obselete Categories

The categories related to Mind sciences, software Architecture and Software Security are Obsolete now in this blog.

http://shahzadsb.wordpress.com will serve only as personal blog.
http://rationalsolution.wordpress.com will provide information related to mind sciences.
http://softarchitect.wordpress.com  will reflect Software Architcture blog.

http://softsecurity.wordpress.com will provide info related to software security.

Have a nice read….

MIND & MATTER & MORALITY – A CASE STUDY – By Monteiro, Marty

MIND & MATTER: THE 2ND PERSON (PART I)
In a case study, a matter and mind model is presented from an ‘interpersonal’ perspective in the context of ‘final-ity’ and ‘causality’. The social architecture of mind-body relation occurs on basis of ‘interaction’ at physical-, mental- and social level. Interaction is generated through an imbalanced state of ‘shortage-surplus’ within a person and between persons to bring about a balanced state by en-ergy/matter transactions. At all levels, learning occurs resulting in physical-, social and mental development. The growth of matter takes place through mind-in-matter trans-formation mediated in short-term memory and mental devel-opment through matter-in-mind transformation in long-term memory. Material synergy evolution is on account of the mental autonomy of inter-individual interaction, contrary to mental synergy evolution, for which a supra-individual unifying-creating force is postulated.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
For thousands of years one has approached the mind-body issue from the perspective of a sole per-son without taking another human being into consid-eration. Trying to explain consciousness while fo-cussing on mattermind influencing, the individual is viewed either from the 3rd person physical-biological domain as a ‘passive’ being or in case of mindmatter influencing from the 1st person per-spective; the mind is an ‘active’ agent supposed to exist as a phenomenal consciousness of how reality is experienced subjectively. It is advocated that the 3rd as well as the 1st person approach fall short and it is tried to cross the border of the individ-ual perspective by way of including the social en-vironment. The claim that active consciousness to-wards the environment is not only object-oriented but above all subject-directed, throws light on the mind-matter issue. Unveiling the ‘private’ mind-matter domain occurs in the framework of interper-sonal behaviour, behavioural products, related to intersubjective mental processes serving as valida-tion criterion. Within a growth-dynamic experimen-tal setting, mind and matter are made ‘public’ in the context between the 1st person – 2nd person.
The architecture of mind-matter in a social framework provides additional information through the introduction of finality beyond causality. It concerns not only the related causal process pat-terns but also the emergence of autonomous proc-esses. Autonomous processes operate at mind-body levels for which the status of finality holds. The relative role of finality and causality is valid under specific conditions. The claim is that final-ity is valid for primary autonomous linear proc-esses and causality for related processes forming a cyclic system. It is assumed that final processes only play a role before interaction between events. After interaction feedback occurs, generating a cy-clic process system to which the status of causal-ity applies. In the framework of processes between objects and between subjects, the distinctive role of finality as well as causality refers to:
1) physical process level of sensation of a stimu-lus & motivation of a need
2) mental process level of cognition of structuring & perception of information
3) social process level of sensation of a norm & motivation of a value…

     The claim is that morality refers to the ‘mind state’ of a person and specifically that cognition is the source of morality. Testing of morality of cognition occurs, however, at an interpersonal energy and/or behavioural level by perception. Defining morality refers to an interactive interpersonal (inter-group) domain. Ethics are restricted to events outside interactions and concern the short-term or long-term consequences for a person involved or affecting (an) other person(s). If persons mutually behave morally, this does not necessarily imply that the effects of an interpersonal event can be qualified as ethical, as for instance giving a child too much candy, which will affect its teeth later on. Thus, morality is restricted to ‘interactive’ events of satisfaction in economic transaction, pleasure in cultural relation, fulfilling in natural dependency, and happiness in universal connection. Thus, the definition of ethics refers to the consequences of interaction affecting other systems in the socio-cultural and bio-natural field, generating a feedback on the person(s) in question at a later stage. On the basis of the interactive and consequential perspective of the domains of morality and of ethics, one can state a morality and ethics distinction.

     The reference frame of mind and matter serves as the starting point for founding morality and ethics. The mind-matter processes are operational in the categorical system of the relation between mind and morality. The mind is laying the basis to approach morality and morality test from the perspective of ‘interpersonal utility’. In the framework of social interaction of moral good reflected in satisfaction, pleasure, fulfilment and happiness, it defines the border of morality and the domains of ethics. The morality and ethics distinction is relevant and based on the interactive and consequence criterion resulting in direct or indirect feedback. Economic transactions can be morally satisfying but not consonant with or even contradictory to culture ethics, etc. The role of morality is more extensive than the conditional role of finality and causality. Morality keeps its general status whether cognition is final or cause. To know man’s mind and morality in the framework of another person is the essence of human existence in his moral entanglement.

