Anatomy of a conscience. Part 2. Desacralization

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Psychology as a young science, therefore it is not surprising that many moral and ethical qualities of a person have not yet been considered by her, but are farmed out and used, interpreted exclusively by “spiritual” groups of society in the form of religions. Of course, apologists for divinity will take this as proof of their worldviews of the divine origin of man, but it is not so simple. All "divine" qualities of a person are sewn into the body by innate, unconditioned reflexes, but "sinful" aspirations are also sewn into the body. And in this there is nothing divine or devilish, as believers try to convince us, all these qualities are simply necessary for earthly, physical life. Another thing is when some of them become dominants of consciousness, unmotivated by vital necessity, paranoia, then this can be called a sin, but the fact is that this attitude must be applied to all qualities of the psyche, and not only to the "low", "dark", which can be considered only purely subjective, in a certain social group, based on mental attitudes. And then only as a result that entailed social consequences, but not in a speculative, presumably generalized plan. Because many, yes that many, all the so-called "highly spiritual" concepts, raised to the rank of absolute "divine" truths, can and are practically constantly used for selfish, and sometimes criminal purposes.

The preachers of the sacred veneer of conscience make a methodological mistake, which speaks of their unscientific and frivolousness in relation to the topic and has the character of unreasonable perception in relation to the audience, typical moralizing and admonishing.

First, the description of the characteristics of their subject coincides fairly accurately with the description of other psychological manifestations, including serious disorders such as schizophrenia. Because they are given only in a first approximation, and the cause and physiological mechanisms that cause them are not considered.

Secondly, denying the presence of conscience among other people's social groups of mankind, they do not describe the substitute mechanisms for the formation of their social behavior, which indicates a lack of knowledge of the true causes of this phenomenon. Moreover, it is noteworthy that they deny themselves like that, because it turns out that conscience is not a necessary condition for the existence of society! Or it turns out that not only animals, but even insects and fish have a conscience - otherwise there would be no beehives, and, accordingly, no honey, and the latter would not hold on to shoals. Otherwise, how in such a miraculous way their social ties turn out to be more durable than those that are now being destroyed and have a human conscience? And in what way is the selective, and often for some reason precisely in relation to the Russian people, "moral character" of conscience manifested?

Of course, they may object to me that, they say, in human society everything is much more complicated, but after all, people's minds are more developed, otherwise, why is it needed in general, also requires explanation.

The idea of the exclusivity of the concept at its core contains not only a manipulative intention in relation to a certain group of people, when the qualities of a victim that are necessary for parasites-manipulators are elevated to the rank of holiness for their non-jurisdiction and cultural self-reproduction, but also the monopolization of “holiness” by certain structures striving for mental and ideological domination in public culture, in reflexive motivation, all with the same purpose of exploitation. The mechanisms, signs and consequences of this are briefly described in the first part of "Anatomy of Conscience …".

In this part of the apologists of conscience, another "surprise" awaits. The first was in the first part and was the news that the concept of conscience is also in Kabbalah, that is, no matter how much the apologists of conscience would like to pass it off as a purely nationalistic, divine exclusive of "Russianness", the same Judaism, thus, does not deny it for nobody. Now I will make another hole in their balloon of illusory exclusivity and God's chosenness.

"… I did not seek war, but, on the contrary, did everything to avoid it. But I would forget my duty and act against your conscienceif, despite the knowledge of the inevitability of a military clash (with the Soviet Union), he did not draw a single possible conclusion from this. Considering Soviet Russia a mortal danger not only for the German Reich, but for the whole of Europe, I decided just a few days before this clash to give the signal for an offensive. "Quote from Hitler. (In the book" Revelations and Confessions. ", 2000, p. 131). (The quote itself from here

It turns out that Hitler had a highly spiritual and divine quality! Or not?

In the same article, the author writes: "… Then the" pearls "on us are not respectable well-fed burghers, but fanatical creatures who do not know pity," freed from the chimera called conscience"", Quoting Hitler. Funny, isn't it ?!

