Animals are inherently selfish. Life depends upon self-preservation and there is no sense of shame in animals that would make them alter their natural patterns. I'll admit that there are some animals that sometimes appear to behave in a less than selfish manner, but this isn't the point.

The point is man.

Man. The animal man. Just as selfish as any other animal and yet man has created an elaborate construction of apparently selfless behavior. Sacrifice and love. There are arguments that even these selfless acts are in fact selfish. That man in his abstraction has built up his shame and pride in such a way that the consequences of not acting selflessly would harm him more than being overtly selfish. No longer does physical harm necessarily trump psychological harm. Man worries about being a good person. He worries that he is seen as a good person both by himself and by others. (Realize that by "good" I actually mean "socially acceptable" by whatever criteria one deems important.)

So, what happens when man does not live up to the expectations of either self or others?

Deception.

Man is a deceptive animal and has always been so. One hides one weaknesses rather than wearing them on one's sleeve. One pretends strength in order to place themselves in a position of strength over another. It's a game of high stakes poker where everyone is bluffing.

Human society is a complex affair. A delicate weaving of position, respect, and profit. Everyone tries to get the better deal for themselves and those close to them. A marketplace is an excellent microcosm of this Machiavellian aspect of human society. The bargaining and deception. The guessing games. The attempts to reveal the weakness of others while hiding your own weakness. There are no ideals of 'good' or 'bad' (for the most part). Just the desire to get the better of other before they get the better of you. It's understood that everyone is acting in this way in the market and is acceptable to human morality.

Caveat emptor.

However, when not in the market, man's morality comes into play and it is deemed immoral to lie, cheat, and steal. Antisemitism often centers around this concept of the immorality of the merchant.

And yet...

Is it possible for man to be completely non-Machiavellian? Are we able to be completely honest with others? Should it even be a desired trait? Isn't it likely that this Machiavellian edge to our minds worked to enhance our intelligence? What would happen if the moralists were successful and managed to form a people that were 100% 'moral'? (I'll allow a broad definition of moral here, but for the most part this is in regards to manipulation. Lie. Cheat. Steal.) We know that most animals display some deceptive-like behavior, but we also know that this deception grows more complex the closer on the biological ladder one approaches humans.

I have a curious thought as to the nature of the evolutionary dead-ends on the hominid family tree. Is it possible that what homo sapien really excelled at and used to win out evolutionarily was this deceptive nature? That Neanderthal Man was a 'sucker' to homo sapien's wily merchant? Would PT Barnum be right at home with early man as they swindled their way into supremacy? Would eradicating deception destroy us as a species? Weaken us in our struggle?


Despite our trickster nature, man's inner voice would make him a hero not a cheat. Odysseus was a great man not a treacherous bastard. And yet, when we come up against Odysseus, don't we rail against his deception and manipulation? Against his sly manipulation? But, what of our own? When we use trickery and deception it is called for and we have ample reasons to explain why we had to do what we had to do. Isn't this so?

And when the depth of trickery is beyond even what one is prepared to rationalize in himself, aren't we able to deceive ourselves more than any other? Memory is deceptive itself. As we go through our lives we invent ourselves and our past. Every time we remember a situation in the past, we rationalize it and that rationalization becomes part of the memory until in the end only a sanctified, acceptable memory remains.


And what of friendship? What of brotherhood? Are we able to forgo this deception amongst our closest friends? Is it a sliding scale? Do we slowly start to lessen the deception? How can we be sure that our friends are friends are not merely trying to trick us into admitting weakness so that they can "win"? Do they really admit their weaknesses to us or are they just pretending to in order to trick us further? How can we ever be truly sure of other's intent?

We can't, right?

So, this is where trust comes in. And where does trust come from? Is it a natural condition? Or is it unique to man?

And what of self-deception? Even when we have a friendship in which we feel we are being totally honest and open is such a state of affairs truly possible? Or are we just lying to ourselves?


Children are a study in deception. Anyone who says children are just so honest is full of shit. I think we can all agree with that. What they are, rather, is without tact. They don't hide things that might seem rude or socially incorrect. But, they lie all the time. And in order for them to lie, they must believe the lie themselves. Why? The Theory of Mind.

The Theory of Mind is about knowing that others might know different than you. The transitional state when this occurs in children can be seen about the age of 4. The test is as follows: The children are shown two puppets. Dit and dot. Dit places an item under a box and leaves the room. Dot then takes that item and moves it, hiding it under another box. Dit then comes back into the room. When asked where Dit will go look for the item, children under 4 usually say that he will look under the second box. They know it's there, so therefore so does Dit. It's only later that we become aware that knowledge is differentiated and we don't all know the same thing.

Before this, children are still capable of lying. But, they must either lie to themselves (practice for later) or not really expect to succeed in their deception. If they don't expect to succeed then why bother lying? Are they impelled to lie? Is instinct to be socially accepted so strong?


Where is man in this? Can he know himself? Can he be honest with other about himself? What is the nature of trust and how can it be reconciled in a hostile world? Once we were members of tribes and we found our values within the group. Now the groups are extended and values wane. Is trust possible?

Can we ever really know the hidden man? Either in other or in self? Do we want to?

Rot.

Rot.

