i'v seen it myself

Who observed?


Without a set of predefined assumptions, views, ideas, beliefs,
It's impossible to take note,

everything we see, needs a philosophical backdrop, so our eyes are actually differentiating themselves from chicken eyes,

even chicken eyes, operate on a platform of info which tells the chicken to run or explore the site in front of it.

so our vision, without a ideological base to interact with, would be more like a video cam, calmly looking the charging bull straight in the horn until the bitter end,without even a slight consideration regarding it's imminent destruction.

Show the same picture to an infant- Like mind (a white canvas), at age 32, meaning, a fully developed brain without any outside influence (grew up solo on island),

Will he conclude anywhere close to your version of events? Hell no.

Let's say you two witness a none lethal robbery,

You will marvel at the cruelty of the gangster, because it's already concluded in your mindset, that backing out on your fellow human in order to prevent self harm (hunger, poverty) is wrong , unjustified,etc.

So you observed a robbery, while he observed a self preservation attempt.

Regardless of your actually being correct,it's unlikely, you have ever deliberated the issue, and concluded on your own that it is wrong, to begin with,
you never processed the questions at hand, you were educated by others that just like the sun illuminating our planet is fact #1,
Stealing, robbing, violence, being wrong, is fact #2.

Even if you were curious enough to process all angles of the conclusion above, every single behavioral factor deliberated, was based on outside education, and the reasoning involved was the reasoning of your parents, teachers, friends, from many generations, presented to you in a form (discipline), and at a time (infancy and on), where you were unable to examine and process them to either agree and support, or reject,

You simply did not have the tools (a collection of preset data to utilize, in your deliberations),

Neither was the idea of questioning your parents available, neither was questioning possible.

While in the above scenario you are correct with your concluding opinion regarding violence,

The above scenario was presented because of its simplicity,

Because it's clarity, in the lineup of human beliefs, it will score in the top one percent of truthful ones.

Now let's have a look at the single mom, resorting to crime for survival, she educated her infant all the way up to adulthood, that her violent behavior is a virtue (in order to look just and OK in the child's view ).

Now you two witness the robbery, while you are infuriated at the gangsters cruelty, he is in awe and admiration.

He wasn't exposed to any other preset data (mom was ensuring that) enabling him to deliberate factors in a realistic way.

The pain of the victim is simply insufficient, when he is not equipped with the processing tools to actually do something with it's impression.

He is not dumb, during the critical period of radical trust to mom, she instilled enough deception which he cannot ever question naturally, that now, they simply tell a different tale,

We all utilize intelligence when witnessing an event, regardless of its clear cut simplicity, otherwise we would be no more then a camera, unable to discern and react.

That intelligence, some of it's core ingredients, is consisting of previously acquired outside data,

Most of the outside data is not delivered to us in its proper packaging,
Theory is labeled as conclusions, opinions as beliefs, assumptions as facts,
And parental personal taste , Is given as universal reality (that is cute,good,bad,disgusting, nobody likes that, etc).

i still am baffled of the child i overheard asking her mother if what she was doing is fun or not

The criminal mom with the isolated child raised in the jungle, would be an extremely rare and unlikely case.

But if you dig deep and brave, you will find many similar situations where everything is very subtle and therefore complicated, there are labels on the shell that are strongly supported by the shallow superficial factors, but ounce you dive beneath the intimidating glamour of the surface, undeniable evidence will serve as an accurate description, of the items in question.

Me, and you, and everyone raised by humans, work with mega oceans of data, we adopted from others and accepted as undisputed fact without ever removing the packaging and inspecting it's contents.

they were presented as a finished product, back then, they could only serve us, as a finished product (mind not yet developed enough).

in our development, when we became ready to absorb finished facts, we weren't already capable to judge those facts, we couldn't even discern and detect, whether these facts are extreme opinions, beliefs, moms observations, a friend of mom, which mom trusts to be truthful and intelligent enough, skillful and capable enough, to absorb and deliver a narrative of accounts, in it's true reality.

So when you tell me again, I saw that myself, and I will ask you who saw, who that I is, I am not asking you who you are, even if you know who you are, that man (you) still didn't see that.

what happened is, whoever you are, borrowed his binoculars away, to his parent's and educators many generations back (the educators of your parent's, parent's of you educators and on and on), generously allowing his documentational capabilities, to serve their mindset another chance to judge a scenario at a location where their physical vision has not yet reached

The human miscommunication in your development is the one who sees most, that eye by the way, represents the nonexistent.

Don't forget that everything I wrote and will write, is a deceptive lie if perceived as fact,

I lack evidence all the time, all over, everywhere.

Theory, theory, food for thought, and again theory.

A slight hint of direction,

A possible elimination utility , to remove the more evident destructive options.

That's the most you will ever get out of my pen.