I've been thinking of some of the responses to the most recent post. My personal thoughts are that there will always be aspects of reality that are either difficult or perhaps even impossible for us to explain because of the limitations we have in terms of our limited awareness from moment to moment (limited ability to taken in all information without distortion), limitations in conceptualizing or rationalizing things (limitation on cognition in understanding the information we've received), and the inherent limitations of language (limitations in describing or understanding in a two-part communication). It's interesting the different ways that different cultures attempt to conceptualize, rationalize, or verbalize certain types of experience. I do not denigrate these attempts simply because the use a language to describe them that is not my own and does not jive completely with my experience of reality or what I think I know about reality from my education or other sources.
For example, I was recently exposed to some of the writings of self-described shaman Malidoma Patrice Somé. Short and sweet account -- he was taken from his African village while still a boy and educated in a white man's Catholic boarding school. When he was finally able to come back, he had lost most of his language and way of thinking from the village. The elders decided he had to go through the rites of becoming a man. One of his tasks, of "seeing" a tree, gives him great difficulty. One of the elders remarks:
Whatever he learned in the school of the white man must be hurting his ability to push through the veil. Something they did to him is telling him not to see this tree. But why would they do that? You cannot teach a child to conspire against himself. What kind of teacher would teach something like that? Surely the white man didn't do that to him. Can it be that the white man's power can be experiences only if he first buries the truth? How can a person have knowledge if he can't see?
Frustrated, he keeps at it for all of that day and into the next day. Finally, he sees the tree for the essence of who it is, such that becomes enraptured, consumed by it in a way that seemed pure and profound, an overwhelming love.
"My experience of 'seeing' the lady in the tree had worked a major change in the way I perceived things as well as my ability to respond to the diverse experiences that constituted my education in the open-air classroom of the bush. This change in perspective did not affect the logical, common-sense part of my mind. Rather, it operated as an alternative way of being in the world that competed with my previous mind-set — mostly acquired in the Jesuit seminary.
"My visual horizons had grown disproportionately. I was discovering that the eye is a machine that, even at its best, can still be improved, and that there is more to sight than just physical seeing. I began to understand that human sight creates its own obstacles, stops seeing when the general consensus says it should. But since my experience with the tree, I began to perceive that we are often watched at a close distance by beings we ourselves cannot see, and that when we do see these otherworldly beings, it is only after they have given us permission to see further — and only after they have made some adjustment in themselves to preserve their integrity. And isn't it true that there is something secret about everything and everybody?"
Is his version of a tree more or less real than most people's version of a tree? Each version is obviously affected greatly depending on what sort of narrative each person uses to explain their lives (see last post). To me, the interesting thing is not so much who is right, but how different each version could be and yet with certain advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of functioning in the world.
I once posted about how schizophrenia is dealt with in native tribes differently than we do. This shaman also has a different view of mental illness from the traditional western one:
In the shamanic view, mental illness signals “the birth of a healer,” explains Malidoma Patrice Somé. Thus, mental disorders are spiritual emergencies, spiritual crises, and need to be regarded as such to aid the healer in being born.
What those in the West view as mental illness, the Dagara people regard as “good news from the other world.” The person going through the crisis has been chosen as a medium for a message to the community that needs to be communicated from the spirit realm. “Mental disorder, behavioral disorder of all kinds, signal the fact that two obviously incompatible energies have merged into the same field,” says Dr. Somé. These disturbances result when the person does not get assistance in dealing with the presence of the energy from the spirit realm.
***
In the shamanic view, mental illness signals “the birth of a healer,” explains Malidoma Patrice Somé. Thus, mental disorders are spiritual emergencies, spiritual crises, and need to be regarded as such to aid the healer in being born.
What those in the West view as mental illness, the Dagara people regard as “good news from the other world.” The person going through the crisis has been chosen as a medium for a message to the community that needs to be communicated from the spirit realm. “Mental disorder, behavioral disorder of all kinds, signal the fact that two obviously incompatible energies have merged into the same field,” says Dr. Somé. These disturbances result when the person does not get assistance in dealing with the presence of the energy from the spirit realm.
