and most powerful. The result is a culture of aggression in which narcissism, conformism* and psychopathy* form the necessary behavioural conditions to make it a [right-of-the-strongest] 'culture of success'. Can you maintain yourself in a family-society where individuals and groups believe they have the right to unscrupulously manipulate and subjugate others with [openly violating [dad] or deceitfully tyrannizing] brainwash methods according to their preferences?
	If so, how do you deal with that?		If not, investigate your possibilities and record the outcome in tabular form.
	just like them	thoughtfully
10	Someone who wants to be part of the culture of success is tempted to use narcissistically conformistic addicted methods to play the-right-of-the-strongest games, in order to achieve his or her goal and to be proud of himself or herself if he or she has succeeded in doing so. If he or she succeeds in being praised and admired by others, the formula for success is successful and he or she is allowed to walk next to his or her shoes. This is how the right-of-the-strongest culture has maintained itself for millennia. Did you use the above success formula as well?
	If so, check whether this is in line with your conditions and goals and consider the societal consequences of your choices.		If not, check whether you would have liked this and whether your current method meets your own conditions and objectives.
11	Integrity and conscientious thinking and doing do not reap much appreciation [and that is quite an understatement] in a right-of-the-strongest culture that tries with aggressive means to promote narcissistic, conformistically addicted methods as the formula for success. That is why it likes to maintain its neutr(in)ality towards good and evil and why it finds honest people bothersome, nagging and elitist and a threat to their aggressive ideas, when they try to spread their information and knowledge about fair and unfair. They do everything they can to put an end to integrity and conscientious thinking and acting by giving it their twist of conscience. Do you want to manage your life according to your ideas in which you develop such practices and manners that you both live the way you want and let others manage their own lives?
	If so, examine what mental and physical conditions are required.		If not, investigate to what extent you want to live your own life and/or that of others [see q. 8].
12	Our ideas about who we are and what we want are - for whatever reason - not always consistent with daily practice. For that reason, a self-manager has a healthy dose of regret, shame and guilt. The narcissistic conformistic addicted leaders of the 'culture of success' respond to this in a superego*-centric way by constantly talking us into guilt if we don't do exactly what they want us to do [your name is lazy, not social, egotistical, etc.]. In other words, the unscrupulous one assumes a divine morality. The result in many cases is exactly what they want: the contrite child is thrown away with the unscrupulous bathwater. Do you ever suffer from regret, shame and guilt about stubbornly clinging to unfair ideas, conditions, behaviour, habits and (re)actions?
	If so, write down what you have or have had problems with, distinguish between imposed and intrinsic regret, shame and guilt, see what you could have done better, what you have done and what you can still do about it.		If not, find out if you threw out the guilty child with the unscrupulous bathwater, or if you would have done it all over again and what it would mean for yourself and others if you would have done it differently, and put it in writing.

By daily reflecting on the conditions of yourself and others and how you and others deal with them, you can adjust where necessary so that you prevent damage to yourself and others, as well as reduce or minimize and realise humane-righteous improvements.

← →