BBC Salaries do follow the market

BBC salaries follow a perfect inverse square root. This is what you’d expect from a pure free market. It seems unless they deviously had this is mind, they are simply following the market rates.

The take home from that this is that people compliaing about the salaries, are really complaining about Capitalism and Free Market valuation. Which interestingly is why the BBC was set up, and why it is wrong to force the BBC to start competing ina free market.

Load of nonsense isn’t it.

Deep Ecology vs. Human Progress vs, Interconnectedness

An interesting article at least raising the central points of Human Ecology.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/philosophic-roots-paris-agreement-deep-ecology-vs-human-progress/

However like so much in the modern press it only does enough to raise and problematise an issue.

Deep Ecology is more than just a reaction to Capitalist Economics. It is based upon this idea of "inter connectedness" that is raised in the article. It is not a simple idea, but one of such deep importance that Western Civilisation can be characterised as having developed without it.

"Inter-connectedness" changes the view of reality from "bricks" to the "whole" wall. As can be seen it challenges the basis of the Western civilisation and science as composed from discrete things, atoms, things, individuals.

"Deep Ecology" is not discussing "Human vs Nature" as the article instructs its reader but rather looks at the "whole" picture of Human And Nature.

Ideas of "progress" have no place in this view. How can you progress from point A to point B when A and B are part of the whole. You can only progress from point A to point B when you are stuck at point A.

"Deep Ecology" is "deep".

Anarchism, Alt-Right, Molyneux, Government, Freedom and where it is all Wrong

It is a very American thing not to trust the Government. The 2nd Amendment is justified by the fear of allowing an armed Government to exist unchallenged by a disarmed People. And, of course as with everything there is A Truth to this. But, it is not the Whole Truth. The key problem is this "straw man" thing called Government and People.

Politics is the process of creating divisive ideas and then working to get support for those divisions. The general process is to cause a division and then get people to support one side against the other. Classic divisions/dualisms we have seen are Roundheads/Cavaliers in English Civil War, Loyalists/Patriots in US Independence War, Communists/Capitalists in Cold War, Socialists/Imperialists in 18/19th century revolutions, Collectivist/Individualist or Group/Individual and we have Government/People.

What is Government? The extreme view is that it is a Closed group of super powerful people who are unified against the rest of Humanity. In the most extreme view they are not even Human themselves, perhaps Aliens like in the Carpenter film "They Live". Perhaps they are humans but are racially insular like Jews, perhaps they are like "us" but are just super powerful like Bilderberg or Illuminati. But in reality no "group" is really like this. And of course as soon as we take sides in a division like this we join a group and become collectivist ourselves. This is a logical problem with dualism itself.

I'm no expert on the widely read and deep thinking Stefan Molyneux, he certainly seems to have risen to prominence in the Anarchist movement, but from what I hear from supporters he must be misunderstood. Ayn Rand also runs into a similar problem with the concept of "group". Perhaps easier just to do a straight paragraph on that.

ANARCHISM AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS THE TRUTH. We are all always free to be whatever, whenever. Even if I am imprisoned by a powerful state I am still completely mentally free. I just have some superficial limitations to my physical movement and circumstances. Even in a perfect world I can get a stroke and get locked in syndrome. Has my "freedom" really been taken by the stroke or state? The TRUTH is always true and ANARCHISM is the truth that we are always free to chose. But we must accept the situation before we chose in any world. I may chose to save myself, but I need to know what I am saving myself from first else I will fail. The Anarchists are quite rightly reminding us this: WE MUST MAKE WISE CHOSES. It is the same message as all the Religions: we will be judged alone for what we do. Sin is ours and ours alone. We must therefore chose well. It is the foundation of Protestantism and Western ideas of Individuality and Democracy. It is an old and very important idea, simply being rehashed.

So far so good. So how has it gone wrong. The problem is that Alt-Right Anarchism has become politicised and has formed into Groups. A person who choses to work with government or socialism or communism or anything that is deemed "anti-anarchistic" is viewed as not-Anarchistic even if they have made a well reasoned decision. Yet the whole point of Anarchism is that we must make a choice for OURSELVES. Some people think that government is a good thing. As Anarchists they must chose that. So there is a form of Anarchism that has arisen that is deeply ANTI-ANARCHIC but believes it is true Anarchism. Ayn Rand and Stefan Molyneux seem to be the worst offenders here. The argument is that a member of a political party has lost all freedom to chose. But this isn't true. They chose whether to follow party line or risk their carriers (I'll deal more with compromise below).