So what is conscience after all?

Somehow, in one article on a psychological topic, I came across such a thing as conformism. I decided to find out in more detail:

Confidence - a change in the behavior or opinion of a person under the influence of real or imagined pressure from another person or a group of people. Often the word is also used as a synonym conformism (from late lat. conformis - "similar", "conformable"). But the latter in everyday language means opportunism, acquiring a negative connotation, and in politics, conformism is a symbol of conciliation and conciliation. Therefore, in social psychology, these two concepts are separated, defining conformity as a purely psychological characteristic of the position of an individual relative to the position of a group, his acceptance or rejection of a certain standard, an opinion inherent in a group, a measure of the individual's submission to group pressure. Moreover, pressure can come both from a specific person or a small group, and from the side of society as a whole.

Confidence - personality trait, expressed in a tendency to conformism (from late lat. conformis - "similar", "conformable"), that is, a change by the individual of attitudes, opinions, perceptions, behavior, and so on in accordance with those that prevail in a given society or in a given group. At the same time, the dominant position does not have to be expressed explicitly or even exist in reality at all.

Internal associated with a real revision by a person of his positions, views (comparable to self-censorship).

External connected with the avoidance of opposing oneself to the community at the external, behavioral level. In this case, the internal acceptance of the opinion, the position does not occur. In fact, it is on the external, behavioral, and not on the personal level that conformism manifests itself.

Doesn't it look like anything? And so: “Do you have conformity? We are trying for your sake, and you, ungrateful creature … ? Let's remember the last phrase, we will come back to it later, and move on.

From there and pay special attention to the last definition:

Rational conformity presupposes behavior in which a person is guided by certain judgments, reasoning. It manifests itself as a result of the influence exerted by the behavior or attitude of another person, and includes compliance (abidance), consent (compliance) and obedience (obedience).

Irrational conformity, or herd behavior, is the behavior that the subject exhibits, being influenced by intuitive, instinctive processes as a result of the influence of someone else's behavior or attitude.

Late I came across this term, I would have used it in the first part of "anatomy", I would not have to invent my own, although correct in content, socially adaptive reflex, sotsadref. However, a lot has been missed, therefore I am launching the second part.

So what does conformism describe to us if not the notorious conscience? Do not the same social attitudes persecute this and that? Personally, I don't see any difference! If someone sees, be so kind as to describe and justify logically, avoiding the sacred “incomprehensibility”, according to which anything can be justified, up to the “holiness” of the “shahid's belt” and cutting off the opponent's head! Otherwise, accordingly, it is impossible to comprehend the "secret" of conscience, and what is the point of starting a conversation about it with those who have not "matured" to it ?! And who "matured" for some reason cannot describe it without transcendental metaphysics, which actually means that they have nothing to describe in reality - apart from sentimental platitudes, they cannot "give birth" anything valuable! Divinity, you can explain anything that is not desirable or impossible to justify - this "argument" for some reason is considered the final verdict! Of course, among the "intellectuals" of the level of the flat earth …

If we get away from irrationality and talk about it rationally, then the term loses its entire meaning - the conversation will be about direct, natural, long-known, studied and described incentive mechanisms of human social behavior that have nothing to do with sacredness. Conscience is a set of them, which absolutely everyone has and differs in their quantity and quality, which, in principle, is the CHARACTER of a person. Therefore, asking about its presence is the same as asking: "Do you have any characteristics?" Of course, like everyone else, and not only, there are living objects. Moreover, they are situationally changeable: a well-fed person perceives the surrounding reality differently than a hungry person, a sick person not as a healthy person. Accordingly, they react differently in different situations. And how in this case, instead of trying to understand the motives and reasons for what happened in order to influence the situation, determine what is more conscientious and what is not ?! Who needs eternal and fruitless showdowns that do not lead to anything? Another question with a message for manipulation - as a rule, conscience is "present" in a conscientious person who is supporting and nodding. If you disagree with him, "conscience" instantly dissolves!:)

