In my last post, I wrote about my strange, new(ish) obsession with true crime - particularly, murder. I intend to elaborate a little in this post, focusing on the worst of the worst crimes and the people that commit them - serial killers. I think we, as a society or even just as a species, are fascinated by these people because most of us cannot fathom what makes them do what they do - why, if they were born just as innocent and precious as the rest of us, they grew up to become such horrible monsters of beings. What allows someone to commit such horrific acts?
I am interested in these questions because they are the last frontier, in my mind, of understanding/comprehending the human mind/soul. I seem to be able to understand, at least to some extent, the emotions, desires and mentality behind all other human behaviors and actions, but not behind those behaviors and actions that we tend to characterize as 'pure evil'. Maybe by understanding it, we can attempt to change it somehow, and eradicate those behaviors and actions altogether. Of course, that is a lofty hope. But one must have hope.
The other day, while washing my dishes and cooking dinner, I watched two different documentaries: one on Ted Bundy, the U.S. serial killer from the 1970's-early 1980's who attacked young women, often in their beds, to rape and murder them and was caught, tried, sentenced and executed in 1989; the other on Jeffrey Dahmer, the U.S. serial killer from the late 1970's-early 1990s who lured men into his home for sex, then he killed them, dissected and dismembered them, keeping some of their body parts as souvenirs and, on some occasions, he also cannibalized parts of them. In both documentaries, there were interviews with the serial killers. One could really get the sense for their personality in these interviews.
On the surface, Dahmer's murders seem much more horrific than Bundy's because of what he did with the bodies. Not only did Dahmer kill his victims, but he used their bodies for sexual pleasure (he was a "necrophiliac"). It is true that in even some cases, Dahmer's acts can be considered acts of torture since, for certain victims, he began to desecrate their bodies before they were actually dead - such as when he performed his so-called "experiments" in an attempt to create "living zombies". To perform these "experiments", Dahmer would first elicit his victims unconscious, then drill a hole into their skull and inject acid into their brains. This, of course, did not work to make "living zombies" and instead, killed his victims entirely (although it is uncertain how long this process of dying took), which caused Dahmer to continue with his usual dismemberment and other activities. His intention, however, was not about causing the victim pain, but to create an absolutely submissive lover who could never leave him. This, of course, was a fantasy that he could never fulfill despite his extreme and horrific attempts.
In contrast, Ted Bundy merely attacked, raped and brutally murdered his victims, leaving their bodies to be discovered by others, then analyzed by crime scene investigators and autopsy physicians. Surely, then, Ted Bundy is less horrific a serial killer than Jeffrey Dahmer? After watching the two documentaries with the interviews with their respective killers, I would suggest that this is not necessarily the most accurate conclusion to make. Clearly, both killers have absolutely no respect for the lives of their victims, and that each of them sees their victims more as objects to be taken for their own pleasure than other conscious beings that could easily be reflections of themselves, such as the rest of us tend to be able to do when we interact with others. However, after these similarities, I believe that Bundy and Dahmer diverge in their personalities and moral consciences.
Watching Bundy in his TV appearances at the time of his arrests, then his behavior at his trial (as he decided to defend himself in court), and finally, his last interview before his execution, I believe he is the quintessential psycho/sociopath. He is charming, intelligent, manipulative, arrogant, attention-hoarding, and is completely without the ability to empathize or have remorse. It is likely that he does not feel that he is culpable of wrongdoing, despite the fact that he "knows" right from wrong - he just doesn't see anything wrong with himself. Even though he appears to take responsibility for his acts and appears to repent in his last interview, I believe that it is still his manipulative, psychopathic personality reigning through in an attempt to somehow attract sympathy from the public in his death. I don't believe him at all. His words say one thing (remorse, etc) while the rest of his face and body say something different (indifference, self-assurance, arrogance, etc). To me, Bundy is the worst of the worst in that he is unable to take true moral inventory of himself and his actions, and thus, it is almost like he has no soul at all. I will return to this thought later.
Dahmer's interviews show a markedly different man than Ted Bundy. Dahmer does not have the same arrogance as Bundy, although his behavior in his killings would suggest that he believed himself exempt from apprehension. I am not entirely sure that's true, though, either. He may have just been so overwhelmed with his compulsion that it didn't matter to him whether or not he was caught - maybe that never really crossed his mind as something about which to be concerned. In any case, psychologists that analyzed Dahmer paint a picture of a lonely man who had no understanding or interest in real human interaction, but who did have a fascination both with death and body parts. In fact, his fascination with these inanimate or previously animate objects began to arouse him at an early age. It may be that his upbringing in the Church, which taught him that his homosexual desires were the work of the devil, caused him to believe himself to be of the evil because he had those desires, urges that might have begun at an early age. Believing his sexuality is evil, and finding that he could have complete control over that which is dead and/or inanimate - control, which he had nowhere else in his life - he somehow linked these two things together and thus, his sexual fantasies escalated to increasingly deviant behaviors. He knew, however, that these fantasies were wrong and 'evil', so to deal with having them, he drank. Apparently, he drank heavily, even as a young teenager. Eventually, however, the drinking couldn't hold back these desires, likely because he couldn't change them into healthier desires, and thus, he began his horrific murderous rampage.