Ayn Rand knew this problem. We must be extremely careful as ANARCHISTS not to become influenced by the group. Our choses must be OURS and not the GROUPS. Anarchists will argue that being a member of a political party will compromise ones choices and therefore cannot be allowed. But what if I chose compromise? Reality is actually all about compromise. I consider a stupidly simple example of a compromise we all make.

I want to go on holiday with my partner and children. This means I must  chose a time which is convenient with them and they with me. So we work together and pick a suitable date that works BEST. "Best" might not be "my" choice were I holidaying alone. But since I want to spend my holiday with my family the parameters change and I chose a different date that suits that wish. There is no absolute "right" answer. Anarachists seem to think there is a single "true" choice I will make when unhindered by "The Group". You cannot escape "the group" to make "free choices". Even if you buy something a group made that.

Obviously there are times when "The Group" seems dangerous. Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia with the mass killing. How is it that a mass of people can be organised into a killing machine that terrorises the country like this. The panic answer is that people must realise for their own good not to organise into mass movements that can become unstoppable killing machines. But wait a second, this conclusion is based upon complete bias. The Allies were an even greater killing machine than the Axis powers. The American War of Independence where the American's fought off British rule and the English Civil war where we fought off the King were achieved by mass killing machines. War is about matching mass killing machine against mass killing machine. And the bigger killer wins. This is why the US currently spends more on weapons of mass destruction than any other country. They understand that "freedom" depends upon punching harder. So Anarchism must be saying if we want Peace then we must not organise into government, nations or even armies. There is great sense to the last one. I no one ever joined an army or picked up a gun then war is over. But we have the contradiction now: what to do with people who use the 2nd Amendment. If they think this is correct then as Anarchists we must respect their decision.

And so it goes for government. There is an argument that government is both unavoidable and essential. I may as well make that now.

How did government arise? There is the Feminist argument that Patriarchy is a conspiracy of men against women. But how did *that* arise? A few options: If they were never equal it is not a conspiracy. Men are just more powerful. If they were equal then women allowed men to conspire against them. Either way there was a due process. There was no "unfair" conspiracy. The anarchist argument is the latter. People were all equal and the mass allowed an elite to conspire against them. This is the call to arms for the mass to rise up against the elite. Ironically this is exactly the process of Socialist Revolution; an uprising that the elite are genuinely afraid of, which is one reason why Communism is so hated in the West. The problem with this view is that it is once again part of the truth. Some history to illustrate.

In Ancient Greece the highest level of organisation was the city state (Polis). An Anarchist utopia where every city state of a few thousand people had its own rules, customs, economics. Some were Oligarchies, some Democracies, Theocracies, Plutocracies.. the Greeks had names for all the ways of organising a city. One thing that was constant tho: there were hereditary families of great power that could travel freely between the city states and mess up the politics. Alcibiades is a famous character of noble background who had constant changing allegiances between Athens, Sparta and elsewhere. This money class had their good uses as well as bad. Athens used to tolerate them because they were forced to pay for the many public festivals that were held. But occasionally this relationship turned sour and the Aristos would rise up and take over. But before long power shifted and the Demos would wrestle back power and castrate the power of the elites. This constant battle between oligarchs and people is as old as Humanity.

In Britain we have one of the world's worst class systems that goes back to the invasion of the Island by the Normans. The Saxons were put into slavery and the Nobles developed the class system we have today. This is the typical way in which inequality is generated. The reward for victory in battle is supremacy and the vanquished are subjected to the power of victors. The series of victories that the US has enjoyed over the last 100 years means that many countries including Britain are now subjects of US power. Britain is only granted so much power to deal with trivial local matters. Important matters are decided in Washington. This kind of process is the key structure across all history.

On a small scale you see it with gangs. You are not in a gang. You get threatened so you either agree to join, or you go and join another gang that you think will support you. By doing this you make the gang stronger and you increase the problem for people who want to avoid gangs. England could have remained in defiance of the Normans, it could defy the Americans. But would it benefit or is it better just to accept the situation for now. But by doing this it must fight in US Led Wars and so makes the problem harder for countries that want to avoid being in the US Gang. This is the problem.

Power is the name of the game. Power exists. If I can't do something by myself I will ask a friend. Together we are stronger. But by doing this people who disagree with me must join forces also. This is the nature of things. It is called Politics. Even many fake Anarchists, as already said, have joined forces now against government and supporters of socialism and government etc. This process of actual political alignment is the process to watch, not the divisions in some intellectual argument.

