When I was on Myspace for the first time I was introduced to trolling. I had gone on line to maybe enrich my life and meet new people and I ran into these strategic, hateful, closeted, jaded, social climbing people with inferiority complexes incapable of conversation or relationship trying to social climb over one another. Needless to say I was confused, here I was trying to be known as I was, and they refused to know me, they instead made assumptions, told lies, and tried to influence everyone’s opinion of me. It wasn’t that they were afraid I wasn’t who I appeared to be, they were afraid I was who I claimed to be. Unperturbed I tried to focus on the positive. In my martial art (adstc) I came up with the strategy of always studying from and learning one’s opponent. If you learn from an altercation you win. So I kept observing and studying their strategies and behaviors. EIHRT was developed as I created a necessary strategy for dealing with their constant attacks and social climbing strategies.
“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. “
That is how I was raised but it wasn’t working. I suspect that the reason it doesn’t work nowadays is because we are not in a rational environment we are in a strategic environment, a psychopathic environment. In order for this strategy to succeed you need enough rational people around to witness your wisdom, but nobody has any love of wisdom anymore. Even Jesus abandoned his turn the other cheek philosophy when he was throwing the money changers out of the temple. And how did radical pacifism work for the Jews during the holocaust? So, it was becoming apparent that this strategy only works inside one’s philoish of philosophical family and can’t be trusted to work outside that philoish.
THE USE OF STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR VALIDATES THE USE OF STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR
Jus ad bellum (Latin for “right to war”) is a set of criteria that are to be consulted before engaging in war, in order to determine whether entering into war is permissible; that is, whether it is a just war.
Just cause/ Right intention
According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred.
The principle of proportionality stipulates that the violence used in the war must be proportional to the attack suffered. For example, if one nation invades and seizes the land of another nation, this second nation has just cause for a counterattack in order to retrieve its land. However, if this second nation invades the first, reclaims its territory, and then also annexes the first nation, such military action is disproportional.
So a new strategy, I wouldn’t attack anybody that hadn’t attacked me but if somebody did attack me then I would retaliate equivalently. It was a moral imperative that I respond equivalently. If the behavior was valid they shouldn’t mind if I do it back to them. But if they don’t like me doing it to them they shouldn’t have used the strategy in the first place.
I started using the infinite knot as a symbol for a reciprocal relationship between intelligent objects (people because facts about people don’t remain consistent like facts about objects). Now this was the relationship between any two intelligent objects. They don’t have to be individuals they can be groups of people or one persons and a group of people (a nation, a church, society, etc.) There were acts of depreciation(-) and acts of appreciation (+). Any act of depreciation required a response of an equivalent act of depreciation, this would allow equity to be maintained in the relationship. If one person keeps on pushing me down or stealing from me or depreciating my value they are pushing me down in order to push themselves up but even if they are unaware of what they are doing it is still not acceptable.
YOU HAVE TO BE RELEVANT IN ORDER TO COMPETE
In order for myself to compete on a playing field or in an arena I had to be on the same level as the people in that arena which means I had to protect my reputation. So anything done to me or said about me, if it wasn’t positive required negative reciprocity, and likewise if somebody appreciated me I would appreciate them equivalently.
TYPES OF RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP
There are 3 different types of reciprocal relationship.
This is how the person behaves towards you, how they talk to you, and why they are doing what they are doing (philosophy, intention, stimulation of need recognition). Equity has to be maintained in all 3 relationships. When you get to the relationship of Mutual Appreciation this will make more sense to you. Theory means philosophy, when you are of the same philosophical family (philoish) it means that you communicate in order to come to an agreement and then in doing so you participate which falls into the realm of action. The communication should be positive, towards the solution with as little unnecessary negative emotional data (remember I said unnecessary when a person keeps on depreciating you by not reciprocating equivalently you have to communicate negative emotional data to let them know it is unacceptable).
The Battle of Attrition is when two parties keep on dealing each other acts of depreciation, the relationship ends when they run out of resources (or they die), or one person gives up or surrenders, or leaves the relationship. This type of relationship results in a gravitating downward in comparison with the outlying relationships or the patterns in other people’s relationships when viewed as a playing field or mesa or plateau. This type of relationship will squander your resources and energy, but sometimes has to be waged out of necessity. The fascinating thing is that psychopaths attack first expecting you not to retaliate, and then when you do they keep retaliating expecting you the more rational person to back down. I having a more principled intelligence (being a sociopath/philosopher) never backed down because I was morally correct, I was experimenting with my theories, and not being a social climber I didn’t give a fuck about my reputation.