This is obviously a different view from western thought. The western world might explain this by saying things like, people who struggle have more empathy for others who might be going through struggles themselves. I'm not sure which explanation is more correct, but it's interesting that they're so deeply engrained in the different cultures, a cultural blindness that limits one's ability to see or appreciate the different perspective.
I did like this open-mindedness regarding mental illness, though. Similarly:
“Just as we came in this world alone, so we remember alone. The elders who facilitate our act of remembering do not mind what we remember as long as we do exactly what we are supposed to do, according to our true nature.”
For a ton of related quotes from him, see here.
For example, I was recently exposed to some of the writings of self-described shaman Malidoma Patrice Somé. Short and sweet account -- he was taken from his African village while still a boy and educated in a white man's Catholic boarding school. When he was finally able to come back, he had lost most of his language and way of thinking from the village. The elders decided he had to go through the rites of becoming a man. One of his tasks, of "seeing" a tree, gives him great difficulty. One of the elders remarks:
Whatever he learned in the school of the white man must be hurting his ability to push through the veil. Something they did to him is telling him not to see this tree. But why would they do that? You cannot teach a child to conspire against himself. What kind of teacher would teach something like that? Surely the white man didn't do that to him. Can it be that the white man's power can be experiences only if he first buries the truth? How can a person have knowledge if he can't see?
Frustrated, he keeps at it for all of that day and into the next day. Finally, he sees the tree for the essence of who it is, such that becomes enraptured, consumed by it in a way that seemed pure and profound, an overwhelming love.
"My experience of 'seeing' the lady in the tree had worked a major change in the way I perceived things as well as my ability to respond to the diverse experiences that constituted my education in the open-air classroom of the bush. This change in perspective did not affect the logical, common-sense part of my mind. Rather, it operated as an alternative way of being in the world that competed with my previous mind-set — mostly acquired in the Jesuit seminary.
"My visual horizons had grown disproportionately. I was discovering that the eye is a machine that, even at its best, can still be improved, and that there is more to sight than just physical seeing. I began to understand that human sight creates its own obstacles, stops seeing when the general consensus says it should. But since my experience with the tree, I began to perceive that we are often watched at a close distance by beings we ourselves cannot see, and that when we do see these otherworldly beings, it is only after they have given us permission to see further — and only after they have made some adjustment in themselves to preserve their integrity. And isn't it true that there is something secret about everything and everybody?"
Is his version of a tree more or less real than most people's version of a tree? Each version is obviously affected greatly depending on what sort of narrative each person uses to explain their lives (see last post). To me, the interesting thing is not so much who is right, but how different each version could be and yet with certain advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of functioning in the world.
I once posted about how schizophrenia is dealt with in native tribes differently than we do. This shaman also has a different view of mental illness from the traditional western one:
In the shamanic view, mental illness signals “the birth of a healer,” explains Malidoma Patrice Somé. Thus, mental disorders are spiritual emergencies, spiritual crises, and need to be regarded as such to aid the healer in being born.
What those in the West view as mental illness, the Dagara people regard as “good news from the other world.” The person going through the crisis has been chosen as a medium for a message to the community that needs to be communicated from the spirit realm. “Mental disorder, behavioral disorder of all kinds, signal the fact that two obviously incompatible energies have merged into the same field,” says Dr. Somé. These disturbances result when the person does not get assistance in dealing with the presence of the energy from the spirit realm.
***
In the shamanic view, mental illness signals “the birth of a healer,” explains Malidoma Patrice Somé. Thus, mental disorders are spiritual emergencies, spiritual crises, and need to be regarded as such to aid the healer in being born.