In Hell. Yes, I am.

Reposting on principle- remember that, Invert.


Invert:
Man. The animal man. Just as selfish as any other animal and yet man has created an elaborate construction of apparently selfless behavior. Sacrifice and love. There are arguments that even these selfless acts are in fact selfish. That man in his abstraction has built up his shame and pride in such a way that the consequences of not acting selflessly would harm him more than being overtly selfish. No longer does physical harm necessarily trump psychological harm. Man worries about being a good person. He worries that he is seen as a good person both by himself and by others. (Realize that by "good" I actually mean "socially acceptable" by whatever criteria one deems important.)


Skirting through the tireless hassle of 'is altruism possible'-

Men suffer from one pathogenic factor common only to his species: neoteny.
No?

The human infant goes through an incredibly long period of helplessness and total dependence on authority.
Now, you go in and mix this over-exposure to dependence with a social structure held in fear where minds are controlled with ideas, where the medium is subject to power units that are smeared so that a state or a social body or a theory or a symbol can be used in the place of 'mother'- and what do we have?

A human being plagued by a need to belong so badly that psychological unrest makes physical pain look like Disneyland.
Social control- its in the labels, the language and is not restricted to these 'modern' times.
I find that many people blame the discontent on industrialization.


So, what happens when man does not live up to the expectations of either self or others?

Deception.

Totally.

Or eat themselves up in depression.

Man is a deceptive animal and has always been so. One hides one weaknesses rather than wearing them on one's sleeve. One pretends strength in order to place themselves in a position of strength over another. It's a game of high stakes poker where everyone is bluffing.
A lizard would do as much by lifting his head and skin-flaps to look bigger than he actually is.

And why wear a weakness out on a sleeve when cutting up into pieces to hide in your pocket is by far more useful?
*grin*

Human society is a complex affair. A delicate weaving of position, respect, and profit. Everyone tries to get the better deal for themselves and those close to them. A marketplace is an excellent microcosm of this Machiavellian aspect of human society. The bargaining and deception. The guessing games. The attempts to reveal the weakness of others while hiding your own weakness. There are no ideals of 'good' or 'bad' (for the most part). Just the desire to get the better of other before they get the better of you. It's understood that everyone is acting in this way in the market and is acceptable to human morality.

Caveat emptor.

However, when not in the market, man's morality comes into play and it is deemed immoral to lie, cheat, and steal. Antisemitism often centers around this concept of the immorality of the merchant.

In other words, the cliché of 'mob mentality'?

We know that most animals display some deceptive-like behavior, but we also know that this deception grows more complex the closer on the biological ladder one approaches humans.

Are you meaning to say only man is deceptive or those closest to him in the animal kingdom?
A lyre bird will mimic forest sounds in order to disguise itself and the octopus, I'm sure you know, would put me to shame.

Deception is simple evolutionary tactic found throughout the kingdom- its in a reasoning mind that it becomes dishonestly complex.
A female chimp will trick its handler with a gimmick to get food, a man would kill homosexuals because he secretly is one.
Gacy would brutalize them (gays) in jail for this reason- a twisted, dishonest, and highly complex motive.

What is the nature of trust and how can it be reconciled in a hostile world?
Its nature is simple: control.


And no- I don't believe a man can ever know another completely: language, fear, and motive get in the way. Even with a so called loved one, the fusing is incomplete as there are private things wholly incommunicable to others.
Hints spill out in behavior and body movement, but hints are not the person.
That's like thinking you can know an organism by randomly going through its cells.
Therefore, what you are calling the hidden man remains in his hiding space- others will knock on his door or try to peep in only to find him baring his fangs.
Its human nature.

Gendanken,

Reposting on principle- remember that, Invert.

Believe it. I will remember always. You are my friend, Gendanken.

Now, you go in and mix this over-exposure to dependence with a social structure held in fear where minds are controlled with ideas, where the medium is subject to power units that are smeared so that a state or a social body or a theory or a symbol can be used in the place of 'mother'- and what do we have?

A human being plagued by a need to belong so badly that psychological unrest makes physical pain look like Disneyland.
Social control- its in the labels, the language and is not restricted to these 'modern' times.
I find that many people blame the discontent on industrialization.

While not wholly on topic, this issue of social control is interesting. It brings to mind Orwell and the anxiety that is purposefully caused among party members. The guilt that makes man doubt himself and trust other. To place his faith in a leader.

However, I should think that mother is lost even in a natural state of affairs. In teenagers we see this transformation from a mother fixation taking place. Hormones are raging and the key element of a teenagers life is other teenagers. Raging hardons tame the wild boy and force him to kneel before his lady fair. While the lady fair is more interested in fitting in than the boy and uses sex as a means to either get her into a group or to congregate a group about her. In this way, men are not as truly controlled by this need to fit in as women are. For a man, you fit in so that you can get laid. For a woman, you fit in because that's what you do. I don't say that the pure urge to assimilate is wholly devoid in man but it is of far less importance than sex. And, it is in this (in the man at least) that the leader fixation forms. A man joins a group to get laid. A group has a leader. A man submits to a leader to get laid.
Yes?

