You are here

4.2.3 Controlling code of conduct

Elze's picture
Controlling self-discipline behaviour
right and wrong
Life is about un-chain behaviour. Question is only which one.
Behaviour is visualising internal motives. Or in other words, behaviour is one's own ideas [whether or not influenced or activated by external factors] under mental and physical conditions [under which the attitude towards external circumstances] can be given shape. 
The way how is based on one of the two fundamental ideas on which all other ideas are based: 1. at all costs, at the expense of others [right-of-the-strongest behaviour] or 2. by not damaging yourself and others [humane-righteous behaviour]. 
Often it is a trojan version of one and do people at all costs want to maintain the right-of-the-strongest culture as the strongest [best, smartest, etc.], with the benefits of not [letting] to damage oneself [and others where it suits].
Are you aware of the concept on which your behaviour is based?
If not, think about it. If so, is it based on:
At all costs, at the expense of others
Not damaging yourself and others
An ego-centric mix of both.
Right-of-the-strongest behaviour is based on own exclusivity at all costs narcissistic monitoring and putting it on a pedestal, at the expense of others. She sees the exclusivity of others as a threat to the exclusive survival of herself; under the guise that if everyone is exclusive, exclusivity is ordinary. 
Today's homo sapiens, so humanity as a species, is the prototype of this right-of-the-strongest concept. It sees itself as divinely exclusive and wants, at all costs, to (continue to) reign naturally over everything that is or threatens to become or evolve exclusive.
Everything and everyone is exclusive and average at the same time. Do you treat your exclusive average in a yourself and others non-damaging way?
If so, think about how you do that, how your environment reacts and what you do or would do if the environment is violent.
If not, think about what and who you are damaging and why, how your environment reacts to it and whether you want to continue like this.
A supporter of right-of-the-strongest behaviour is a [overt and/or sneaky] egoist who is unscrupulously opposed to others, because everyone is seen as a potential threat to his or her own exclusivity, unless he or she is weak or weakened, ripped off and/or eliminated. 
A supporter of yourself and others not harming behaviour is a humanist who cooperates conscientiously on the basis of respect for the exclusivity of everything and everyone. 
An ego-centric mix of the two is based on working together to weaken and eliminate [wether or not unscrupulous] others. What turns out to be a bad deal for the conscientious cooperator because he or she not only loses the connection with his or her humane conscience, but is also exploited and weakened in a troyan way by the unscrupulous collaborating opponent, and eliminated as soon as he or she is no longer needed.
Do you know if, when and to what extent you - out of fear for the decline of your exclusivity - 1. unscrupulously have obstructed, 2. conscientiously cooperated and 3. egocentrically worked together to oppose others?
If so, make a table-like overview of this complete with dating and situation, and research the frequency with which this was associated.
Make a plan to what extent you want to change this and in what period of time and put this into practice.
If not, think about whether you want to know that, and if so, look back 1. at how you treated others, 2. what your role was in this, 3. what your goal was, and 4. if and when it was achieved. Put this in a diagram and then answer the left question.
The definition of right and wrong behaviour depends on your starting point whether or not to harm yourself and others where it suits you. 
For the right-of-the-strongest adherent it is good, at the expense of everything and everyone, to let your own interests take precedence in order to become and remain exclusively the strongest. And wrong not to put everything on top of everything in order to become and remain exclusively the strongest, best, etc., but also to take others into account; especially when it comes to children and the weakest. Unless they can take advantage of this, either now or on the longer term. They find selfishness natural and humanism unnatural [see 4.2.2/6]. 
For the don't harm yourself and others adherent, humane treatment of yourself and others is good and natural and selfishness wrong. They base their 'natural' on the humane expectations that mother-child care requires, if humanity wants to survive at all. 
The supporter who wants to profit from both principles is a trojan egoist who suggests to have humane intentions [with that].
Are you aware of what your definition of right and wrong behaviour is based on?
If so, investigate to what extent others have [had] influence on this, to what extent you want to change this and what the consequences are, make a choice and put it into practice.
If not, think about what you now think is right and wrong, what the consequences are if you act accordingly and what if you don't, make a choice and put it into practice.
Controlling self-discipline behaviour
right and wrong
In an exclusive family-society means transforming self assembled ideas under self determined conditions into self un-chained behaviour, to be self responsible for the consequences. 
And they are not half bad in homo sapiens rights-of-the-strongest society, because there Father Familias is divine... exclusive the boss and he doesn't like exclusive self-thinkers [see 4.2.5/11]. That is why most people - just like Socrates - choose the path of least resistance. They turn the ideas around [see 4.2.5/12] and poison themselves with the exclusive right-of-the-strongest ideas of homo sapiens Pater Familias, and by doing so themselves in an exclusive way paternalistically homogenized to Plato's communi-sly socialized family-member..... that can drink your blood if you don't unify your ideas as much as they do. If you're an exclusive average instead of, just like them, the average exclusive homo sapiens of Pater Familias.