It may be clear that I actually have some slight sympathy for Jeffrey Dahmer. My sympathy is in his self-hatred. He clearly believed himself to be 'evil' - he even said so in his sentencing hearing. He had believed himself to be the devil. I believe this was probably ingrained in his consciousness since he was a child when he might have begun to have some sexual fantasies about other boys and men, learning from the church that these feelings were somehow derived from the devil. I sympathize with that. Clearly, I don't sympathize with where he went with those feelings, but then again, I didn't have his upbringing, nor do I have his genetics/biology - there is likely a neurobiological component. He also doesn't come across as particularly intelligent, as opposed to Bundy. He was intelligent enough to understand dissection, but either was incapable of academic success or was unable to succeed primarily due to his alcoholism, in either case, it left him without much education or intellectuality. Lastly, he showed a genuine sort of remorse in his interviews. Despite the mostly indifferent manner in which he described his actions, he understood that he hurt people and that there was something wrong with him. He hoped that scientists could study him to find out what it is that was wrong with him. Altogether, these characteristics indicate to me that Jeffrey Dahmer was less psychopathic than Ted Bundy, despite his more societal taboo and horrifically deviant behaviors (such as cannibalism). I believe that had he had a different childhood, Jeffrey Dahmer might not have become the horrific serial killer he was. I am less confident that a different childhood could have shaped Ted Bundy differently.
Returning to the concept of a soul, I suppose I would say that Jeffrey Dahmer appeared to have some sort of tortured soul, yet Ted Bundy seemed empty of any conscience at all, which I would say is your soul. My recent "spiritual awakening" has led me to believe that there are two parts of our consciousness - one that is created by the physical body, and also dies with the physical body, and one that is eternal, a fraction of which lives this life attached to this physical body, interacting with the consciousness of this body, and hopefully becoming the primary consciousness driving the functions and behaviors of this physical body. Therefore, in the cases of psychopaths with seemingly no consciences, I believe that these people have lost the control of their eternal, "higher" consciousness almost entirely to their body's physical consciousness, which has no necessity for others and merely acts in its own interest for its own survival and pleasure. What happens to their 'eternal consciousness' (a.k.a. soul/conscience, etc.)? Well, I suppose I believe it left at some point during their life (childhood, maybe?) - or was suppressed to such a low, hidden level that it essentially became obsolete, unable to gain any control. I am not at all certain I know. Well, in some instances, I believe they learned how to "dissociate" this consciousness as a survival mechanism during childhood, resulting in a substantial loss of it in adulthood (based on the theories behind "dissociative identity disorder").
The idea of two consciousnesses associated with the living being is not an original concept. I have read about it from several different sources now (Michael Newton's "life between lives" hypnosis research; ancients like Plato, Descartes, etc.), so I have begun to integrate it into my understanding of the universe. If everything is made of whatever consciousness is (as I describe in my "theory of everything"), then of course there is a consciousness that is created by the accumulation of parts (cells/molecules/atoms/particles) that make up the human body. This bodily-derived consciousness, thus, should not exist beyond the lifetime of the body as a whole, since when the body dies, each part (cell/molecule/atom/sometimes particles) degrades and is recycled for future use in another form (becoming part of the dirt, then maybe a flower, or a worm, etc, eaten by and synthesized into a bird, etc.), thus, causing the break-up of that consciousness into smaller parts. However, I believe that there is also another, more cohesive and higher-purpose-driven consciousness, one with greater resonance and thus, greater capacity of love, that exists as a whole for eternity. It is this consciousness that I believe each of us have inside of us that is directly derived from "the source" (a.k.a. God/the creator/the information that creates the universe/etc.) and develops through experiences of lifetimes and eventually returns to "the source" for recombination and renewal. Then it all repeats again, forever.