I suppose in a way this could be on topic if one considers group joining as a form of deception. By taking on the properties of the group as a personal attribute in order to enhance one's own sense of self-esteem and also his esteem in the eyes of others.

Its nature is simple: control.

Very simple. Too simple?

And which direction does this control flow? Does it flow to Other or to Self? From Other? From Self? Both?

Could it not be said that trust is a means of attributing properties to individuals so that one can, at a moment's notice, determine how to handle input from said individual? In small groups where the individuals depend on the other to a larger extent than we of the modern age do, couldn't trust be said to save time in emergency situations? When the shit hits the fan there is little time to stop and consider the merits of everyone's discourse. One must simply act. And one acts based on the assumptions of trust. Yes?

So, while trust has it's surest usage in such situations, it is impossible to limit its effects to these situations. Trust also reaches out into the more relaxed climes of leisure. In fact, it could be said that it is in such relaxed settings that the foundations of trust are laid. We appraise at leisure and come up with a tentative estimation of the value of this Other. And then this estimation is used to determine how to react in emergencies. But it is in emergency that trust is either solidified or eradicated. We must go through the fire for true trust.

Trust is the way we are able to gauge the depth of deception from other. What form of deception one can expect. And when. And why.

Control? Maybe. But, it seems to be self-control. (However, I do agree that it can be subverted by wily manipulation.)

Or eat themselves up in depression.

Either/or? So, you don't think that the depressed are deceptive? What form of depression are you speaking of here? Ontological anxiety or the more classic clinical depression. We've had this talk before. How depression carries with it connotations of hopelessness and despair while the depression you were talking about at the time (Heidegger's Ontological Anxiety) is more of an edgy sort of depression.

Either form of depression can be easily manipulated.

A lizard would do as much by lifting his head and skin-flaps to look bigger than he actually is.

Yes. But, as you say:

Deception is simple evolutionary tactic found throughout the kingdom- its in a reasoning mind that it becomes dishonestly complex.

It's the complexity that I'm talking about. A lizard can puff himself up, but this is a first order form of deception. It's attempting to look bigger in order to change its value in the predator/prey evaluation tables. The lizard most likely doesn't even have the vaguest conception of what it's doing or why. It just acts as evolution has programmed it to act.

The same can be said for man, of course, but abstract complexity is unavoidable in our species. We have a tendency to do second-order abstractions on everything. Why should deception be any different?

Take your example of Gacy. He was torn by his desire. Gacy is human and tortured by knowledge of his multiple existence. Gacy wasn't gay. He hated homosexuality and everything to do with it, and yet he was tormented by desires that were alien to his active thought processes. Desires that were served up to him by the processes beneath his control. Processes that only man, and to a lesser extent those animals that approach him on the family tree, is capable of questioning.

It's as if the lizard were disgusted with his desire to puff up and goes around beating up other puffed up lizards. Animals don't deny their instincts. Man does. This is the first form of true deception. Man deceiving himself as to his animal nature.

In other words, the cliché of 'mob mentality'?

Not really. Mob mentality is a losing of self in the crowd. Displaced responsibility.

Market mentality is selfish. Self is of paramount importance. In the market one seeks to take before being taken. In the mob one simply acts in the mindless roar.

Hmm. Or. Did you mean that when not in the market and man denies these selfish urges as immoral that this is mob mentality. By giving up the selfishness one subsumes oneself in the other. If so, then, yes. Sort of. But, mob mentality gives up more than just these things. They also give up responsibility.

A lyre bird will mimic forest sounds in order to disguise itself and the octopus, I'm sure you know, would put me to shame.

Speaking of the octopus, they are incredibly intelligent. Especially for their humble invertebrate status. Intelligent and yet short-lived. Two brief years and then demise. What chance does their intelligence have to accomplish anything? And, I wonder. Which came first? Intelligence or chromatophore?

And no- I don't believe a man can ever know another completely: language, fear, and motive get in the way. Even with a so called loved one, the fusing is incomplete as there are private things wholly incommunicable to others.
Hints spill out in behavior and body movement, but hints are not the person.

I agree. Another factor in this is that I don't believe man is capable of knowing himself completely. And, in this self-deception, how is one to be completely honest with another? Man's relationship with other is in many ways similar to his relationship with himself. No matter how much one gets to know of other or self, there is always more to learn. Always more deceptions to get around.

It is far easier to root a deception in other than to root out the same deception in self. We are evolutionarily programmed to deceive ourselves not to find the truth of ourselves. The interpreter is a liar extraordinaire.

While not wholly on topic, this issue of social control is interesting.

Upon rereading, this is on topic. Deceiving others is a means of social control. I had been thinking of more individualistic types of deception rather than grand-scale manipulation.

And why wear a weakness out on a sleeve when cutting up into pieces to hide in your pocket is by far more useful?
*grin*

And, I forgot to address this.

The problem is that it is difficult to be sure exactly what is weakness and what is not weakness. How many hide weakness only to find later that this weakness is strength. That the weakness occurs in the hiding of said weakness.

And what of those who don't hide weakness because he thinks it's weakness but because other thinks so? Then, depending on the group, he must also hide the fact that he is hiding weakness. And then he must hide that he knows that. The levels of deception multiply when one deceives in order to appeal to other. And, above all, he must hide all this from himself. So much hidden because of this desire to belong.