What those in the West view as mental illness, the Dagara people regard as “good news from the other world.” The person going through the crisis has been chosen as a medium for a message to the community that needs to be communicated from the spirit realm. “Mental disorder, behavioral disorder of all kinds, signal the fact that two obviously incompatible energies have merged into the same field,” says Dr. Somé. These disturbances result when the person does not get assistance in dealing with the presence of the energy from the spirit realm.
This is obviously a different view from western thought. The western world might explain this by saying things like, people who struggle have more empathy for others who might be going through struggles themselves. I'm not sure which explanation is more correct, but it's interesting that they're so deeply engrained in the different cultures, a cultural blindness that limits one's ability to see or appreciate the different perspective.
I did like this open-mindedness regarding mental illness, though. Similarly:
“Just as we came in this world alone, so we remember alone. The elders who facilitate our act of remembering do not mind what we remember as long as we do exactly what we are supposed to do, according to our true nature.”
For a ton of related quotes from him, see here.
This reminds me a little of something I said before, that seniority or past personas being acted out by allegedly like minded individuals don't matter to me; they're the true authority of their own narratives, since naturally they would be their own kind of unique. What matters most to me is my own narrative, what that means for living my own life. It's about the sensations that are experienced, regardless of being "good" or "bad", for their is no such thing as a negative experience, only an experience that is a catalyst for change that you want out of life, and experiencing it with the people you choose to be with.
ReplyDelete"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." - Helen Keller
I think it is certainly true that the only real way to live is to follow your own true nature, even sociopathy. Otherwise, what else is there to live for? Being the kind of person you aren't instead of the sociopath you really are? I think we all deserve to enjoy life in a way that we personally find enriching and fulfilling.
ESTP Sociopath
"It's about the sensations that are experienced, regardless of being "good" or "bad", for their is no such thing as a negative experience, only an experience that is a catalyst for change that you want out of life, and experiencing it with the people you choose to be with."
DeleteBeautifully expressed.
"I think we all deserve to enjoy life in a way that we personally find enriching and fulfilling."
Right exists at the level of existence. We each have as much right to exist as the next person, creature or inanimate object. That is to say, there are no rights, only existence and the play of existence.
What follows is negotiation.
We negotiate with our environment to survive and thrive. It makes sense to adopt fulfilling and ever-improving practices for living, based on learnings from experience - at least, this makes sense for me.
I wanted to say a little more about "good" and "bad". On the previous post, I argued that the term "antisocial" is superior to the term "evil" because it is less emotive and more descriptive. M.E., your post has spun off a few more thoughts and connections that ESTP Sociopath has also contributed to.
Our ways of seeing the world and of experiencing it are framed in the language we use. Language - in this case, I'm referring specifically to labels and narrative - shape the way we understand experience, the way we process and learn from it* and how we communicate it.
M.E. made a post about narcissistic verbal abuse and the techniques used to define others. Labels do this too, they define how "reality" is experienced within a cultural group and thus what plays out.
Labels and narrative are essential for human communication, they are a pillar of our species' survival, allowing us to transmit complex concepts and collaborate.
The human brain is designed *to convince*. This is so important because it helps groups make better decisions on where to invest time, energy and resources. So yes, they are important.
And his is why I sometimes challenge regarding understanding of human sociality. The words we use around psychopathy shape the experience and dance of events that involve us all. Evolving our models - our narratives and labels - helps us create better practices for living in groups which contain psychopathic elements. For my mind and from my experience, I think ethics (what to do in any given situation) should stem from two key principles only (I draw from Thomas Szasz): freedom and responsibility. Naturally, we will continue to make laws and enforce them, as is our tendency and for good reason. Anon 3:14 writes "Our deeds is what counds." and this can be the only pragmatic course. Improving our understanding of human sociality across the neurodiversity spectrum provides us with a more adequate framework through which to collect experiential data and develop workable, enjoyable practices.
*Anon and I were discussing something similar but there are endless examples - would Neo have thought he were the One had Morpheus not inculcated that belief? Notice how Smith persists in calling him Mr Anderson - it is in part a battle of language
"Improving our understanding of human sociality across the neurodiversity spectrum provides us with a more adequate framework through which to collect experiential data and develop workable, enjoyable practices."