Well, I diverted a little in that last paragraph or two. I think it was necessary, though, in order to explain how it could be that someone (such as a psychopath) could not really have a soul/conscience. I don't know how many people out there that this truly applies to, but I do believe that we can have different amounts of conscience/soul in us, and that some of us do not have very much at all. I think it's sad and what not, but it is mostly scary and one must be able to learn how to spot it and avoid interaction with these people. Unfortunately, I don't think someone like Ted Bundy can be rehabilitated without a miracle. I'm not sure if Jeffrey Dahmer could've been rehabilitated, either, but I do feel like he might have been diverted from serial killing had he had a more overtly loving and accepting childhood. [I have good reasons for this belief, but I will have to share those in a different post...] However, I do not intend to "blame" his parents or caregivers. I think they probably did the best that they knew how at the time, but that Jeffrey was of a particular make that he needed more.
Therefore, I believe we all need to keep trying to figure out how we can love more and better, but also to love ourselves enough to avoid those who cannot love at all.
On the surface, Dahmer's murders seem much more horrific than Bundy's because of what he did with the bodies. Not only did Dahmer kill his victims, but he used their bodies for sexual pleasure (he was a "necrophiliac"). It is true that in even some cases, Dahmer's acts can be considered acts of torture since, for certain victims, he began to desecrate their bodies before they were actually dead - such as when he performed his so-called "experiments" in an attempt to create "living zombies". To perform these "experiments", Dahmer would first elicit his victims unconscious, then drill a hole into their skull and inject acid into their brains. This, of course, did not work to make "living zombies" and instead, killed his victims entirely (although it is uncertain how long this process of dying took), which caused Dahmer to continue with his usual dismemberment and other activities. His intention, however, was not about causing the victim pain, but to create an absolutely submissive lover who could never leave him. This, of course, was a fantasy that he could never fulfill despite his extreme and horrific attempts.
In contrast, Ted Bundy merely attacked, raped and brutally murdered his victims, leaving their bodies to be discovered by others, then analyzed by crime scene investigators and autopsy physicians. Surely, then, Ted Bundy is less horrific a serial killer than Jeffrey Dahmer? After watching the two documentaries with the interviews with their respective killers, I would suggest that this is not necessarily the most accurate conclusion to make. Clearly, both killers have absolutely no respect for the lives of their victims, and that each of them sees their victims more as objects to be taken for their own pleasure than other conscious beings that could easily be reflections of themselves, such as the rest of us tend to be able to do when we interact with others. However, after these similarities, I believe that Bundy and Dahmer diverge in their personalities and moral consciences.
Watching Bundy in his TV appearances at the time of his arrests, then his behavior at his trial (as he decided to defend himself in court), and finally, his last interview before his execution, I believe he is the quintessential psycho/sociopath. He is charming, intelligent, manipulative, arrogant, attention-hoarding, and is completely without the ability to empathize or have remorse. It is likely that he does not feel that he is culpable of wrongdoing, despite the fact that he "knows" right from wrong - he just doesn't see anything wrong with himself. Even though he appears to take responsibility for his acts and appears to repent in his last interview, I believe that it is still his manipulative, psychopathic personality reigning through in an attempt to somehow attract sympathy from the public in his death. I don't believe him at all. His words say one thing (remorse, etc) while the rest of his face and body say something different (indifference, self-assurance, arrogance, etc). To me, Bundy is the worst of the worst in that he is unable to take true moral inventory of himself and his actions, and thus, it is almost like he has no soul at all. I will return to this thought later.
Dahmer's interviews show a markedly different man than Ted Bundy. Dahmer does not have the same arrogance as Bundy, although his behavior in his killings would suggest that he believed himself exempt from apprehension. I am not entirely sure that's true, though, either. He may have just been so overwhelmed with his compulsion that it didn't matter to him whether or not he was caught - maybe that never really crossed his mind as something about which to be concerned. In any case, psychologists that analyzed Dahmer paint a picture of a lonely man who had no understanding or interest in real human interaction, but who did have a fascination both with death and body parts. In fact, his fascination with these inanimate or previously animate objects began to arouse him at an early age. It may be that his upbringing in the Church, which taught him that his homosexual desires were the work of the devil, caused him to believe himself to be of the evil because he had those desires, urges that might have begun at an early age. Believing his sexuality is evil, and finding that he could have complete control over that which is dead and/or inanimate - control, which he had nowhere else in his life - he somehow linked these two things together and thus, his sexual fantasies escalated to increasingly deviant behaviors. He knew, however, that these fantasies were wrong and 'evil', so to deal with having them, he drank. Apparently, he drank heavily, even as a young teenager. Eventually, however, the drinking couldn't hold back these desires, likely because he couldn't change them into healthier desires, and thus, he began his horrific murderous rampage.