How can loss of self not be the eventual outcome of such a domino-effect?

Odysseus was a great man not a treacherous bastard.

The cyclops would probably not agree.

Deception seems to be learned in that we may use it for the greater "good".

P.S. How can man be "completely honest" with others when he hasn't learned to be completely honest with himself? I think the day that happens either we will surely die or we will cease to live.

§outh§tar,

The cyclops would probably not agree.

No shit? Did you happen to read the post?

Deception seems to be learned in that we may use it for the greater "good".

Explain yourself.

P.S. How can man be "completely honest" with others when he hasn't learned to be completely honest with himself?

Another question I've already asked.

I think the day that happens either we will surely die or we will cease to live.

Why?

§outh§tar,



No shit? Did you happen to read the post?

Humor man, humor.



Explain yourself.

Well if you were a President and found out that there was a massive outbreak of some virus, you would lie so that there would be less panic.

If you were a Prophet who found out that the promise of your god to his people had failed, you would probably make up a reason to keep their spirits up.

If you missed your daughters concert because you wanted to watch the championship game, you would probably make up a better excuse to save the relationship and her love.

It is probably more for these "good" reasons that we decieve than say for example, telling a friend that there is no school tomorrow so that he misses the notes for the big exam.

Why?

If we did become honest with ourselves, I don't see how we couldn't become terribly depressed at our foolishness and how highly we think of ourselves. If we tell ourselves the real reason we didn't meet that friend at the restaurant, we would probably be incredibly disappointed with ourselves. We can't succeed in being honest and I'm not sure if its because we don't know how to or because we don't want to. If we do realize we are living one big lie, I think life pretty much loses the esteem we previously had for it and we are left with nothing to hold on to and die inside.

§outh§tar,

Humor man, humor.

Lies. You didn't realize that I said this exact thing and now you're covering up.

Well if you were a President and found out that there was a massive outbreak of some virus, you would lie so that there would be less panic.

If you were a Prophet who found out that the promise of your god to his people had failed, you would probably make up a reason to keep their spirits up.

If you missed your daughters concert because you wanted to watch the championship game, you would probably make up a better excuse to save the relationship and her love.

It is probably more for these "good" reasons that we decieve than say for example, telling a friend that there is no school tomorrow so that he misses the notes for the big exam.

Ok. So, all these are examples of good reasons to lie?

#1. The president lying to quell a panic? Or to keep control?

#2. Is the prophet thinking of protecting his followers from letdown? Or to keep control?

#3. Is the father lying to protect his daughter from hurt? Or to keep control?

Each of these examples comes down to the liar trying to maintain dominance in the struggle for control.

If we did become honest with ourselves, I don't see how we couldn't become terribly depressed at our foolishness and how highly we think of ourselves.

So proud that we can't accept truth?

If we tell ourselves the real reason we didn't meet that friend at the restaurant, we would probably be incredibly disappointed with ourselves.

If the reason for not meeting the 'friend' at the restaurant is one that would inspire such disappointment, wouldn't it be weak to not accept it?

If we do realize we are living one big lie, I think life pretty much loses the esteem we previously had for it and we are left with nothing to hold on to and die inside.

So, you feel that not only can we not completely know ourselves, but that we are in fact nothing but deception?

I think you're going to far. I think that while self-discovery is a process that is never-ending, it is a fruitful one. And we can always get closer to true awareness.

I've often pondered if "true awareness" will bring about the big crunch.

Invert:
Believe it. I will remember always. You are my friend, Gendanken.

You see?
You just called me a “friend.”

Even that is a form of control- you can think of trust as most people do, or you can think of it in terms of what its nature is.
It is a reliance on the 'good' nature of others in the hope that they will not exploit your vulnerability.
I always picture a timid boy petting a wolf- he's saying "I know you're a good boy, yes you're a good boy, right? You're not the savage beast from Grimm, right? I know you won't eat me, you're my friend"- yet he's trembling because the transaction is leaving him vulnerable.

You tame others for your aspirations in this way:

"And its done by softening the mechanism of control with friendly words like 'trust'.
Say I 'trust' you to someone and you've limited their mode of actions- now they must take you into consideration where none was before.

You let a man know that you prize him in giving him this thing you yourself prize and you've struck a bargain that manipulates his thinking.
Since its forged in emotions, not reason, its supposedly trickier to betray or get rid of."- g
Next up:

However, I should think that mother is lost even in a natural state of affairs. In teenagers we see this transformation from a mother fixation taking place. Hormones are raging and the key element of a teenagers life is other teenagers. Raging hardons tame the wild boy and force him to kneel before his lady fair. While the lady fair is more interested in fitting in than the boy and uses sex as a means to either get her into a group or to congregate a group about her. In this way, men are not as truly controlled by this need to fit in as women are. For a man, you fit in so that you can get laid. For a woman, you fit in because that's what you do. I don't say that the pure urge to assimilate is wholly devoid in man but it is of far less importance than sex. And, it is in this (in the man at least) that the leader fixation forms. A man joins a group to get laid. A group has a leader. A man submits to a leader to get laid.
Yes?

This is so heinous its burning my corneas.