So, in the description of conformity, there is no definition of its motivation. Although it is quite obvious from the text that an individual is forced to resort to conformism in order to become, to be, a member of society, to join it. It doesn't matter whether it is forced or voluntarily, the reason does not matter. And what can society give him? How, by the way, does society give to any other individual? Well, Duc, the possibility of a PERSONAL, more or less COMFORTABLE existence, without which, by the way, it is impossible to grow “spiritually”! And the comfort zone is the sphere of dwelling and the goal of the ego's activity, while the external difference is only in its preferences. Someone might say that the conscientious do not crave personal comfort and go against their ego, their essence, calling for "spirituality"? Against your inner, personal aspirations, thereby arguing that in fact they are not so honest and noble? And respectable deeds, which cause rejection and longing in them, are they forced to do, under the pressure of external circumstances and internal voices ?! That is, it is obvious that the ego rules even the coveted, it is just that they are so conscientious.:)

All mentions of conscience are reduced to just lamentations in the style of "we are good because we are conscientious, they are bad and shameless because they offend us." They do not have any other motivating force, because to fight these "bad" ones in order to "close the topic" of shamelessness does not even arise a question - otherwise one will have to admit that conscience is not at all absolute and during a fight with someone it has to be set aside by relation to the enemy. A trivial statement of a virtual fact, why bother with the evidence of the "sanctity" of conscience, as one of its apologists asked: "What is the profit?" And the fact that conscience acts here as an "excuse", an excuse for its laziness and fear, or as a primitive but "intellectual" revenge from envy, an attempt to humiliate in a "spiritual" sense, or a manifestation of pride and an inflamed ego, they say, look how good I am, since I am conscientious, well, yes - "spiritually" advanced …

The question arises: who and why determines the conscientiousness of an act? Yes, just those who talk a lot about her and call! They do not understand on what grounds, for some reason, they believe that having a conscience gives them some preferences in society, raises their social status, consider themselves privileged, which in general does not fit with their very concept of conscience! How simple everything turns out to be - he declared about some kind of "divine" quality, and now you are already a judge of human destinies! It seems to me that it was the believers with an inflamed sense of conscience, following the aforementioned motives, who demanded the law on "insulting the feelings of believers." Others have no feelings! In the depths of consciousness, judging by the constant public attempts to deify conscience, it is likely that such plans are hatched by the "offended" consciences. It's funny how they will prove that they have a divine conscience ?! Personally, none of them have proved it to me yet. It's easier for believers - they just need to move a mountain with their faith.:)

It only seems easy to hide your vices behind ostentatious "spirituality". In fact, instantaneous metamorphoses that occur with conscientious "righteous" are quite often obvious and vivid to those around them - just now, communicating politely and respectfully with their own, when shifting their attention to objects unpleasant for themselves (not ego at all!), The individual changes the nature of communication to a contemptuous and arrogant, and all "divinity" goes somewhere. Because he is not going to answer to them. After all, they answer when they ask, and to the one who asks, and then only when the respondent may have any consequences. If the consequences do not occur, or at least are not critical, then there is no need to answer. And responsibility, as we already know, is conscience. Yeah, it turns out that "divinity" can be "turned off" when necessary! But this is "allowed" exclusively to the righteous, they are closer to God, "sinners" are strictly forbidden to do this !!! Hence the frequent, almost ubiquitous, manifestation of "conscientious" rudeness - a direct demonstration of the absolute "righteousness and divinity" of modesty, shame and conscience! "Shaw, again?" nipple logic … I don't remember who came across this thought: "Any action has two motives - one real, natural, the other that sounds nice."