It may be clear that I actually have some slight sympathy for Jeffrey Dahmer. My sympathy is in his self-hatred. He clearly believed himself to be 'evil' - he even said so in his sentencing hearing. He had believed himself to be the devil. I believe this was probably ingrained in his consciousness since he was a child when he might have begun to have some sexual fantasies about other boys and men, learning from the church that these feelings were somehow derived from the devil. I sympathize with that. Clearly, I don't sympathize with where he went with those feelings, but then again, I didn't have his upbringing, nor do I have his genetics/biology - there is likely a neurobiological component. He also doesn't come across as particularly intelligent, as opposed to Bundy. He was intelligent enough to understand dissection, but either was incapable of academic success or was unable to succeed primarily due to his alcoholism, in either case, it left him without much education or intellectuality. Lastly, he showed a genuine sort of remorse in his interviews. Despite the mostly indifferent manner in which he described his actions, he understood that he hurt people and that there was something wrong with him. He hoped that scientists could study him to find out what it is that was wrong with him. Altogether, these characteristics indicate to me that Jeffrey Dahmer was less psychopathic than Ted Bundy, despite his more societal taboo and horrifically deviant behaviors (such as cannibalism). I believe that had he had a different childhood, Jeffrey Dahmer might not have become the horrific serial killer he was. I am less confident that a different childhood could have shaped Ted Bundy differently.
Returning to the concept of a soul, I suppose I would say that Jeffrey Dahmer appeared to have some sort of tortured soul, yet Ted Bundy seemed empty of any conscience at all, which I would say is your soul. My recent "spiritual awakening" has led me to believe that there are two parts of our consciousness - one that is created by the physical body, and also dies with the physical body, and one that is eternal, a fraction of which lives this life attached to this physical body, interacting with the consciousness of this body, and hopefully becoming the primary consciousness driving the functions and behaviors of this physical body. Therefore, in the cases of psychopaths with seemingly no consciences, I believe that these people have lost the control of their eternal, "higher" consciousness almost entirely to their body's physical consciousness, which has no necessity for others and merely acts in its own interest for its own survival and pleasure. What happens to their 'eternal consciousness' (a.k.a. soul/conscience, etc.)? Well, I suppose I believe it left at some point during their life (childhood, maybe?) - or was suppressed to such a low, hidden level that it essentially became obsolete, unable to gain any control. I am not at all certain I know. Well, in some instances, I believe they learned how to "dissociate" this consciousness as a survival mechanism during childhood, resulting in a substantial loss of it in adulthood (based on the theories behind "dissociative identity disorder").
The idea of two consciousnesses associated with the living being is not an original concept. I have read about it from several different sources now (Michael Newton's "life between lives" hypnosis research; ancients like Plato, Descartes, etc.), so I have begun to integrate it into my understanding of the universe. If everything is made of whatever consciousness is (as I describe in my "theory of everything"), then of course there is a consciousness that is created by the accumulation of parts (cells/molecules/atoms/particles) that make up the human body. This bodily-derived consciousness, thus, should not exist beyond the lifetime of the body as a whole, since when the body dies, each part (cell/molecule/atom/sometimes particles) degrades and is recycled for future use in another form (becoming part of the dirt, then maybe a flower, or a worm, etc, eaten by and synthesized into a bird, etc.), thus, causing the break-up of that consciousness into smaller parts. However, I believe that there is also another, more cohesive and higher-purpose-driven consciousness, one with greater resonance and thus, greater capacity of love, that exists as a whole for eternity. It is this consciousness that I believe each of us have inside of us that is directly derived from "the source" (a.k.a. God/the creator/the information that creates the universe/etc.) and develops through experiences of lifetimes and eventually returns to "the source" for recombination and renewal. Then it all repeats again, forever.
Well, I diverted a little in that last paragraph or two. I think it was necessary, though, in order to explain how it could be that someone (such as a psychopath) could not really have a soul/conscience. I don't know how many people out there that this truly applies to, but I do believe that we can have different amounts of conscience/soul in us, and that some of us do not have very much at all. I think it's sad and what not, but it is mostly scary and one must be able to learn how to spot it and avoid interaction with these people. Unfortunately, I don't think someone like Ted Bundy can be rehabilitated without a miracle. I'm not sure if Jeffrey Dahmer could've been rehabilitated, either, but I do feel like he might have been diverted from serial killing had he had a more overtly loving and accepting childhood. [I have good reasons for this belief, but I will have to share those in a different post...] However, I do not intend to "blame" his parents or caregivers. I think they probably did the best that they knew how at the time, but that Jeffrey was of a particular make that he needed more.
Therefore, I believe we all need to keep trying to figure out how we can love more and better, but also to love ourselves enough to avoid those who cannot love at all.
