Mental mutilation (in relation to hardcore morals)

[Sign Related]

Mutilate-
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Know, the mind is utter essental.

So if you have morals you are yet subjecting yourself to harboring mental mutilation. Just how far do those morals go with you? Do you have to suffer going way out the way concerning either to avoid or to follow something? (Like, acting repititiously for or against: Seeing it? Hearing it? Doing it? Saying it? Recieving it? Taking it? Participating in it?)

When you act to discipline yourself you are yet harboring mental mutilation. Why let yourself suffer with going through with it? Are yet you buying into an extortion by someone else or by something you think you must listen to inorder to avoid an unseen punishment or recieve an unseen reward which you're yet persauded to strongly believe is coming surely? And are yet you realizing that something has not come for over a long, long, long while, and doesn't seem to care to come to put you at ease from such metal mutilation that is self-discipline-related either?

Anyone got anything further to add on the subject only? Anyone spelled out in relation to the questions just in that leave you to have you to fill in yourself?

 

[Baron Max]

Know, the mind is utter essental.

Where is it?
What's it look like?
How does one know by looking at the mind that it's been mutilated or not?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Um ....

Where is it?

It occurs in the brain.

What's it look like?

Well, basically it looks like a lot of little electrical signals. But it can sometimes look like wavy or spiky lines on a graph or oscilloscope. Or something like that.

How does one know by looking at the mind that it's been mutilated or not?

Find a doctor with two shingles, one for psychiatry, the other for neurology. He or she will give the technical explanation.

A psychologist or straight-up psychiatrist would tell you that you measure the mind's response to certain stimuli.

A romantic would insist that you can see it in a person's eyes.

 

[Baron Max]

Well, basically it looks like a lot of little electrical signals. But it can sometimes look like wavy or spiky lines on a graph or oscilloscope. Or something like that.

Those electrical signals also occur in muscles. So are muscles "minds"?

Find a doctor with two shingles, one for psychiatry, the other for neurology. He or she will give the technical explanation.

So all doctors with two shingles would agree?

A psychologist or straight-up psychiatrist would tell you that you measure the mind's response to certain stimuli.

Many muscles will also respond to certain stimuli. So what does that mean?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Do you really have to ask?

Those electrical signals also occur in muscles. So are muscles "minds"?

I admit I'm surprised. That's one direction I didn't expect anyone to be able to get confused over. The lot of little electrical signals occur in different patterns. Those patterns are not replicated in muscular impulse. One might as well try to post on Sciforums with an electric mixer.

So all doctors with two shingles would agree?

Depends on how much you ask them.

Many muscles will also respond to certain stimuli. So what does that mean?

Different stimuli. Different responses. How would you administer a Rohrschach to your sphincter? Did it open up at group today, and tell everyone how it really feels to always be giving shit?

 

[Cellar_Door]

That's a rather simplified definition of 'mutilation' - the word has darker connotations than are suggested with 'removing an essential part'.

Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation

mutilate - destroy, torture or injure severely
mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

What evidence do you have to support that this is what a 'puritan' set of morals does, figuratively or physically, to the human brain?
You seem to be suggesting that removing a pleasurable activity by way of mental discipline has the same effect as removing an essential physical stimuli ((ie) bringing up a baby in the dark). I fail to see the link.

 

[Tiassa]

Considering the question(s) at hand

So if you have morals you are yet subjecting yourself to harboring mental mutilation.

I don't think that's necessarily correct insofar as it goes. It needs to be more specific than that.

The problem is that the law—that is, the threat of punishment—is not the only thing that restrains sane, healthy people from killing one another. Indeed, if suddenly the law against murder collapsed for some constitutional reason, would you start killing people for the hell of it, saying, "Well, it's legal, so why not?"

To the other, though, is that story about Aleister Crowley that says he once threw a sherpa off a mountain because he could. Rationally, I understand the point of such an action, but I don't think I could do the same thing.

Generally speaking, the problem with moral assertions and codes is that they are somewhat arbitrary. "God says so" is not a good moral foundation. It is when morals conflict either with their own logical foundation, or when they are counterintuitive and counterproductive that we get into trouble. The more internal conflicts one experiences, the more tools the moral code has to create grotesque psychological harm.

When you act to discipline yourself you are yet harboring mental mutilation.

This is not automatically true, or else it depends on an obscure definition of what it means to discipline yourself. For instance, I cannot see how a raw, undisciplined mind would be advantageous for humanity. Indeed, had that been the better way for the species, we would have selected as such.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Those electrical signals also occur in muscles. So are muscles "minds"?

I admit I'm surprised. That's one direction I didn't expect anyone to be able to get confused over. The lot of little electrical signals occur in different patterns. Those patterns are not replicated in muscular impulse. One might as well try to post on Sciforums with an electric mixer.

So all doctors with two shingles would agree?

Depends on how much you ask them.

Many muscles will also respond to certain stimuli. So what does that mean?
Baron Maxine

Different stimuli. Different responses. How would you administer a Rohrschach to your sphincter? Did it open up at group today, and tell everyone how it really feels to always be giving shit?

one word:

OWNED

 

[synthesizer-patel]

ten words:

a bit too easy with an outcome all too predictable

 

[synthesizer-patel]

eight words:

what do you expect from a lightweight?

 

[frattman]

Is there nothing to be said of the possibility of receiving pleasure through moral behavior? Sure, acting on morals doesn't always feel good, but there has to be a reward mechanism in place for humans that nurtures good behavior towards one another so that we can all get along as a social species.
In response to your second point; morals exist outside of the realm of rewards and/or punishment - they are ascribed to on their own accord and acted upon for no reason other than 'it's the right thing to do'. Anyone harboring fears of punishment or expectations of reward cannot be said to be acting in a moral fashion but, instead, in a primitive way in which organisms without moral capacity behave.