Why do people want to be puppet masters ?

[MarkusSweden]

I love when people are themselves. No matter what opinions or intentions people have, I support them, as long as it doesn't harm other people.

After all, you can't get to know a person if you don't let him/her be exactly the way he/she likes. 

I think people are fascinating and I'm always curios when I meet new people. 

The more they differs from me, the more interesting they are often. 

Openness, transparency and love are natural in any meeting. 

But many people also seek some kind of control over others? 

But why??

Isn't the burden to have power over oneself enough??

Why power over others? How can people see that as something they like to gain or posses? 

Its madness, isn't it? 

I mean, power, control?

What to do with it? That can never increase ones love and freedom. 

Rather the opposite, if you chain others to yourself, you also chain yourself to them. 

By power and control over others, there is always something to defend, always subtle threats. 

I do my best to give up power and control over myself just for love and freedom reasons. 

But most people go the opposite direction. 

Not only they are satisfied with control and power over themselves, they want ever more power and control, over others?!?! 

Utterly bizarre and impossible to understand? 

So, why is this? Why do people want to become puppet masters over their fellow beings? 

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[Joseph Maynor]

"The leader is the proxy-visionary for those who lack vision" -- Leo Gura

Edited February 10, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[MarkusSweden]

@Joseph Maynor Tnx Joseph, I look into it! 

I've seen it in the past, but that video is def worth a re-watch! 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

10 minutes ago, MarkusSweden said:

@Joseph Maynor Tnx Joseph, I look into it! 

I've seen it in the past, but that video is def worth a re-watch! 

 

Leo explains it so well.  

[Faceless]

Control over another is a reaction to fear of impermanence in ones self. The function of thought/the self, is to bring about by any means necessary the action to self sustain permanence be it physical & psychological. 

This function is to sustain a state of safety and security into the system. An attempt to acheive order. Only any movement to seek psychological security only leads to disorder and insecurity, conflict, therfore more fear and expressed reactions of volition to overcome a challenge.@MarkusSweden

[Joseph Maynor]

40 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Control over another is a reaction to fear of impermanence in ones self. The function of thought/the self, is to bring about by any means necessary the action to self sustain permanence be it physical & psychological. 

This function is to sustain a state of safety and security into the system. An attempt to acheive order. Only any movement to seek psychological security only leads to disorder and insecurity, conflict, therfore more fear and expressed reactions of volition to overcome a challenge.@MarkusSweden

ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE DO NOT LACK EGO -- THIS IS A REALLY RAMPANT MYTH 

Enlightened people do not lack ego.  That's a deep myth.  So many of us do not yet grok this.  Enlightened people are subject to the same egoic taunts, they just don't attach to them as much.  They're more conscious of them, whereas a lot of people are not even aware of the Ego.  Enlightened people have discovered a space between themselves and thoughts: a space that can be widened through work and meditation.

The ego might be illusory if it's not attached to.  In other words, you may perceive ego that's not in fact there.  If my behavior is categorizable by you as egoic, and I'm not attaching to egoic thoughts -- then I'm not acting egoically since I'm not attaching to what's happening.  It's just what's happening.  This is kind of a puzzling issue.   In other words -- someone may act egoically and yet be detached from ego.  

Edited February 10, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Monkey-man]

First of all, domination rises from need to survive. Any action of living organism is inherently action of survival. So any action is act of domination. Even bacterias dominate one another.

