The Difference Between Fate and Destiny, Especially in Matters of Love.

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Psychopaths come in all shapes and sizes and choosing love over evil does not seem to be their forte.

1756399015943.png Sorry, the child abuse reference led me down a dark path.

Hopefully these two children will manage to overcome their fated past - they had no control - and garner the strength and support to forge a better destiny.

And now I need some fresh air.
 
WhyCzar said:
Psychopaths come in all shapes and sizes and choosing love over evil does not seem to be their forte.

View attachment 11668 Sorry, the child abuse reference led me down a dark path.

Hopefully these two children will manage to overcome their fated past - they had no control - and garner the strength and support to forge a better destiny.

And now I need some fresh air.
Click to expand...
I think you've actually landed on the right distinction, just not the way you originally framed it. The children had no control over what was done to them, that's not fate, that's the result of someone else's choices.

However they do have agency in how they respond and heal, that's where destiny comes in.

Even with psychopaths, it's still about choice. Psychopathy may make choosing love over evil harder, but we still hold them accountable precisely because we recognize they retain the capacity to choose. Otherwise, why would we have laws or consequences at all?

The dark path you mentioned is exactly why the fate framework fails, it leads to moral dead ends where either nothing matters or suffering is predetermined.

Better to stick with the harder truth. People choose, and those choices have consequences.
 
Truth ... is it not an elusive thing? Some say God is truth and ... has anyone seen it?

Yet it is power for an entire cycle of covenanting activity.
 
I've brought this up before and it seems relevant to this thread. I heard an interview on CBC some years ago that chilled me, and I've never forgotten it. Teenage, adopted from Romania as a baby. One of the famous Ceaușescu era orphans who were untouched, not talked to. She knew she was a psychopath. She had already hurt animals. She knew she would kill a human one day if she wasn't stopped and she didn't know what to do about it.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
I think you've actually landed on the right distinction, just not the way you originally framed it. The children had no control over what was done to them, that's not fate, that's the result of someone else's choices.

However they do have agency in how they respond and heal, that's where destiny comes in.

Even with psychopaths, it's still about choice. Psychopathy may make choosing love over evil harder, but we still hold them accountable precisely because we recognize they retain the capacity to choose. Otherwise, why would we have laws or consequences at all?

The dark path you mentioned is exactly why the fate framework fails, it leads to moral dead ends where either nothing matters or suffering is predetermined.

Better to stick with the harder truth. People choose, and those choices have consequences.
Click to expand...
We don’t always though. Some just move into positions of power so it becomes normalized and poisons attitudes. We want to believe in the good in everyone. But on a broad level we’ve got a society picking up their traits more and more. It might actually have something to do with the loss of religious values. People don’t want to hear that. But there’s something to it, I think. Just in terms of having guiding principles matter even if science has no morals, it just is. Love isn’t an imperative for science.
 
Last edited:
BetteTheRed said:
I've brought this up before and it seems relevant to this thread. I heard an interview on CBC some years ago that chilled me, and I've never forgotten it. Teenage, adopted from Romania as a baby. One of the famous Ceaușescu era orphans who were untouched, not talked to. She knew she was a psychopath. She had already hurt animals. She knew she would kill a human one day if she wasn't stopped and she didn't know what to do about it.
Click to expand...

This has always fascinated me in the study of mental transference between the human and the inhuman sector. Think in terms as the limbic system has been labelled the primal portion of the function, beneath the mammalian, beneath the cerebral. What if you have no use for the layers above the base system that is dinosaur-like, no mammalian-humanity or warm bloodedness whatsoever? If the humanity part is killed off by some toxic means how will the body of humanity behave with no humanitarian nature? There are a number of stories about the Balkan areas brutality ... part of the shadowy portion of the deep mountain dells. Reconsider the Movie Deliverance and others where personality sectors were stifled. Sort of like primitive sectors of the psyche being released because of poor development. Then the story of Nell on language development. What if Nell as an abstract in the brain structure? Dark ladies!