So you think the only thing driving men to conformity is a need to 'get laid' and not women? Same for the powerhungry, right?
Really?
You're a man- I'll let you go on this one. All you men with the funky logic on women are amusing- I can see why so I'll drop it.
Don't get me wrong, I see women for the same things you all do but at least I know, prove, show that its only dogma. Fucking women.

Physical weakness is something else entirely.

Very simple. Too simple?

And which direction does this control flow? Does it flow to Other or to Self? From Other? From Self? Both?
Both ways.

But I'm looking at it from the bottom up.
For example- the people you are likelier to find glorifying the virtues of trust are usually those in need of protection.
Stalin, on the other hand, would follow the same logic in Plato’s republic concerning Glaucon- that men are bound by mutual distrust and brutal cunning with the majority of them fearful of these ‘evil’ things in them being detected.
So someone like Stalin resorts to being pre-emptive.
He will instrumentalize the trust of his people by manipulating their needs.
They will attempt to do the same with him by limiting his actions in their obedience and trust of his tyranny oops presidency.

Which is you?

Trust is the way we are able to gauge the depth of deception from other. What form of deception one can expect. And when. And why.

Yup

Either/or? So, you don't think that the depressed are deceptive? What form of depression are you speaking of here? Ontological anxiety or the more classic clinical depression. We've had this talk before. How depression carries with it connotations of hopelessness and despair while the depression you were talking about at the time (Heidegger's Ontological Anxiety) is more of an edgy sort of depression.

Heidegger is laughable.
All that talk about dismantling the shackles! Breaking free form conformity! Rebelling against the rituals of normalcy!!

From a fucking Nazi. He, he, he…..

It's as if the lizard were disgusted with his desire to puff up and goes around beating up other puffed up lizards. Animals don't deny their instincts. Man does. This is the first form of true deception. Man deceiving himself as to his animal nature.

Bingo.
Nicely put.

Not really. Mob mentality is a losing of self in the crowd. Displaced responsibility.

Market mentality is selfish. Self is of paramount importance. In the market one seeks to take before being taken. In the mob one simply acts in the mindless roar.


I think you missed the point.
The market ethic only makes the 'private' ethic obvious.
A deceitful whore at home is a deceitful whore at market, only quieter about it at home.

Another factor in this is that I don't believe man is capable of knowing himself completely. And, in this self-deception, how is one to be completely honest with another?
Something scribbled by a wannabe on my notebook long ago- has some merit.

A life unexamined is not worth living, presumably from Socrates.
The Know Thyself is possible- if ya don't think it is, there is nothing I can say to you but boo hoo.

Hey look, that rhymed.
(Interesting though- why do you people always say one can never know themselves? Does the knowing mean you stop creating or thinking? Inertia? Nonsense.

Why do you they always say one can never know themselves? How alien.)

Gendanken

Even that is a form of control- you can think of trust as most people do, or you can think of it in terms of what its nature is.
It is a reliance on the 'good' nature of others in the hope that they will not exploit your vulnerability.

Here's the dictionary.com definition: "Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing."

I always picture a timid boy petting a wolf- he's saying "I know you're a good boy, yes you're a good boy, right? You're not the savage beast from Grimm, right? I know you won't eat me, you're my friend"- yet he's trembling because the transaction is leaving him vulnerable.

Does a wolf tame another wolf? What if you trust in the nature of the wolf? To tame the wolf would be to destroy that nature.

You tame others for your aspirations in this way:
"And its done by softening the mechanism of control with friendly words like 'trust'.
Say I 'trust' you to someone and you've limited their mode of actions- now they must take you into consideration where none was before.

You let a man know that you prize him in giving him this thing you yourself prize and you've struck a bargain that manipulates his thinking.
Since its forged in emotions, not reason, its supposedly trickier to betray or get rid of."- g

And, of course this is what it all centers around. The definition of trust is beside the point. It is this sense of obligation from the giving of a precious gift that is the issue. Tit for tat. But, what if such a mechanism would alter the nature of the person which inspired the trust to begin with?

For instance, I trust you to be brutally honest. Now, if I were to tell you that I trust your honesty would this alter your actions? Would you be less inclined to be honest with me in the future? Or more inclined? Or the same? And if I told you I trust your integrity would that mean that you would lose that integrity because I pointed to it? If so, then you never had it and I was only pointing at shadows.

Now, remember always the thought of trusting the wolf to be a wolf. Does the wolf become less wolf-like because you trust in his wolf nature?

I won't deny what you're saying here. That bestowing such a 'gift' on another is a means of control. But, every human interaction is a means of control in one way or another if you look at it deeply enough. Every interaction affects other. And therefore controls them. Tell someone that they're a scumsucking pig and you're controlling them as well. Tell someone that you don't even know who they are and you're controlling them. Tell someone that your favorite color is blue and you're controlling them. The only way to escape this 'control' is to abandon human society altogether.

Perhaps instead of control you should think influence. After all, it is you who makes the decisions in the end. For example, a scumbag is told by a 'friend' that he trusts him implicitly. That he knows that Mr. Scumbag won't do anything to exploit the 'friend'. What is scumbag going to do? Is Friends declaration of trust going to limit his actions or give him the green light to raise the already present exploitations to a new level?