Can we--like Ayn Rand and Molyneux argue--all join together to reject this "evil" tendency to gang up against each other? The problem is that this is really hard to define. I want to build an oil pipe line so I form a company and contract out skills and everything seems fine. That is until a bunch of people say that I am building on Spiritual Land. I have no idea what they are talking about, I never even thought of it. Suddenly my innocent collective of people bringing needed oil to market has become an offensive force against some people. Naturally they see us as a powerful force so they gang together to attack us. What did we do wrong? People must work together, and when they do this they will necessarily work against the interest of some people.

The solution is called Politics. This is where we don't try to kill off power (baby and bath water) we simply accept THERE IS SUCH A THING AS POWER, but we argue out who is going to get this power. Sometime it is around a table, sometime it is by force. These laws are bigger than any social organisation. Anarchists are RIGHT in that we must always remember around that table or in that army that we are making choses for ourselves and not to live unthinkingly. If we obey the orders of our Sergeant we do so willingly because we think it is best, and if it turns out he was an idiot and we made a mistake to trust him that is our responsibility. If we are told to shoot on protesters this is a decision we must take for ourselves. No one in Nuremberg should have been able to say they were "following orders". But obviously no army would operate with people disobeying orders so people joining an army need understand that the Army is fundamentally opposed to freedom of thought. This is something for their consciences to work out. No blog entry or you-tube channel can replace a person's conscience.

The problem for anarchists tho is that most people are too busy earning a living to really have the time to think everything through. Only the elite like Plato and Molyneux have the time. I call Molyneux elite because he lives through a You-tube channel discussing philosophy. Traditionally this was the lifestyle of highest elites. It is the main fault of Capitalism ironically-- the thing championed by the anarchists--that having to depend entirely upon ourselves for our income we have very little time for higher thought. Even the elite Aristotle argues free time is essential for politics. But historically Free-time has always been bought by slavery and elite power. The rise of Capitalism has destroyed politics and with that the elite have been able to take over in a way never seen before. In the Middle Ages, despite the Tudor propaganda, people were highly literate and fully engaged in politics. The Peasants Revolt led by Walter Tyler in 1381 gives some idea the political intelligence of the "peasant". Equally the ignorant mass of the French Revolution were actually an intelligent politically engaged peasantry. The irony is that the modern industrial worker has no political capability. We are the drones and zombies that Anarchism is riling against. But we are the product of industrialisation, mass production, machine labour, TV, internet and electronic progress. It is not a simple disease that the Anarchist argues against. It is not something with a quick fix. It is certainly not a political debate with sides.

What we are seeing is just the ancient battle of Good against Evil, or people's hearts, souls and consciences. Sadly it appears to me a political popularist dogmatic consciousness had crippled any meaning, intelligence and debate in the always present issue of how we live.

Proof that you can't have an Emulator (wrong)

This is wrong; you can have an Emulator (update 20/8/2025)

===

This is an odd recent result that makes no sense.

(1) List all one argument functions so that each function has a number.

f1(x) is the function on the 1st row where n=1
f2(x) is the function on the 2nd row where n=2
etc

let #f be the notation that gives the row number of the function so that #fn = n

(2) Suppose there is an emulator function E(#f,x) which takes the row number from (1) and provides the result that f(x) would provide so that:

E(#f,x) == f(x)

(3) For each particular value of x, lets call it 'a', in (2) there is a function Ea(n) such that:

Ea(#f) == E(#f,a) == f(a)

In other words for every value of x there is a corresponding function fx(n) which provides the result of the function fn(x) on x.

(4) Each Ea(x) if it exists must have a row number #Ea. Substituting in 3 gives

Ea(#Ea) == E(#Ea, a) == Ea(a)

Therefore:

#Ea = a

This means that the row position of each Emulator of functions on value a is 'a' itself.

This is clearly a problem already. The following is simply looking for a contradiction in this statement:

But f5 is the name we have for the function at row 5, and 'fa' for the function at row 'a'

So:

fa(x) == Ea(x) == fx(a)

The function at row a applied to x gives the same result as the function at row x applied to a.

This is clearly nonsense as the order of function listing at the start was quite arbitrary... but how do we prove it.