We as social animals evolved to survive in groups as it’s the most effective thing. Any social animals develop dominant-submissive hierarchies in their groups. Because when everyone are at the same level of dominance they just kill out each other. No one surrenders to no one. So it’s a conflict and fight, and death of the whole group. Thus only groups that evolved in the ‘scale’ from most dominant to most submissive, only they survived. hierarchy allows to avoid much fight and establish more cooperation, hence survival rate increases. Dominants have more chances to reproduce and more food, but submissive too have chances for that as they can take whatever left. And there’s almost always something left because the gap between the most dominant and the most submissive is bearable and not too big, because natural selection establishes some balance where all who was born has all chances to survive. The extremes haven’t been able to reproduce and didn’t send their genes. Hence power gap isn’t too big, nor too little, so usually everyone has its portion. Moreover, your group is the grant of your protection, all members grant each others protection, so this too adds benefits for hierarchy. Drawbacks come to be only among humans. It happens when self-awareness increases, then dominant may become too abusive for the group, submissive may want more resources than before. Hence war, dictatorship, enslavement and need for liberation. Greed and fear. Endlessly so. Another Drawbacks are that it’s possible that submissive may sometimes end up lacking food and reproduction partners, and dominants may need to use a lot of inner resources, energy to maintain their dominant lifestyle. Eventually dominant may even die much earlier than submissive. If they die earlier than usual that’s usually because dominant dies from getting overly exhausted, and submissive from hunger. In terms of modern day human, dominant would die from stress, and submissive from depression. 

If there’s no domination then no one is in power, no ruler, no one is government, it’s anarchy, chaos and fast death. If there’s too much domination then it’s dictatorship because power is the sweetest drug, then it’s rigid order, stagnation and slow death.

The scale from the most dominant to most submissive is also a scale from highest in serotonin to lowest in it. Also from highest in testosterone to lowest. Ppl have their natural lvl of hormones which will mark them on this hierarchical scale. Serotonin rises when you feel respected and admired by your social circle. For social animal, it’s a big thing to be respected by group because otherwise you are at risk of being kicked out coz you r useless for life of others and being alone you will be eaten by a tiger eventually. So When you have enough of serotonin you feel more peaceful coz your brain isn’t worried that you might be kicked out and killed.  if you don’t have enough serotonin then naturally you have a feeling to gain reputation and admiration, so you will go and try to achieve something prestigious. Even if u get it you might just get hooked and try to gain reputation again and again. You might have enough of serotonin naturally but still engage into roller coaster where it jumps up and down because u constantly engage in thoughts that ur status is at threat. So if you are being unconscious then nothing really can stop you from that. Only conscious life will not only harmonise your brain, but also can make you to realise that there’s less and less need to protect your image, hence less need to dominate someone. Egalitarianism is important consequence of evolution of consciousness. It’s not possible to establish real egalitarianism in highly unconscious society. You can’t get rid of domination need fully, but you certainly can develop less and less need for it. 

[MarkusSweden]

@Faceless Thats, brilliantly put! 

I had a feeling you would come up with a good answer..

 

[MarkusSweden]

@Monkey-man Great insights right there! Tnx man! 

[Faceless]

2 hours ago, MarkusSweden said:

@Faceless Thats, brilliantly put! 

I had a feeling you would come up with a good answer..

 

Can you see that movement in the self? How it flows.

[MarkusSweden]

@Faceless Extremely obvious how it works in me. 

I had so much control in life when I didn't seek for it, almost as my intuition or sub conscious took care of everything automatically. 

Then(for no reasons) I try to be more like other people and "control" my life for real. I start thinking and manipulating my reality and surrounding to have the control or become a "real" adult so to speak, only to find I lose control by aiming for control. 

Crazy, I though something was wrong with me because I WASN'T worried, as if I was too happy or free. I think love and intuition guided me. But somehow I thought this might not be conventional way of living. Maybe this is too much of a youth lifestyle, I should be more responsible or get more character(angry) like many in my age start developing. 

But I only lost control and innocence and compassion from trying to change and get power or mastery over my self and others. Stupid!

You see what I'm saying here Faceless? 

 

[Key Elements]

Some people can't change their paradigm. They just stick to whatever they feel comfortable because it feels safe and secure. It feels right. They don't know how to take risks in being successful in whatever endeavor because they don't know how to manage risks or learn how to manage risks. They assume all risks are reckless.

In this case, for this topic, the person may view the unknown person as a threat just because they are different or "weird" or give the person some kind of label.