The boy pets the wolf and the boy trembles because he's vulnerable. The boy is risking a mauling by the wolf. Why? To control the wolf? Or because this is human interaction? Because it is the way people join together in friendship? In more primitive societies, man depended on man in a more visceral way than he does now. We are somewhat removed from the needs of trust that our ancestors had in their small groups. Not entirely removed, in fact not removed at all. Only apparently removed. Trust is a way of judging others. Stating trust is a way of telling someone that you believe that they will act in a certain manner at a certain time. Control? Yes. Just as any other use of language and social skill is control.

This is so heinous its burning my corneas.

I have to admit that it doesn't read as well as it did when I wrote it. Must have been having a bad day.

So you think the only thing driving men to conformity is a need to 'get laid' and not women? Same for the powerhungry, right?
Really?
You're a man- I'll let you go on this one. All you men with the funky logic on women are amusing- I can see why so I'll drop it.

Not the only thing, but it certainly is a major driving force.
What I was getting at is that men and women mature sexually at widely disparate ages. Men are at their sexual peak in their teens while woman reach theirs in their mid 30's. Men feel the overwhelming need for sex in that age when they are being 'tamed' by society. And, it is this need in them which is the easiest and most likely way to gain control of them. To tame them and remove the wildness from them.
Women, on the other hand, don't feel sex in the same way at that age. Other needs provide a handle for their taming. For one thing, women are more tame to begin with (usually). But even they require some taming and it is not sex that provides the handle. It is the need to be a part of something. To belong.
Now, I don't deny that men also feel this urge to belong. It is inherent in the human species. But, they feel it to a lesser degree than women. If for no other reason because they are being overwhelmed with testosterone and the need to fuck.

Don't get me wrong, I see women for the same things you all do but at least I know, prove, show that its only dogma. Fucking women.

Physical weakness is something else entirely.

I never mentioned physical weakness at all.
Why don't you elaborate on why you feel women conform to society.

For example- the people you are likelier to find glorifying the virtues of trust are usually those in need of protection.

I'll agree with you here. But, note your keyword 'glorifying'. One doesn't have to glorify trust to trust in someone.


So someone like Stalin resorts to being pre-emptive.
He will instrumentalize the trust of his people by manipulating their needs.
They will attempt to do the same with him by limiting his actions in their obedience and trust of his tyranny oops presidency.

Manipulating their needs? You mean lying? Propaganda?
And, as to their attempting to limit his actions, you mean they were trying to save their own asses by licking Stalin's?

Stalin is not really a good example, I don't think. I suppose you'll bring up Hitler next.

I think you missed the point.
The market ethic only makes the 'private' ethic obvious.
A deceitful whore at home is a deceitful whore at market, only quieter about it at home.

And, apparently, I missed the point again. What of the mob mentality?

Interesting though- why do you people always say one can never know themselves? Does the knowing mean you stop creating or thinking? Inertia? Nonsense.

I don't think it means you stop creating or thinking or any of that. It's just that it doesn't seem to be in man's nature to truly understand himself. Our consciousness is based around interpreting. Not knowing.

Am I saying that it's impossible to know thyself? Not entirely. But it is a process that is never ending. You will never know yourself completely. You can always move a little closer to the ideal without ever reaching it.

Invert:
Here's the dictionary.com definition: "Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing."

And you showing me canned terminology only proves my point.
And?

Nifty how they always leave out the 'negative' or 'sinister' implications of extortionism
Does a wolf tame another wolf? What if you trust in the nature of the wolf? To tame the wolf would be to destroy that nature.

Why are we talking about wolves taming other wolves?
I'll pretend you did not project yourself in my statement of a little boy petting wolves.
It was only an image.

It is this sense of obligation from the giving of a precious gift that is the issue.

For instance, I trust you to be brutally honest. Now, if I were to tell you that I trust your honesty would this alter your actions? Would you be less inclined to be honest with me in the future? Or more inclined? Or the same? And if I told you I trust your integrity would that mean that you would lose that integrity because I pointed to it? If so, then you never had it and I was only pointing at shadows.

'Obligation' was a telling word.

You'll only trust someone to be brutally honest to a point- spend enough time around such brutal honesty and you will despise that person you so trusted.
Wife asks hubby to be brutally honest about her ass looking fat.
She does so in the hope of accommodation and in the fear of being insulted.
A person has enough of these emotional mixtures and they explode.
Hubby knows this as well as anyone.

At any rate, I'm focusing more on how others capitalize on one's good nature in order that stability is maintained.
Or.
Power struggles quelled.
Or.
Appearances preserved- the way a woman will trust her father to not embarrass her with his drinking in public when out with her by appealing to his sympathy.

But, every human interaction is a means of control in one way or another if you look at it deeply enough. Every interaction affects other. And therefore controls them.
*sniff sniff*
Ahhhhhhh.
I smell nostalgia:

"A word or two on the illusions of power.

The first thing that comes to mind is how common it is to hear people reject the notion that all social ties are binding no matter with whom and why. On closer examination, however, one can easily find at least a small dose of truth in the statement- in hating one is controlled by the object of hate, in loving by love, in jealousy by those that are envied, even in the wish to destroy the opponent has gained some control on his foe by the very manipulation the operation demands, and so one realizes the social tie is binding regardless of the nature its found in."- gendanken
It was interesting until that fountainfag showed up.