===

This is correct:

Ea(#Ea) == E(#Ea, a) == Ea(a)

And so:

Ea(#Ea) == Ea(a)

But what does this assure that #Ea = a.

if #Ea = b

Ea(b) == Ea(a)

For b = a there would need to be just one 'b' for which Ea(b) == Ea(a). However we cannot guarantee this. There nay be many numbers 'b' where Ea(b) == Ea(a).

===

What we can do however is use this construction to prove Kleene's Fixed Point Theorem. #TODO

Proof of God progress

If a(b(x)) = f(x) and b(a(x)) != f(x) then there is no a(x) nor b(x) such that a(x) = f(x) or b(x) = f(x)

Basically the existence of "meta information" i.e. order of operations is outside either operation a or b. Thus a() and b() cannot be equal to f(x)

This is a concrete example of the SRH which states that self reference is impossible. If self-reference means more than simply self-naming which is trivial, but a computational function e.g. with self-knowledge or self-consciousness, then we are saying that bcos the Total system has components that are structured then the components cannot be both components in a structure and also represent that structure. Structure is a concrete example of the more general "meta" system. Originally it was awareness that text itself is meaningless, it needs a language user.

Equally computer code is meaningless it needs a CPU. Thus the CPU can never be expressed in code. However emulators exist, and emulators of Turing capability can emulate anything. But at root the emulator must run on a CPU that is not itself emulated. You cannot have M.C.Eshers hand drawing a hand drawing itself, it must have basis outside the system. This is because the emulated entities while homomorphic with the "real" CPU can be "necessary components", and thus there must be the possibility of information that is outside the emulations.

Definition: "necessary components" are components whose structure is critical to their compositions of the entity. A grain of sand in a bucket of concrete is not a "necessary component" as the grain of and can be swapped with a pebble and it is still a bucket of concrete. There is no structural information. However a strut in a roof frame is. The roof frame fails if the strut and joist components are swapped.

There is an exception to the opening statement.

While a(b(x)) != b(a(x)) across most values, there may be a Fixed Point value.

Since a(b(fp)) == b(a(fp))

Fixed Points were central to earlier exploration of the SRH. Godel Statements lead to contradictions and so incompleteness which breaks systems and allowed statements to exist "outside" systems, or the boundaries of systems to be broken. This is SRH, in that systems are forced to acknowledge an "outside". A truly self-referential statement would reference itself within itself, that would be a statement that would need no "outside", one that depended only upon itself. "Myself" is synonymous with totality and exclusion of "Other". This is very much the Dark-Tetrad problem discussed in previous post.

The negation of a tautological statement is a contradiction.

Similarly it was theorised that where a fixed point in a system like: x = "x is True" cannot be false without contradition, its negation x = Not("x is True") is a contradiction and Godel uses this structure to break Principia. x = Not(x is in Principia)

This is very loose logic, probably a lot of nonsense, but broadly sweeping out over the mental possibilities.

So it is interesting that Fixed Points that were the focus before, and which we thought provided the mechanism to break any system and point "outside" defeating any Totalising project like Russells. Now they are the unique cases that break my proof that meta-data, or structure must exist in the order of operations that cannot therefore be grasped by those operations.

If we rewrite f(x) == a(b(x)) as f(x) == {a,b,ab}(x) meaning that we have a, b and the order ab.

If A(x) == {a, ab}(x) i.e. somehow it was able to contain the structural info so that when combined with b there is "nothing more" and it is then equal to f(x) so that:

f(x) = A(b(x)) = b(A(x))

we would need to show that whatever {a, ab}(x) represents is always a chimera.

Tentative steps forward. It is encouraging that this looks like nonsense. Either it is madness, or it is pushing against something (to me) new.

Note on the madness of Capitlsim

A war is excellent for Capitalism. It causes a lot of destruction and so a lot of jobs in the construction industry, in medicine, in counseling: it is good for the economy. But it is bad for the people. How is this contradiction possible?

When my house is destroyed and I must pay for a new one. Through the lens of economics this is good it increases the circulation of money and provides jobs, income and livelihood for people. But through the lens of common sense it is bad. This is the madness of Capitalism.

Buddhism and the Dark Triad/Tetrad

Have done a bit of reading about the Dark Tetrad. This seems like a very important classification in psychology because it identifies the key qualities surrounding what has been broadly called before Evil.