Those who deny conscience as a banal reflex do not even try to fit it into any known category of the mechanisms of consciousness. Conscience by them is highlighted in a special area of "divine", higher consciousness, but which for some reason manifests itself through all the same or "primitive" mind - the influence of their conscience on the intellect, apparently, is just negative, since it clearly constrains the initiative, then- then those who are conscientious actively deny its leading role, or through "animal" instincts. No one, solely on the basis of conscience, has the gift of materializing or transforming reality, even walking on water, and those who have an extrasensory gift and know how to control energy are not necessarily guided by conscience! Something “divine” does not want to create its own personal, purely “highly spiritual” channels of expression! And here we get a funny situation: on the one hand, the creator god manifests herself as a stupid hack-bungler, since he did not think of inscribing conscience in unconditioned reflexes, thereby providing her with a guarantee of uninterrupted "work"! On the other hand, the notorious voice in my head painfully resembles a symptom of one severe mental disorder, the existence of which the conscientious ones themselves do not deny, that is, with their similar attitude they deify him! If we consider all the voices sounding in the head divine, then there is no need to talk about any special significance of conscience as one of them. Although, of course, conscientious ones will assure that they can easily distinguish schizophrenia from divine revelation! Probably they have a caller ID in their heads and the conversation starts something like this: "… I looked through the recording from the surveillance camera, and what did I see there? …". And what to do with a voice that denies the divinity of conscience, if it is the only sounding one ?!:)

Here the fact that "divinity" is for some reason brought up by the society, and not by someone from above, is ridiculously funny! There is education by conscience - there is divinity, there is no education - there is no divinity. For some reason, divine forces evade their immediate responsibilities, shifting them onto the shoulders of people confused by everyday life! And upbringing differs from training only in specific purposefulness and methodicality. Divinity can be trained ?! Again, a reference to the animal kingdom and an illustration of conscience as a set of someone's wishes!

And not only to train, but also to register in machine code, to program. What are the main algorithms, well, tell me? And then I still don’t understand what is required of me? Only it seems to me that the car will not last long, it will quickly fall apart from overloads under the onslaught of the whims of others. What is actually happening at the moment with the people …

The motivation of conscience is also interesting - it is the absence of its remorse. That is, the fear of possible guilt. A "divine" reason to adhere to moral rules! The Creator once again demonstrates sadistic inclinations and a complete absence of any fantasy and creativity in a positive way: where is the "carrot" for the righteous? Oh, how conscientious people do not like this question! And there is why, not even one reason. First, the positive stimulation of "righteous" behavior manifests itself in the aforementioned psychological comfort. In the very, banal, to which everyone, without exception, strives, only each in his own way. And whose sphere is the habitat of the egos so hated by conscientious ones! And, damn it, it brings us back to primitive conformism! Once again, we see the absolute selfishness of even "super-high moral" qualities. Or, again, once again, someone will say that the conscientious go against personal "wishes"?

Secondly, as I already indicated in the first part, for the manifestation of "highly moral" feelings, suitable conditions are necessary, namely, the deprivation and suffering of someone. In ordinary, normal conditions, their manifestation is not only meaningless, but also unreasonable. Agree, how strange it will look like the desire to sympathize (?!) A happy person! And therefore, the conscientious literally need the dramas and tragedies of life, because they look like “heroes of the spirit” only against the background of scoundrels and scum! By the way, compassion in no way diminishes suffering; on the contrary, it increases it! After all, extraneous suffering is added to someone's suffering, which only intensifies the release of gavvakh. And even the intention to put an end to those who bear suffering will not lead to the disappearance of suffering, but will go through its increase, because now those who bear suffering will begin to suffer, which will accordingly evoke the reciprocal compassion of the compassionate! This is the paradox of the "sacredness" of supposedly obligatory and objective human qualities, on which manipulation schemes are built. Compare this ersatz of compassion with a truly human sense of empathy across the entire spectrum of emotions, which helps to recognize the negative aspirations towards oneself, which social parasites fear so much.