Trust is a way of judging others. Stating trust is a way of telling someone that you believe that they will act in a certain manner at a certain time. Control? Yes. Just as any other use of language and social skill is control.

Yes.
But appealing to every last word in the language or skill in our social behaviors hardly makes the true meaning of trust or any of those fancy words- piety, reverence, respect- in their traditional meanings any less sinister.

Its as if you're trying to distance yourself from the implications by watering down the word ‘trust’ by bringing in all of language to stand next to it and make it look...better.
When you can do so by just thinking about it.
But, they feel it to a lesser degree than women.
Of course.
Because women are either not mammals or proto-mammals or meso-mammals.
The ‘Number Two' of the human race.
Look how off you all are:

"Woman indeed lives more in the present than man. She has no sense of justice, little sense of truth and is given to constant dissimulation"

Copleston, another stupid man, just described what you just said was a man.

I never mentioned physical weakness at all.

You didn't have to.
I did.

Why don't you elaborate on why you feel women conform to society.
For money to buy dildos.

Gendanken,

Nifty how they always leave out the 'negative' or 'sinister' implications of extortionism

It seems to me that they focused on neither negative nor positive implications of trust. Trust is just trust. You can trust in a negative or positive manner. And, another thing to consider is that to trust someone to act in a certain manner at a given time is not the same as telling that person that you trust them in said manner. So, it shouldn't surprise you a bit that the social dynamics are missing from the definition.

And you showing me canned terminology only proves my point.
And?

Just wanted to put out the definition. That's all. Basically, your definition of trust fits into the definition, but does not encompass all the possibilities. To trust that someone won't exploit you is to trust that someone's integrity is... not-exploitive. You're trusting in their nature. To tell them that you trust them in this manner is a means of social control as we've been discussing.

However, I concede that when one says "I trust you" with no qualifier, one is implicitly understood to be speaking of a 'high' integrity in the person under discussion. So, while the definition is neutral, the actual usage is not.


Seeing how this thread is about deception, let's consider another situation. Consider someone who confides trust in another that is not really felt. That is, the person who says "I trust you, dude" is lying and, in reality, feels no such trust. Motive is an important consideration when it comes to considering trust (or any other means of social control). On both sides. In this latest example, it is the conveyor of trust who's motives are less then pure (perhaps). At the least, he is lying about his true feelings. For what reason we don't know. It might be to pretend friendship in order to take advantage of other. Or perhaps it is to attempt to bring out a characteristic in other that is... quiescent at present (<-- rhymes). This is sort of like the dorky kid in school being imbued with a sense of confidence by others 'believing in them' and overcoming those difficulties which had plagued him.

Why are we talking about wolves taming other wolves?

Simply extending the metaphor. That's all. You laid out a scenario of a boy and a wolf. But, in life, we are all men. Therefore the scenario would be better suited if it were two boys or two wolves. Like to like.

I'll pretend you did not project yourself in my statement of a little boy petting wolves.

By saying 'pretend' you are in fact using your owns means of control. You will 'pretend' that you didn't see what you feel that you did see (although you're wrong) and by letting me know that you both saw and are pretending that you didn't see you are 'trusting' me to take your hint to hint to not project myself into our conversations.

It was only an image.

And a good one but also one which leads directly to the question "Does a wolf tame another wolf?" Don't you think?

'Obligation' was a telling word.

That's why I chose it. Obligation holds connotations of control.

You'll only trust someone to be brutally honest to a point- spend enough time around such brutal honesty and you will despise that person you so trusted.
Wife asks hubby to be brutally honest about her ass looking fat.
She does so in the hope of accommodation and in the fear of being insulted.
A person has enough of these emotional mixtures and they explode.
Hubby knows this as well as anyone.

Wife is a dirty cunt who wants to be lied to.
And husband is a cowardly piece of shit who doesn't want his chance of pussy threatened.

Control flowing in both directions because both agree to play the same cowardly game.


As to trusting someone to be 'brutally honest' only up to a point... perhaps. But, it is the location of this point that is... interesting. Yes? Some, such as fat wifey from above, would be lied to from square one, just as there are those who would lie from square one even if not 'asked' to. But there are people who are not so weak and are able to take honesty even if it disagrees with one's own viewpoint. Just as there are those who would give honesty even if he feels that it won't be received 'warmly'.

At any rate, I'm focusing more on how others capitalize on one's good nature in order that stability is maintained.
Or.
Power struggles quelled.
Or.
Appearances preserved- the way a woman will trust her father to not embarrass her with his drinking in public when out with her by appealing to his sympathy.

Or his sense of shame. Or perhaps even his sense of repressed sexual desire for his nubile young daughter...
There's a million and one mechanisms which one can use to 'control' (attempt) another.
Of all of them, which would be preferable? Which would you rather have 'control' you? Friendship? (Honest friendship. Non-exploitive) Or would you rather be 'controlled' by the other, less savory, mechanisms?