Imagine the inhibition of character development. Psyche is a wild thing if not cultivated ... improper branching of the ganglia as if a worm dwelt there. Second thought; isn't there some high level people that stopped personality development because of encephalitis or brain worms? Would they like to share to grow their floc. I see a group of developers as in Avatar going into a space needing bulldozing to clear out the trees and forests. Sacred gardens. Furthermore from degraded gardens comes the story that nothing penetrates the primitive zones but a story because it is too primitive to to receive raw intelligence ... implications giving the strange characteristics of this 3 tiered device. This could allow the entrance of a large cat to keep lizards and lower-life forms out ... Hobbs enters the stage as a grand myth. Now how to work a cerebral dome in for a lion trainer? Alice dives into the underground.
In the far east this may have a story about a Holy Underground City to hide the dinosaurs ... because the dinosaurs were evolving towards smarter reptiles and pairing with the older versions so as to form the base of Asclepios and Caduceus. In some developments one part, demiurge fades. Thus prescient soul vs the primitive perspective that allow psychopathic behaviour emerging from deep in the body of mammalian, the emergence of the noble beast in those thrilled with beastly games. The other half of course passes because of the loss of know how in the evolved beast because of paranoia about culling of herds and flocs. Recall a cat is near impossible to domesticate unless that cat can concert the human to catty ways ... further implications of development in the underworld ...

This would all cause the need of story to get stuff through to the ancient part that doesn't know modern language transfer ... thus disallowing modern development in this area. If development is altered in either direction can one see friction between anima and animus that is amused with the primitive internal pet that the brute believe to be Precious ... refusing to eliminate it from the shrine. Precious eventually takes over as without conscience ...

Didn't Precious turn up in another story or two; triad about life within the peaks? In the west they remained conquering beasts while in the east the dragon represented philosophical evolution. The west argued they could take over the west in opioid conflict in receptors of that particular endogenous Materia; that was ill applied when powerful wester Doctors, etc. took up modern industrial medicine instead of the holistic tunnel view ... no expansive profits ... the vocation went from witch to the richly malevolent.

Remember the character of the story compared to ryne profiteering ... a river of coin! It was a mess of leaves needed to bed down the monster from the east ... Medusa ... catchy myths? However the dinosaur remains and may emerge in the case of PTSD or other disorder in the theme, plot or conspiracy ... dissonance as Eris ... and hairy states evolved on top ... paper exchange used to make cleaning the primitive cell more convenient ... as medium! Shiite in the midst of the fight between east and west allowing a Whal in the middle stretch transited by Law rinse ... Pharisee, Sadducee and the courting space of the idealist that lost against monarchy and uppers crusts ... underground arches? May simulate the stones unhinged ... bones for myth and loose marble ...

People still don't accept real info because of the ancient roots of catacombs ... catty? Some clause required for Kathy's Cos ... sky to howl at? But the mind does contain some alien beasts that come out at night ... Maris ... thick and dark at those hours ... Hungry!

The precious beast always likes to set us back a 1000 years so it won't have to learn calmer mediating myths ... the power of myth in the noble beast drifting towards bloodier games ... your can see it on the grids ... evolution turns to a deeper vapor ... with further implications misunderstood ... as the thing believes meat must be bought home ... and bones lay all about, structured ... scheduled myths?

The primitive part remains to warm itself ... by the campfires ... tended by camp bells ... wild images without huts ... but well stacked souls to the outside perspective ... in adepts ... fecundity ...
 
Last edited:
Remember in the end the story is the thing and you'll get nowhere without a good one ... the devil won't open the door to the other side because of all the lies about the opposing image ... it is not good to open up ... thus mysterious soul! if strange the normal will not approach IT ...

Imagine men in a horse? People swallow that?
 
BetteTheRed said:
I've brought this up before and it seems relevant to this thread. I heard an interview on CBC some years ago that chilled me, and I've never forgotten it. Teenage, adopted from Romania as a baby. One of the famous Ceaușescu era orphans who were untouched, not talked to. She knew she was a psychopath. She had already hurt animals. She knew she would kill a human one day if she wasn't stopped and she didn't know what to do about it.
Click to expand...
Can people with the capacity to love even the hardest to love, choose to give such a person a humane existence without endangering others?

I realize this person became that way from neglect but they say psychopathy is both nature and nurture. I once spoke about the technology for gene editing to help with the nature part of it. It wasn’t received well. It also veers into eugenics though, I realize, because it wouldn’t be used for that - it’s being looked at to rid people of genetic propensity for disease and disability (mainly intellectually disabled people). But if the person can still be born but without the genetic propensity to develop full blown psychopathy, would that be so bad? If the intention were to allow the their best personality traits to come forth? Or do we just accept that it’s part of human genetic nature that we have to nurture differently?
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Can people with the capacity to love even the hardest to love, choose to give such a person a humane existence without endangering others?
Click to expand...