Do you dare to be an exclusive average of homo sapiens?
If so, investigate to what extent you are doing this in a non-damaging way and adjust where necessary.
If not, investigate who you want to be, what your obstacles are and how you can solve them.
One of the most sophisticated and successful ways to become [and remain] the strongest [alone, or with others] is to confront [the ideas of] others by mentally and physically putting and keeping them under stress until they start showing sick and/or submissive behaviour or are permanently disabled.
Do you let yourself easily scare into stress?
If so, investigate what makes you stressed and why, what you can do about it and what the conditions are to prevent it. Make a step-by-step plan and implement it.
If not, figure out what you think and do to avoid getting into stress, to what extent this is not damaging to yourself and others and if and to what extent you still want to optimise this.
Father Familias right-of-the-strongest homo sapiens cocks and hens are stressing and brainwashing just as long with family business-political ideas and conditions as
"you're worth nothing without..." 
"I can/we can do better", 
"you can't" and 
"don't you dare, or there'll be trouble",
until they [often against better judgement] willy-nilly began to believe it and to behave towards it. With which they have thrown their own exclusivity uniformly on the scrap-heap of Family Average.
Have you been belittled and sabotaged by the success formula of Pater Familias' exclusive homogen-izing family-management?
If so, investigate how you can distance yourself without damaging yourself, make a list of your exclusive characteristics and positive contributions, make a step-by-step plan based on own-value(s) and implement it.
If not, investigate how you managed to hold yourself firm, to what extent this was not damaging, whether the circumstances were favourable or not and to what extent you want to continue on the same footing.
It turns out that every generation a new group has changed tack and, as successful uniformed cocks and hens, crow unscrupulous ideas with ruthless conditions in one-eyed royal family-stand, 'for the sake of sweet peace'... of Paters right-of-the-strongest and biggest Family.
Do you think it's good behaviour to turn a blind eye for the sake of 'dear peace' and the right-of-the-strongest and greatest [narcissist and psychopath of the] family in this homo-sapiens society?
If so, investigate to what extent you are willing to allow conscientious non damaging behaviour and to distance yourself from unscrupulous behaviour of yourself and/or others.
If not, examine your behaviour for effectiveness and what the family and social consequences are [have been]. See to what extent you can improve your behaviour and put that into practice.
Controlling self-discipline behaviour
right and wrong
Mental and physical behaviour is based on automated conceptions and conditions.
Can you indicate what you think and do self-consciously and what goes automatically, by yourself, without thinking about it?
If so, find out to what extent that corresponds to your ideas and conditions and to what extent that needs to be adjusted and put it into practice.
If not, observe yourself, make a schematic overview of what you consciously and what automatically think and do and then answer the question on the left.
From the right-of-the-strongest ideas of today's homo sapiens, who paternalistically put themselves on a divine psychopathic narcissistic pedestal [in the illusion that no one is stronger than him], we are from our beginnings poisoned with paternalistic conditions in order to maintain that [Platonic] delusion anyway. Or else something will happen....: a massive amount of sapiens who are devoted to that same fantasy and will teach you a violent paternalistic lesson in order to validate their delusion.  
In other words, from an early age, our ideas and conditions are largely determined by right-of-the strongest environmental influences. Under the pressure of swallow or suffocate, we choose to survive and accept these fallacies.
Can you indicate which behaviour has emerged from self-developed ideas and conditions and which you apply - consciously or automatically - because a family-society full of parents, children and others does, wishes or demands so?
If so, investigate whether and if so to what extent your behaviour is based on your own ideas and conditions, whether and if so to what extent you want to change this and how, make a step-by-step plan and put it into practice.
If not, think about what you from birth onwards would think and do if there were no pressure and manipulation from the environment, how righteous you would be and what the obstacles are to still doing so.
Even though we traditionally for tactical reasons strongly have been influenced by outsiders, even though we from birth onwards under paternalistic pressure have learned to cooperate with and submit to the right-of-the-strongest homo-sapiens - the one with the most supporters and means to turn ideas into paternalistic behaviour under paternalistic conditions, because without paternalistic conditions we cannot succeed in homo-sapiens right-of-the-strongest culture - we are and remain ourselves responsible for the consequences. After all, we think and do it ourselves. Even if we are forced or brainwashed by others, it remains our mind that says so and our body that does so. It is our internalized motives that become visible in our behavior.