(I know. I know. Your point is that they are all equally unsavory if looked at in a control sort of way. But, is this true? Are you really saying that friendship is sinister? Wouldn't you say that the point is honesty? Honest hate? Honest friendship? Honest trust? Honest distrust? Motive is key.)

The first thing that comes to mind is how common it is to hear people reject the notion that all social ties are binding no matter with whom and why. On closer examination, however, one can easily find at least a small dose of truth in the statement- in hating one is controlled by the object of hate, in loving by love, in jealousy by those that are envied, even in the wish to destroy the opponent has gained some control on his foe by the very manipulation the operation demands, and so one realizes the social tie is binding regardless of the nature its found in."

What is interesting about this (in the light of the current thread anyway) is that the control you're speaking of here is self-inflicted. One is controlled by one's hate, by one's love, by one's jealousy, and by one's trust. By feeling anything for anyone or anything, we lay down lines of control. Initially, the control is completely wrapped up in self. One loves and acts so as to protect his object of love. One hates and acts to destroy the object of hate. One envies and one acts to acquire the object of envy. All the control is directed at the self.

It's only when one's private feelings are communicated that the lines of control are sent out to other. And even now, these lines (when honest) control both ways. The boy pets the wolf and makes himself vulnerable. He places himself at the wolf's mercy.

So, let's tally up lines of control.

1.) First, the feeling is felt by self and controls self.
2.) Then the feeling is communicated to other. Thus controlling other and also allowing control to feedback to you.

Self is more controlled than other so far. But, we don't exist in a vacuum. Other also has feelings which he will communicate. Even non-communication is a form of communication. Actions speak louder than words they say. So, in the end, control evens out. As long as it's honest.

Now, comes the prospect of deception. Of cheating. And thus is the struggle of man and has been since before language began. To detect cheaters. In fact, it is possible (if not probable) that the need to detect social cheaters was one of the key factors that led to both language and intelligence (not the sole pressure otherwise we would not be alone in our niche.)

All of us have been, at one time or another, tempted to cheat - to give in return less than we have received. Cheaters may be gross or subtle. Gross cheaters accept your favors and do nothing in return - they're easy to spot. Subtle cheaters are another matter.
A subtle cheater reciprocates enough to make it worth the altruist's while, but returns less than he is capable of giving, or less than the altruist would give if the situation were reversed.
How can you recognize a subtle cheater? Cheaters, subtle or otherwise, must be unmasked, for if cheaters can get away with it, who will fail to cheat? Ad if everyone cheats, then the system of reciprocal altruism breaks down into a war of all against all.

So it must be possible for any member of an alliance to detect whether his partner is cheating or not. If neither partner is cheating, the alliance can be maintained indefinitely. If one partner is cheating, then the other is wasting valuable time and effort that could be better spent on a different partner. Animals with partners who don't cheat will do better (suffer less stress, win more fights, gain more sexual access, and thus probably leave more progeny behind) than animals whose partners cheat and get away with it. If animals originally fell into two classes (good cheater detectors and not so good ones), then over long periods of time, the good detectors would gradually squeeze out the poorer ones. Good cheater detection would then form a fixed part of that species' genetic recipe.

So, it should be possible, in any species that typically practices reciprocal altruism, for animal B to know whether he grooms his partner A more or less often than A grooms him.
-Lingua Ex Machina, p. 128

And, of course, cheater detection is not limited to grooming. Reciprocal altruism requires that a balance of control is available to each member of the alliance. Should one member cheat then it would be in the best interest of the other member to detect this cheating. And if he doesn't do it well, then he will be taken advantage of and less likely to breed.

However, man is a bit more complicated than that and poor cheater detection is not always punished. In fact, in many ways it is rewarded.

It was interesting until that fountainfag showed up.

I wish I was around back then. That was just before my time here. (Is stating my desire to have been present in threads of old another control mechanism? Undoubtably. But again, motive is key.)

But appealing to every last word in the language or skill in our social behaviors hardly makes the true meaning of trust or any of those fancy words- piety, reverence, respect- in their traditional meanings any less sinister.

Again you use the keyword sinister. I couldn't help myself and had to look it up.
Behold:
4. On the left side; left.
The left hand of the damned and the right hand of the blessed. What a strange species we are at times.
Anyway, this was just a funny little comment and off-topic.

However, your use of sinister is on topic. I fail to see why friendship is sinister. I understand your distaste of control mechanisms, but isn't the point the honesty of said mechanism? Do you believe that there can be no honest friendship? No honest trust? Cannot control be reciprocal and balanced? Cannot man walk side by side with man? Or must one always be a deceptive trickster?

Because women are either not mammals or proto-mammals or meso-mammals.
... ... ...
"Woman indeed lives more in the present than man. She has no sense of justice, little sense of truth and is given to constant dissimulation"

Copleston, another stupid man, just described what you just said was a man.

Again. I'm just pointing out the differences between man and woman. The difference in their motives. It is a fact that most women don't experience the same horniness of a teenage boy until they are well into their 30's. It's god's little joke on us. I was a teenage boy, Gendanken. I know what it was like to walk around with a raging hardon 24 hours a day.

Do you really think that man and woman have the same motivations?

For money to buy dildos.

I'll loan you 20 bucks. You'll have to buy your own batteries though.