In the case of acceptance of an individual by society, or by another individual, with the granting of rights and access to their resources and opportunities for a comfortable, including psychological, that is, a respectful existence, an adequate personality arises gratitude to them. That is, there is an internally motivated need to serve this individual society. If such do not appear, then either this society does not suit the individual, and he is forced to somehow defend himself and avoid him. Either the adaptation was just a screen for some other purpose, but in both cases, talking about the lack of conscience is incorrect, since there is no reason for it - the need for reciprocity.

That is, what is meant by a moral conscience is in fact a banal gratitude for the benefits provided. We recall the typical phrase “you have a conscience, you THANKS!” Creature. This is how, in plain text, the subject of expectation is declared and the essence of the motive for creating "good" is revealed to the caller - it was just a "loan", an advance payment for future reciprocal services, and not a simple generosity of the soul and the fulfillment of social duties, "just business, nothing personal" … I do not consider the cases of a "snake warmed up on my chest" here - you need to look at whom you are warming up, and not naively rely on someone else's conscience, becoming a banal sucker! The substitution of concepts occurs because gratitude always manifests itself only in response to the manifested real, and not ostentatious good, in fact, is a moral payment. And therefore, before demanding this payment, it is necessary to give something, but this is just not in the interests of the manipulator-parasite - the victim always has an argument! Therefore, he plays on guilt, not gratitude. Thus, the conscience-gratitude manifests itself exclusively in the direct and full member of the group. For those whose place is “at the bucket”, no gratitude can arise in principle, because there is nothing to thank for: with such an attitude, the dominant side not only does not give anything, but in addition strains and complicates life, for them this society is ALIEN. That is why everyone, with the opportunity to choose, adjoins one or another social group in which he is comfortable and with which he experiences an emotional resonance, considers it his own and bears responsibility, and therefore has a conscience, ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY in front of her! And this happens always and with everyone! The only problem is that the parameters of psychological comfort, and hence the inclination to certain groups, are easily and simply set from the outside by the same upbringing or its defects, but this is a different topic. In other, "severe cases", this is a manifestation of a specific mental disorder, and not an abstract lack of conscience. That is why conversations about moral conscience AT ALL from an objective point of view have absolutely no meaning.

It is enough just to be adequate to the environment and the situation. Live according to the social "Ohm's law": "Do not strain your neighbor, because the voltage can strongly shock you." A normally functioning conscience sleeps until its bearer commits any wrongdoing, which in turn is obliged to give a signal for its awakening. That is, conscience does not guarantee socially acceptable behavior, it is precisely the signal of its occurrence through the so-called. remorse. It is completely logical that a person who does not show antisocial actions, that is, who behaves reasonably and adequately, may not even guess about her! And since there is no reason for its occurrence, then, accordingly, the need for it is not required from him.

A reasonable person will not turn on loud music in the middle of the night, not because he is afraid of remorse and not because he will be ashamed or uncomfortable in front of neighbors. The attitude of others to themselves to a self-sufficient person is important insofar as authority is earned not by conformism, but by other qualities. It is enough for him to realize that the order and calmness of those around him are disturbed.

The feeling of guilt is always regret and annoyance. Shame is practically the same thing, and therefore the saying "not shame, not conscience" is illogical, and since a person's actions are determined either by emotions - by conscience, or by reason, then it should sound like this correctly: "not MIND, not conscience."

The method of manipulation through conscience is primitive, but effective - for the victim to feel guilty, it is enough for the manipulator to portray himself as the victim. "Debt to the Motherland", "victims of the Holocaust" and "children of Captain Schmidt" are from there. In order not to succumb to these tricks, one should adhere to the principle "they carry water to the offended," because the offended are far from being synonymous with the injured and the needy. There are expressions and abruptly, and, therefore, more convincing and intelligible, however, I started with them in the first part. Thus, the arrogance so hated by the conscientious, within reasonable limits, naturally saves from manipulation.:)

And finally. It is quite obvious that "incomprehensibility" arises in the case of an inability to understand, and the unwillingness to do so records it in "sacredness." And therefore, before snorting and splashing saliva, look in the mirror and take for granted the only thought - zoology is a science About animals, and not FOR them….