Governing Body's Lawyers Unconsciously Driven To Giving Destructive Advice To The Corporation's CEO

by frankiespeakin 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Well what do you think, is it possible?

  Concider:

  They very well could have a repressed loathing for the Watchtower and for what it is doing to young children(pedofile and blood issues), families, the old, and even themselves, but because of situation they are in they are forced to suppress it all in the Shadow.

  So the unconscious(or substitute God for the word unconscious because the unconscious is a far bigger player than ego consciousness), so then the unconscious which according to evolution favors survival and survival of the species is favored even higher i would think, so that at times the unconscious may make a move that trumps ego drives and may lead to an action that puts the "individual" in harms way(kills) but it does so for the good of the larger whole or the "species". Kinda like the mythological one man dying for the whole species of mankind, one example in mythology is Jesus Christ, among others.

  These myths explain many things about what goes on inside a man IMO.

  More next post
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Carl Jung once had as a client a man who was a bad man, he was also a mountain climber. This man had a dream that he related to Jung it was about him falling off a cliff and so Jung adviced him not to do any mountain climbing as this could have fatal consquences for him as he understood the dream. I would guess that Jung saw it as an omen about to be played out by the unconscious because of the way this man live was so contary to his dna and species enhancement for survival.

  He didn't listen and later it was reported that he just let go and fell to his death taking his guide along with him.

  I take this as an indication that the unconcious can make you trip and break your neck and die very easily if it wants to.
• 

  cognisonance

  ...the unconscious which according to evolution favors survival and survival of the species is favored even higher i would think, so that at times the unconscious may make a move that trumps ego drives and may lead to an action that puts the "individual" in harms way(kills) but it does so for the good of the larger whole or the "species"

  I don't wish to be a debbie downer...

  Natural selection is about surviving to reproduce. The two are intrinsically related, it's not merely about survival.

  I'm pretty sure that natural selection does not support the notion that survival (and ongoing reproduction) of the species is more favored than survival (and reproduction) of the individual. In fact, I think it allows for just the opposite, that evolution does not happen to bring positive adaptations to a species when by doing so it has no direct reproductive benefit to the individual.

  (NOTE: You are of course talking about physcology instead of biolgy, which I'm not so sure extrapolating from bilogical evolution explainations for physcological behavior is always apropos.)

  In fact, the opposite can and does happen. Something that brings a direct benefit to the individual (reproductively) can be detrimental to the whole of the species. For example, lions do hunt in groups (this insures survival and increases chances of reproduction), yet when intruding males displace resident males from a social group, the intruders kill all the young ones. Is such behavior in latter situation beneficial to the species? No. It could even lead to causing the species to risk extinction if endangered. But it does have a direct reproductive benefit to the individual.

  I bring this up since your premise might be based on a false assumption. Altruistic behavior does happen in the framework of natural selection, but it always has strings attached, that helping or sacrificing, ultimately increases the individual's chances of surviving and reproducing.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Cogn,

  I'm talking phychological evolution that occurs in a semiherding species who has developed instincts for living as groups in tribes, clans, troups, cities and working together for common causes. How ever these driving instincts developed has room for much speculation and intuition but, none the less they are a fact that we do have these instincts .

  Altruism, reguardless all the minute details as to how we came to have it, is a product of evolution. But this is just a side point not a biggy to labor over or to make the point of the possiblity of the unconscious overiding the ego, and causing bad advice to be given unconsciously by the Governing Body's legal team.

  Many a species have this type of programmed responses that humans would cassify as self sacrifice for the good of the group that drives them when the right conditions are met.
• 

  cognisonance

  I know you are talking about evolutionary physcology, which is okay per se. I was just trying to bring out two points:

  1) That it is very easy to come up with what Stephen J. Gould called "Just-So-Stories" that darwinize every aspect of human behavior without any evidence to support the story. This is where I threw in the cautionary note. I agree that all human behavior evolved, but what caused it to happen in many areas of behavior is still unknown. For these areas, there is no end to conjecture.

  2) I'll admit that perhaps it was a bit unwarrented for me to say your premise may be false. I realize there is more to evolutionary therory than "Natural Selection." It isn't the only process going on. Sexual Selection also exists (which is it's own entity, not a subcategory of natural selection). "Group selection," or some varient of it, is what you seem to be thinking about here. From what I can tell this is a controversal theory since it seems contradictory to natural selection. But what do I know, maybe they are complimentary. Time for me to do some more reading...
• 

  cognisonance

  So sorry to get hung up. I've been learning about evolution recently, but you are right, let's stick to the idea:

  The possiblity of the unconscious overiding the ego, and causing bad advice to be given unconsciously by the Governing Body's legal team

  Has there historically ever been cases of people giving bad advice unconsiously to protect the greater good? Seems like a hard hypothesis to test. Interesting question though, I admit.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  As we see the evolution of our species in the direction of more consciousness of the world or universe. A negative force in the opposites direction is delusional thinking, which is giving way to a more accurate picture of the cosmos with its mixed effects some of which we humans might term as good and some bad.

  How these humanly labeled forces work towards directions and trends in human species awareness we can only speculate and use intuition. Drives which for the most part remain unconscious but can become more a part of our consciousness as we turn inward, often with heroic efforts of personal honesty.

  Since I follow Jung quite a bit in his understanding of the "Human Collective Unconscious" with a vast number of archetypes(or paterned behaviors), I'm thinking the unconscious archetypes could be at work in the Legal advice department and the Governing Body themselves and they both could prove to be thier own worst enemy without thier even being conscious of it, not an uncommon trait when you think of it, we all do it, why not them.

  I'm thinking expect big blunders coming from these guys in the future.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Cogn,

  ""Has there historically ever been cases of people giving bad advice unconsiously to protect the greater good? Seems like a hard hypothesis to test. Interesting question though, I admit."" Yes I'm sure it is not that uncommon consciously done or unconsciously. And we have the famous term "freudian slip" which kinda show that the unconscious can make us say what we really think even when we are trying hard to conceal it. for more info on the unconscious read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind
• 

  Chaserious

  Yeah... I don't think this is going to happen. People become lawyers because they are good at disassociating this stuff and zealously representing their clients. And if they aren't, they learn it, or they are forced out of being in that kind of situation. Do criminal defense lawyers who know their client committed the crime unconsciously give their clients bad advice so they end up getting convicted, since it's for the "greater good" to have that person in jail? Doubt it.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Chas,

  It may and it may not it would be interesting to see if it does or did. I'm thinking it already happened but no way of proving it. It may just be the Governing Body bossing around some of these guys that might make them do it eyes wide open so to speak, or barely conscious of. I know it has happened to me so why not one or all of them?