 TABLE 2 Mind & Morality

Mind-Morality 1st -2nd person	Morality +Test cognition-perception	Space-Timefinality-causality	Domain Ethicssocial utility
social interaction	good	3-D morality	social ethics
economic transaction	satisfaction	present	economic ethics
cultural relation	pleasure	past	cultural ethics
natural dependency	fulfilment	future	natural ethics
universal connection	happiness	past-present-future	universal ethics

 
For more details read Case study: mind & matter & morality Case Study
Bibliography

Monteiro, Marty (2009) – Model Of Man: Mind & Matter – Mind & Morality. AEG Publishing Group, New York, Lon-don, Frankfurt
——————————————————-
This case study is extracted from the author’s book Model Of Man: Mind & Matter – Mind & Morality (AEG Publishing Group, New York, London, Frankfurt, 2009)

To discuss more with Monteiro, Marty about this case study and his book, join Yahoo group at:
Rational Solution

The JK Ellis Mind Control PDF Library

Here are the Favorites From The JK Ellis Mind Control Library

1) Ten Ways to Build a Cult Like Following

2) Interview with Blair Warren

3) The Focused Interviewing System of Police Interagation

4) Free NLP Ebook

5) How Cults Seduce

6) The Keys to Power by Alan Tutt

7) Conversational Terrorism

8) The Nature of Influence by Robert Cialdini

9) Operation Monarch Mind Control

10) The Mind Has No Firewall

11) The NLP Convinser Strategy

12) Supreme Personality

13) The CIA book “Psychcology of Intelegence Analysis”

Defense against Coercive Persuasion

Defense against Coercive Persuasion
The cumulative effect of strategies of coercion, manipulation and compliance can be more effective than pain, drugs, or physical force, threats of physical abuse, legal fines or imprisonment etc. People can be programmed to commit illegal or immoral actions despite criminal, financial or other penalties.

Defense against coercive strategies starts with recognizing them. Then a person can leave, seek assistance, or, if forcibly confined (e.g. imprisonment or required military service), pretend compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Coercion Strategy 1: Hypnotic Compliance
Suggestibility is increased using hypnotic techniques such as repeated lectures, chants, and sensory fixation. Suggestibility can be accompanied, deepened and accelerated by endlessly repeated activities; sleep and/or nutritional restriction.

Defense 1: Recognize Hypnotic Strategies
Systemic Solutions provides training in recognizing and controlling responses to hypnotic language and suggestion, and in minimizing the consequences of sleep and nutritional deprivation. With this knowledge a person can quickly recognize coercive strategies, become defensive and seek sleep and food.

Coercion Strategy 2: Social Isolation
A person’s social environment and sources of social support can be controlled with rewards and punishments. Only communication with “converted” subjects and other trainees may be allowed. Contact with family, friends, and with anybody not having an “approved attitude” is limited. The person comes to increasingly depend on provided propaganda; and on the group or organization.

Defense 2: Imaginary Society
Free people can leave. For those who cannot, we provide training in visual and auditory imagery, self-hypnosis and hypnotic language. With this knowledge a person recognize and reduce the loneliness of isolation and control the need for healthy conversations.

Coercion Strategy 3: Limit Topics of Discussion
External information and opinions can be prohibited in group communications. Rules about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders can be enforced. External communication is controlled and an “in-group” jargon is increasingly used.

Defense 3: Imaginary Discussions
Free people can leave. For those who cannot leave, we provide training in self-hypnosis, with which a person can recognize and control their need to communicate with other non-compliant group members.

Coercion Strategy 4: Undermine Causality
People may be required to negatively re-evaluate central aspects of their self-experience and prior conduct. Their consciousness, reality awareness, world view, emotional control and conscious defenses can be destabilized and undermined. Subjects can be guided to reinterpret their history and to adopt the organization’s version of causality.

Defense 4: Creativity and Repetition
Free people can leave. For those who cannot, trained people can perceive the destabilization attempts and create or reinforce conscious blocks to manipulation with mental exercises.

Coercion Strategy 5: Undermine Self-Confidence
A sense of powerlessness and confusion can be created by instigating frequent intense situations which undermine the subject’s self-confidence and judgment. This powerlessness can be enhanced with confusion-causing psychoactive drugs administered in water or food.

Defense 5: Mental Role Playing Games
Free people can leave. For those who cannot, trained people can perceive the power games and defuse their impact. Trained people can also notice the effects of psychoactive drugs and take steps to reduce those effects.

Coercion Strategy 6: Overload Emotions
Control can be achieved by creating strong aversive emotions with humiliation, loss of privilege, social isolation, status changes, guilt, anxiety, manipulation and other techniques.

Defense 6: Dissociation and Rationalization
Free people can leave. For those who cannot, we train people can perceive power games and recognize covert humiliation. They can also improvise mind-body dissociation and other emotional defenses (we also use these to remedy post-traumatic stress disorders – PTSD).

Coercion Strategy 7: Intimidation
People can be intimidated with group-sanctioned threats. Failure to adopt the approved attitudes, beliefs or behaviors may lead to ostracism or punishment; with propaganda that disobedience will lead to physical or mental illness, drug dependence, economic collapse, social failure, divorce, etc.

Defense 7: Mental Imagery and Affirmations
Free people can leave. For those who cannot, we can train people to recognize intimidation and propaganda and to consciously create appropriate defenses.

Coercion Strategy 8: Seduction
Seduce people with egotistic and sexual bait. Suggest or imply that adopting the approved attitudes, beliefs or behavior will lead to intimate sexual encounters, rapid promotion, gratification of desires, power, stability, financial success, and community recognition, etc. (Some of these rewards may be promoted as only available after physical death!)

Defense 8: Evidence and Reality Checks
Trained people can recognize coercion within covert seduction. Any claims can be realistically analyzed, and proof requested.

Reference: http://www.systemiccoaching.com/coercion.htm