THE TOXIC ENABLER RELATIONSHIP
This relationship represents the enabled psychopath in relationship, somebody is enabling them, somebody is allowing the psychopath to steal their surplus so that they can use it against other people. It is like investing in a successful thief that never pays you back. Psychopaths expect you to stay in relationship while they attack or depreciate you because their parents or some enabler made them think this was normal. Why change the behavior if you don’t have to? It has always worked for you. Furthermore, if the person you are in relationship with is consistently attacking you or pushing you down, you are enabling them by staying in the relationship and not retaliating. You are strengthening their psychopathy, positively reinforcing it.
MUTUAL APPRECIATION THE HOLY GRAIL OF RELATIONSHIP
As I continued fleshing out my theory on relationship I realized that their was the possibility of one particular type of relationship which I had never experienced. I began longing for this relationship, doubting that it was possible, but constantly meditating on it and yearning for it to the point that I wasn’t interested in having any other relationship but a rational one. I began looking for evidence of it historically and I found that there were other people that succeeded in utilizing this type of relationship but it was very, very, rare. Rumi and Shams, Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Plato and Aristotle, and Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, maybe even Sigmond Freud and Carl Jung, you will even find in the Upanishads that Shiva and Parvati have this type of relationship . This was a completely wholistic rational relationship, the relationship of gods or philosopher kings. If you were capable of staying in the relationship and reciprocating good for good, only relating positively and rationally towards the other person, constantly appreciating them, you would grow in reputation, money, wisdom, and in every other positive way. Not only that you would rise above those other people around you who were “failing together” through their poor processes in relationship.
I swore to myself that I would never again engage in any other type of relationship seriously or deeply unless it was this type of relationship which I didn’t know if I could have but my life was not complete or worth living unless I could have it. Not only would both people have to be philosopher kings on relatively the same level but they would have to stay in relationship consciously and rationally with one another and continue growing, succeeding together, creating value for one another and increasing their ability to create value for one another.
Interestingly this relationship required something that the vast majority of people aren’t capable of doing and that is getting out of their own heads and away from their own judgments and looking from the perspective of another. Value is created by one person for another and the actual value of an act, or object is negotiated from two different perspectives. The trick is to create value for another person by giving them things that have value to them, without judging them trying to control them or punishing them. You have to get rid of the venom in your heart, the desire to punish, control, and judge and let the other person be free to be themselves in the relationship. I know that certain people reading this will try to use this statement against me, and I remind you that one of the tenets of this relationship is that you are on the same level to begin with. The only sustainable relationship that reason can have with unreason is that unreason is the student and subordinate of reason. (aequalitatus sub ratio, equality under reason).
Because of the need for the rational relationship to meet certain criteria, other necessities began to emerge, non actions could be considered acts of depreciation. All of these processes characterized the relationship that I was looking for. The PRAXIS OF THE RATIONAL was created to explain the internal narrative of the person who would step foot on the path of the philosophical relationship. It was written as a contract that the individual would sign with themselves (are you going to lie to yourself? what kind of person does that? a soulless one, a psychopath.)
I started playing a little game in my relationships, all of my life I related functionally towards others, investing more in the relationship than I was getting from it (I don’t do that anymore. I don’t invest in relationship more than I am getting back from it). I was always the first to get screwed, people instead of staying in the relationship would behave strategically towards it for personal gain. So now I would see how long it would take for the person to fall off their path of the praxis of the rational. And when they did I would let them know that they had or I would retaliate depending on the severity. It was so fascinating to see how people responded. People would either try to ignore their failure, or they wouldn’t fix it, or they wouldn’t learn from it, or they would repeat it, or they would attack again in a different way. To this day I have not found a person capable of staying in a deep, meaningful, rational, philosophical relationship.
- Weaknesses and strenths of modernization theory (slideshare.net)
- Shared State Theory of Communication (psykolinguist.wordpress.com)
- Uncertainty Reduction as a Communication Theory… (williameburkhalter.wordpress.com)
- The Pole Position in Relationship (thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com)