You basically ask if we can institutionalize voluntarily and/or humanely? Of course. (Involuntarily is much more nuanced.)

We could treat everyone humanely. There are the odd countries that totally aim for this. However, these very few countries tend to be small, isolated and culturally homogeneous. Iceland is a perfect example. New Zealand another.
 
BetteTheRed said:
You basically ask if we can institutionalize voluntarily and/or humanely? Of course. (Involuntarily is much more nuanced.)

We could treat everyone humanely. There are the odd countries that totally aim for this. However, these very few countries tend to be small, isolated and culturally homogeneous. Iceland is a perfect example. New Zealand another.
Click to expand...
Yes. But who gets to decide? If psychopaths who are not directly, but indirectly violent, have the power to decide, good people having bad times will be involuntarily locked up. I mean, it’s happening. Look down south. I wonder about the people who faithfully work for that directive, too, without questioning their choices. There’s a lot of them.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Yes. But who gets to decide? If psychopaths who are not directly, but indirectly violent, have the power to decide, good people having bad times will be involuntarily locked up. I mean, it’s happening. Look down south. I wonder about the people who faithfully work for that directive, too, without questioning their choices. There’s a lot of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Systems are great until decision points are made by imperfect humans. It's a conundrum,
 
BetteTheRed said:
Agreed. Systems are great until decision points are made by imperfect humans. It's a conundrum,
Click to expand...
Militarization and militant authority is part of the culture we’ve established since antiquity. Probably at the behest of psychopaths. And we take that for granted as lurking in the background - and as “protection” during wars and such. We’ve allowed that to remain part of human cultures and systems and mixing good with militarism is like oil and water. It’s resurfacing, so short of a fated miracle I don’t know what can be done.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Yes. But who gets to decide? If psychopaths who are not directly, but indirectly violent, have the power to decide, good people having bad times will be involuntarily locked up. I mean, it’s happening. Look down south. I wonder about the people who faithfully work for that directive, too, without questioning their choices. There’s a lot of them.
Click to expand...
We’ve also got lots of work to do to make our institutions humane. Even here. Even for those who are not dangerous, not serving time, but have no choice but to live in a type of institution, or die - fated to be there because they couldn’t choose a destiny because of limited choice - they are not humane enough.

And in the US, the privatization of prisons with profit motive, has made them even more inhumane.
 
There was a Dr in the UK that know as the anti psychology to psychology because psychology allowed some people to be declared insane just because their partner couldn't take their behaviour. I forgot his name and had to look it up Dr. Liang ... he was involved in a philosophy of psychology that declared that it was abused.

I do know of some cases of psychologists that declared their spouses odd just to get rid of something they couldn't make into a routine. It was fatal in a number of situations ... novels are written about marital lock-up! Always a need for a measure of freedom ... why Jesus spoke on divorce being required to off set the affect of the Pharisee ... then the Sadducee abused it and as a power repeatedly connected ... it all happens in the greater shrine ...

We come here from out there for the experience ... and to observe. Does my presence give you chill? It is just the spoof value ... we dissipate it time a form of metaphor like disseminate ... when reality as absolute fractures ... apocalyptic it is said ... departure of Lu Ceil? That high feeling ...
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
We don’t always though. Some just move into positions of power so it becomes normalized and poisons attitudes. We want to believe in the good in everyone. But on a broad level we’ve got a society picking up their traits more and more. It might actually have something to do with the loss of religious values. People don’t want to hear that. But there’s something to it, I think. Just in terms of having guiding principles matter even if science has no morals, it just is. Love isn’t an imperative for science.
I think what you’re saying is true but without a socially agreed to moral framework (belief in the importance of love?) - I don’t know how it changes.
Click to expand...
You're pointing to something crucial, the gap between philosophical clarity and social reality. Even if we establish that abusers choose their actions, that doesn't automatically create accountability if society fails to enforce consequences or if people in power normalize harmful behavior.

Your point about religious values is interesting. Regardless of whether you believe in the theology, many religious traditions do provide that shared moral framework that makes love an imperative rather than just an option. When that erodes, we might end up with a society that intellectually understands choice and agency but lacks the collective will to act on those principles.

Science can tell us how things work, but it can't tell us how things should work. Without some agreed upon framework that says 'love matters' and 'harm is wrong,' even the clearest philosophical arguments about choice and responsibility might not change much in practice.

Maybe the real question isn't just whether love is chosen or fated, but whether we can build social structures that support and reward the choice to love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top