Comment: So Then Are You A Radical Skeptic About The Whole...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I dont think im too quick to (see in situ)

So Then Are You A Radical Skeptic About The Whole...

notion of overcoming internal desires because they are impossible to recognize? If so I am not seeing the value for you in this line of study.

Also, another question. Upthread you say it is NOT malevolent external forces (Rothschilds, etc.) seeking to control us which we must overcome, it is our own conflicting motives. Here you allow that such external forces exist and that they are forces for ill. Perhaps before you were suggesting the evidence of Rothschildian manipulation is too weak to prove a claim of control-seeking?

I would think that absent external forces of social control, whether they are exercised psychologically or by force or the threat of force, we could say that a man's pattern of behavior is closer to being reflective of his "true" nature. But what if psychology has isolated mankind's basic unbidden motivations? Have they also refined tools with which to exploit our essential self? What I am saying is that "external psychological coercion" can only be effective if there exists within us a corresponding "internal desire" to exploit. Notice how fearful and jingoistic the country has become? Would we be such pantywaists and warmongers absent the mainstream media complex's tireless efforts to shove the terrorist bogeyman down our throats? Where I fail to see "moral ambiguity" is in the deliberate and concerted manipulation of our emotions. Any such considerations necessarily involve your #3 as well as your #2.