Which spirits maneuver and manhandle narcissists and what's their end goal?Why so much devilry and why do they target people with bright loving souls?

[Morell]

Yeah, but what about the spirits that want what's bad for you specifically? Like, let's say, spirits of greed that want you sick with wanting what you can't have. Maybe evil is a big word, but there certainly exist malicious beings which align their good with your harm.

That is what I was trying to explain. If there are beings who would want to hurt me, then it is because it might bring some good to them. You don't need to go to absolutes here, just look at humans. When another occultist attacks me by sending malevolent spirit, it is done with intention to hurt me, which serves the occultist, but surely it's bad for me, right? If I destroy the spirit, the occultist wasted his time, bad for him, good for me who had gained some experience. f the occutist is doing that for money, then there is celar motivation, but if he fails, bad for him, surely for his reputation.

Even if you harm someone to make you feel better, you do it for feeling better. An irony, isn't it? Though the last thing you want to be known for is harming just for pleasure often, because then you become feared and suspected by others... Then your pleasure in fact becomes bad for you. Would be a stupid spirit who would be doing that.

That is why things like Larvae do that, they are brainless unintelligent parasites who induce emotions and ideas in your head, these are beings for example that are keeping people addicted to alcohol and stuff. Though they can be defeated with completely secular tools. They are just manifestation of addiction. No brain of their own.

 

[Nembra]

Perhaps a tangent, but there's actually an interesting line here: by what standard do you think is it decided that experience or money or reputation or any other thing is "good" for someone? Or "bad" for that matter?

 

[Morell]

Perhaps a tangent, but there's actually an interesting line here: by what standard do you think is it decided that experience or money or reputation or any other thing is "good" for someone? Or "bad" for that matter?

There is no objective standart, because good nad evil are subjective. They are matter of individual or matter of group. Even entire humanity is one limited group.

 

[HoldAll]

Rudolf Steiner used to call these Ahirmanic forces to mechanize and automatise authentic humans. But I'm also curious as to what's the end goal these forces have for bright, loving souls?

That's a victim's attitude to adopt. I don't see any dark forces at work around me, more like a frantic pushing and shoving of various self-interested groups mostly working at cross-purposes, sometimes forming alliances but mostly competing, influencing public opinion whenever it suits them but also depending on it to a certain degree, and subject to laws and regulations (provided they're unsuccessful getting around them). Lumping them all together under a sinister name like 'Ahrimanic forces' is too simplistic, in my opinion, and if all those corporations and organisations are nothing but tools and are supposed to pursue a common goal as dictated by their evil overlords, they're pretty inefficient at their job.

As individuals, we're all at the mercy of forces much larger than ourselves, from government agencies to corporations, and it has ever been thus. We depend on other people to grow our food, build our roads, provide emergency services, etc. It's understandable we feel helpless at times but that's just life.

It's also a defeatist and disempowering attitude. You still have agency. Rudolf Steiner proposed active strategies and methods to resist those Ahrimanic forces, his teachings were not meant as an excuse to throw up one's hands in despair and do nothing.

What's more, I think 'narcissists' is a poor choice of words. In popular culture, the concept has lost all meaning and is now mainly used in relationship spats where one partner would accuse the other of being a narcissist who in turn thinks the other one, in this case a 'bright loving soul', is a clingy immature person; it's yet another expression of helplessness. It would have sounded less maudlin had you used 'selfish bastards' and 'decent people'.

 

[Nembra]

There is no objective standart, because good nad evil are subjective. They are matter of individual or matter of group. Even entire humanity is one limited group.

Okay, it is subjective. That being said, what is it based on? What is the way of distinguishing that something is subjectively good for someone?

 

[Morell]

Okay, it is subjective. That being said, what is it based on? What is the way of distinguishing that something is subjectively good for someone?

Choice. Free will in other words.

 

[Nembra]

Choice. Free will in other words.

That is certainly a popular opinion. How comfortable, then, are you with the idea that nobody can ever be wrong about what's good for them which this approach implies?

 

[Morell]

That is certainly a popular opinion. How comfortable, then, are you with the idea that nobody can ever be wrong about what's good for them which this approach implies?

You assume that once set, the rules/values are unchangeable. A reasonable opinion, though for that to be true, the world would have to remain the same all the time too. In ever changing world we also have to adapt and "update" our morals and opinions of good and bad. Thins change, we change too.

Sometimes we find that what we considered good turns out to be bad, so we update our measures. Other way around too. It is still us who does that.

 

[Nembra]

You assume that once set, the rules/values are unchangeable. A reasonable opinion, though for that to be true, the world would have to remain the same all the time too. In ever changing world we also have to adapt and "update" our morals and opinions of good and bad. Thins change, we change too.

Sometimes we find that what we considered good turns out to be bad, so we update our measures. Other way around too. It is still us who does that.

I'm not exactly assuming that. A greedy man who thought accumulating wealth will satisfy him finding himself unhappy and realising all he ever yearned for was connection with another human is basically an archetype at this point. Nothing about the world had to change, all that was required was a bit of knowledge and a moment of insight.

My point is, humans can and often do decide to pursue things that were at no point able to make them happy. Doesn't everyone regret some things they have chosen as "good"?

 

[Morell]

My point is, humans can and often do decide to pursue things that were at no point able to make them happy. Doesn't everyone regret some things they have chosen as "good"?

Of course we do. There is no objective right or objective wrong. So there is no "blueprint" that can guide us. So we make mistakes and learn from them. Our knowledge is limited yet it is all we have and we use it as we think is good. And when we find out that it doesn't work, we "update."

 

[Nembra]

Of course we do. There is no objective right or objective wrong. So there is no "blueprint" that can guide us. So we make mistakes and learn from them. Our knowledge is limited yet it is all we have and we use it as we think is good. And when we find out that it doesn't work, we "update."

A mistake is a deviation from an intended path. Knowledge only helps when there are things to know. If what's good is chosen, then what does it mean for something to "not work"? Where does the requirement for update come from? If the only good is what we think is good, then how can it be possible to find that what we thought was bad when we thought it?