Do you also feel responsible for your thinking and acting when you, for whatever reason, automatically do exactly what someone else wants?
If so, investigate to what extent you voluntarily do what someone else wants, to what extent you do it out of strategic interest and whether and if so how you want to proceed with this and what the consequences might be.
If not, investigate when you do feel responsible, what is nice about it and not, how you avoid what is not nice, why you do what someone else wants and relate that to each other.
As soon as we think about changing our ideas and conditions [and thereby our behavior] because we no longer consider it justifiable what we think and do, we encounter a possible internal conflict with all those with whom we until then - for whatever reason - were in agreement with and may not accept our new ideas and conditions. 
Will we not be manipulated and put under pressure on all sides to do what others want us to do? Especially the paternalistic leader of the homo-sapiens group, who is dependent on allies and as such has appropriated our thoughts and behaviour for his or her own benefit  - under the denominator the more the better -knows about violent ropes in order to keep you within his or her right-of-the-strongest gates. Familial, religious, economical and political archetypes abound to which this 'exemplary' wrangling can lead to.
Do you [just by the thought of it] quickly go over if you're put under pressure?
If so, investigate to what extent this is related to paternalistic experiences and fear of exclusion and missing out on opportunities.
If not, find out how you react, to what extent you think this is okay and how others react.
Controlling self-discipline behaviour
right and wrong
Once we have decided to renew our ideas and conditions - whether or not under the influence of other environmental influences - we have an internal conflict with our old ideas and conditions. And also our behaviour is still adjusted to our old ideas and conditions. Considering that also the environment is not attuned to this and can cause problems, we understand why so many people and cultures - against better judgment - stubbornly stick to old ideas, conditions and behaviour. 
But that is not what we do. We tackle it thoroughly. We solve our internal conflict effectively by convincing ourselves with good arguments of the value of our new ideas and conditions.
Because only on that condition are our old ideas and conditions willing to put a trace aside. 
Only on that condition our old [habitual] behaviour is willing to stand next to our old ideas and conditions.
Only on that condition we can create new behaviour on the track of our new ideas and conditions.
Can we, also externally, argue convincingly to others why we think and act like this.
Can we with understanding say goodbye to old ideas and conditions, to old habitual behaviour, to an old identity and an environment that does not want or - of itself - is allowed to change.
Do you ever have a conflict of arguments in your head between your old and new ideas, conditions and behaviour?
If so, investigate
1. to what extent you have problems with logical argumentation,
2. you are guided by the arguments of others,
3. you feel dependent on others 
4. and you are afraid of losing contact with others
and relate that to each other.
If not, investigate 
1. to what extent you argue internally,
2. how quickly you copy arguments,
3. to what extent you stick to old ideas, conditions and behaviour of yourself and/or others
4. and on what that is based
and to what extent you want to continue like this.
Under the influence of the ideas and majority conditions of the sapiens family, behaviour is demanded of us that we do not always agree with. Our views and conditions are different, but the sanctioning consequences prevent us from expressing them in our behaviour. The result is a conflict of identity. Our ideas and conditions are mentally different than we can physically express in behaviour and habits. They are repressed by the sapiens majority. As a result, they are sidelined against our will, together with our self-chosen behaviour. Only in the seclusion of ourselves and our privatized environment are we - to a certain extent - free to transform our own ideas and conditions into our own behaviour. In the course of time this is so eroded and repressed - by the continuous pressure of homo sapiens majority - that it seems as if they are old ideas, conditions and behaviour that have not been properly sidelined and therefore occasionally seem to function as a jammer. We have become a split personality.
Are you internally and externally a unit that behaves according to inner self-designed ideas and conditions?
If so, investigate the extent to which you are in line with the environment, what the consequences are if this is not the case and whether and if so what you can do to optimise it.
If not, investigate to what extent you want and can change this, what the family and social consequences are, make a choice and a step-by-step plan and implement this.
Our behaviour is  not always as effective in putting our ideas and conditions into practice.
Do you want to change your behaviour?
If so, make a schematic overview of which behaviour under which conditions you want to change and a step-by-step plan and implement this in phases.
If not, investigate whether and to what extent your motives do not harm yourself and/or others, adjust this where necessary and implement this in phases.
There are many ways to yourself and others not damaging behaviour.
Do you want to learn new behaviour in the near or further future?
If so, make a schematic overview of what behaviour you want to learn and a step-by-step plan and implement this in phases.
If not, investigate to what extent your motives are based on fear and/or a longing for the old and tackle this where necessary.

By daily reflecting on the behaviour of yourself and others and how you and others deal with it, you can, where necessary, make adjustments in such a way that you prevent, reduce or minimize damage to yourself and others and realise humane and righteous improvements.