It is the battle against Evil which is at the centre of Human Life. Enlightenment more than anything is the defeat of Evil. Traditional stories of Evil include the creation of suffering through evil acts and the entering of Hell for those who become controlled by Evil. Both these remain sensible. The nature of Evil (and of the Dark Tetrad) is isolation and this is the opposite of our True Nature which is universal, total and unified. The obvious proof of this lies in examining what barriers really exist between people, and of what those barriers might be made of?

It is fascinating to me that the qualities of the Dark Tetrad include misunderstanding of True Nature.

The Narcissist is actually a paper thin version of a Buddha. It is appealing to our Narcissistic tendencies to feel we are a Buddha - superior, complete, indestructable, perfect, universal. The irony of course is that we are almost perfectly the opposite. When we face their own death and the humiliation and shame of sickness and old age like Buddha we will quickly realise we have only achieved a shell from reality: one that must be broken before even starting on the path to Buddhahood. Shame and humiliation is the key to the Narcissist but also the path to Enlightenment: the totally crushing realisation that we do not stand alone but are made by our parents and the universe around us and we cannot exist without other people and the world.

The Machiavellian which I cannot relate to at all, must be very stupid. For them life and other people is a game to be won. But they measure the winning only upon their own status. Thus a win-win is of less value than a win-lose because the latter enables them to defeat the enemy, while a win-win strengthens the enemy. But when we realise like above that we did not make ourselves, we have arrived mysteriously upon this planet by forces other than ourselves: our parents, the health care workers, teachers, farmers and everyone who has made and supported us and actually there is nothing about us that will survive death the idea of "winning for myself" appears ludicrous. We are the fool, and the irony is that our chosen target in the game like money, or sex, respect or whatever is only ever increased at the expense of everything else we don't measure. Like economics that while the money and wealth may increase the environment is destroyed and we are ultimately the poorer. The devil is very good at using fake goals to tempt us to the pit of destruction.

The Psychopath I can identify with because for my whole life I have seen feeling as useless. It is a primitive part of the brain and a vestige of our animal past. It makes us weak because people can emotionally blackmail us, and we are vulnerable to animal instincts. Like the little mermaid accepting feelings also means we have to accept pain so is it worth it? (This is all a wrong view btw). I neither want to feel in myself nor feel in others. The rational by contrast is the pure, it is universal, it is the correct. the Vulcans of Star Trek embody this view. Indeed Buddha as desireless and indifferent seems like a cool Psychopath at first look. But there is a problem with the real Psychopath actually they are not entirely honest with themselves. They do have feelings but "only for themselves". So the psychopath will get angry, and they will want love, and they will get hurt so they are firstly dishonest - feelings are centre in their life. Now they say that there are genes that make people into psychopaths so that they have no mirror neurons and they actually cannot feel what other people feel. They end up faking interactions with other people their whole lives so they can fit in, and they know its a fake. They are like blind people but it is others feelings they cannot see rather than their faces. But does this make them Evil? Like a blind person it means that life is different, and living with sighted people is difficult because sighted people themselves tend to not understand blind people. But inside they are not Evil. A psychopath will want to help themselves when they suffer. Thus a psychopath once they discover suffering in another (harder because of their blindness) will want to help another. Suffering is after all something we seek to tackle. Compassion is not affected by psychopathy. I read that empathy is something we learn and get better at as we get older. Looking at children there is a huge range in the development of empathy but at the start kids have none. Obviously developing empathy is a much bigger mountain for a psychopath with their partial/total blindness. The brain is plastic and changes as we learn. Can a psychopath learn to grow mirror neurons, and is the lack of mirror neurons simply a result of them not exercising empathy? And genetics can only give us the tools, it doesn't dictate whether or how we use them. My genes give me hands, they don't dictate whether I use them for good or evil. Evidence of epigenetics exists also so that "we" can even turn genes on and off! Genes are not the point. So what is the psychopath's real problem? I suspect they are more likely to end up as criminals because they are not encouraged by their peers to think about other people. They need to do this a lot to overcome their weakness. A physically weak person may want to visit the gym to develop their muscles, so it is with the Psychopath but it is the much more useful feelings they are need to develop, experience and understand rather than just the physical (for which we can hire body guards and machines). Any negativity, shyness, sensitivity to pain, hatred is going to send a person with psychopathic tendency in the same protective shell as the narcissist. Being cut off from the world around once again is the Hell to be avoided. When this shut in Hell gets out, that is when other people around suffer also.

Finally the Sadistic. I had an experience of Schadenfreude for the first time recently. It is a very strange occurrence because rationally you know there is simply no reason for this. How can someone else's misfortune possibly achieve anything good in the Real World. But if I look more deeply I had a grievance against the person so their misfortune was like payback and I realised I had harboured a dislike and hatred of them for ages. But the misfortune was way in excess of any negative feelings I had, it was nasty. So where does the pleasure or satisfaction in being nasty come from? The projection of negativity? Lets try the universal test of goodness: Would I be nasty to myself and enjoy it? Most likely I would end up hating myself as I do people who are nasty to me, so I would both hate myself and enjoy it. Perhaps hating myself is itself a form of nastiness so I could get caught in a loop or hating myself, enjoying that, but then hating myself more for being so nasty to myself. Normally we do this via projection to hide ourself (as being both the victim and the perpetrator contradicts the belief there is only one of us and spoils the fun of the perpetrator and the anguish of the victim) so we find the outside world nasty and hate that instead, even while all the badness is actually our own choices. So actually sadism to the self causes a contradiction that splits the self. The key to this is that with Sadism the belief is that the victim and the perpetrator are separate. Here we go again, the apparent pleasure is at the expense of being alone and in isolation. Like all the above. And why would we give away the negativity if we liked the negativity? We push negativity and hatred onto others precisely because we don't like it. I saw Slavoj Zizek recently trying to argue that people like suffering. Worth noting that man himself is overrun with suffering. I think perhaps when we cannot overcome our suffering we try and save face and pretend we like it. To suffer appears like failure, so better to say like it. But we lie to ourselves: our every thoughts and action is ultimately to be free from displeasure, discomfort and dis-ease. We can give positivity to others and see them flourish. But when we give negativity they whither. When we have negativity we whither. Negativity is suffering, we don't want it, but we take command of it by giving it to others which gives us apparent relief from our own suffering. But it is a fake, cos we haven't mastered the horrible negativity at all and in fact make it worse by becoming isolated. Our victim is actually the winner because while they may suffer at our inflicted negativity we must give them it for them to suffer. It is ours, and we cannot escape that. We are the loser. Any Machiavellian instinct should fight the sadistic instinct to win over our negativity! The devil once again gives us a fake goal to lead us into the pit of isolation and desolation.

So all this points directly at Buddha's teachings which are much simpler and less infected with materialism and empirical evidence than the psychological world, which is flailing around thousands of years after the subcontinent clearly wrote it all down. The key point is Anatta and the illusion of self. All things are non-self : that includes other people, but also everything is in our own heads! It is ALL not-self. The mistake in the Dark Tetrad is that we can attach to things like feelings and thought and believe they "belong" to a mythical self which we have never even seen! As greater fantasy even than Father Christmas but one propagated unquestioningly by Western culture. Actually there is nothing to separate people, or things - there is just One World with everything side by side. The One World is both composed of individual (Democritus) and the complex interaction and unity from which those individuals emerge (Parmenides) "we are all individuals" - where there are individuals there is also necessarily a group! The ultimately irony of that is usually missed by much of the Monty Python community who uses it only as a criticism of group thinking. So the Dark Tetrad are the collection of mental processes that have deep effects on our body and brains that lead us into isolation - which is the diametric opposite of the truth and the darkest of the Hells. It is the new word for what was called the Devil. The cure is to reject the Devil which is the same as to reject these thought process - tho we may not realise how dangerous they are until damage is done. The goal is to seek integration with the world and other people, and to challenge our negativity when we find it and ultimately to turn energy that is negativity around into positive.

For the Narcissistic tendency we accept shame, and those who humiliate us and show us as mundane we can thank for breaking the shell. Even Superman loses his power when he falls in love - and love and the abandoning of the cold isolation of the Fortress of Solitude makes us ultimately stronger and more truthful! For the Machiavellian tendency we replace loss with giving, and thank those takers for breaking the shell. For the Psychopath tendency we allow the full experience of painful feelings and gradually seek to observe that everyone must have them equally - they don't belong to us. For those who hurt us we can thank for breaking the shell. For the Sadistic tendency we take all the negativity in ourselves and the world and we seek to make it good - however doing this gently, as we will exhaust ourselves if we do more than a step at a time. We don't need to die on a cross, we may even accept Him who did that, if it is our path. For all those we have negative feelings toward and who inspire nastiness we can thank for making us aware of the things we must make positive. When we fail we can use that shame and humiliation to check our Narcissism.

Ok I didn't think this through too well, I'm no expert, and as with everything else on this blog its just a regurgitation of current thought processes.