DeleteVery true. I'm constantly observing and learning more of how to better interact with the average normal person and their mindset, so that I might more efficiently live the kind of life I want to live while simultaneously minimizing losses. I do it constantly as I experience new individuals with their own unique way of existing.
I may have more to say of what you've written, but thanks for what you've contributed so far. It's appreciated, North.
ESTP Sociopath
Thanks ESTP, I'm always interested in reading more of your ideas.
Deletei do not think that anybody would argue against to being authentic to our nature and ourselves. Though, i do not believe that our nature and what we call 'self' is absolutely static , but i think it evolves dynamically with each decision we make in our lifes and the direction we take while we experiense our own reality.
ReplyDeleteSo i do not see any problem with sociopaths being the way they are in their internal world and the way they feel as long as their actions do not create problems to the people they interact with. Although by itself this entails an antiphasis ( if they do not create problems to people and society why to be called sociopaths then?)i expand this view to all people sociopathic or not.
Our deeds is what counds. In the long term we are what we repeatedly do and our repeated patterns of behaviour reflect finally our ever evolving nature.
Sociopaths are characterised like this becouse they cannot sustain for long some impulses even when they want to. So they follow the same patterns in cycles again and again. I suppose that this is the usual thing to happen , probably exceptions to the rule exist. I prefer for this reason the term 'psycopath' becouse it represents the internal world of an individual rather the external aspects of his behaviour.
In my own case the psycopath i was related to followed this pattern and while i always knew and still know and actually see that he never wanted us to separate he was completely incopetend or unwilling to act in long term in ways that could support a relationship with me. That was for sure very interesting to observe.
I see it as a big problem when anybody sociopathic or not lives an enriching and fulfillling life for himself with respect to his /her nature at the expense of other people. Either he does it covertly or overtly.
Looking at it from a humanistic or ethical point of view the fisrt problem is the violations inflicted upon other individuals which for me are unacceptable.
But even viewing this from a more selfish or hedonistic point of view , it is very problematic and not intelligent at all for the person itself to operate like this as finally all end up in a self destructive way becouse sooner or later this kind of behaviour is revealed and expelled.
i do not say that you do this as it is impossible for me to know it and you may very well be an individual who lives its nature in harmony with other people. I just express the thoughts that this post of yours created in my mind.
I don't necessarily burn everyone I touch; as much as I see it to be useful to usurp authority or violate the rights of others because my impulses dictate that's what's needed to be done to get what I want, I can also cooperate with them in a way that leaves them unscathed and gives me what I want out of the interaction. It's just mattet of whether or not I feel like there's enough incentive to do so.
ReplyDeleteESTP Sociopath
Incentive is key, along with moral code. These drive logical action.
DeleteThis is contrary to the empath, letting emotion drive their actions.
-Fellow Sociopath
A question: how do you recognise incentive?
DeleteThat which accomplishes my objective, makes me happy, or aids in sticking to my moral code. Sometimes these conflict. In those cases, what makes me happy in the moment often wins.
DeleteThe principle of diminishing return is the enemy of a sociopath. For example; I find out that a love interest gets happy and has sex with me when I buy her flowers. As a result, I buy her flowers every week. After a month, her excitement is diminished and I no longer get sex from it. This causes me to become frustrated and confused.
In a similar way, our happiness diminishes. But it diminishes much faster than an empaths. We need constant intellectual stimulation and new things to be happy. Maintaining our happiness tends to be difficult.
-Fellow Sociopath
Fellow Sociopath,
DeleteI believe North was asking how do we recognize what is YOUR incentive. The flower example you give obviously applies to sentimental neuro typical women.
Is the incentive for sociopaths as obvious as .. power .. sex .. money?
And if so, you must have subdivisions for those. How do we regonize what is part of your end goal?
That's a good questions OldAndWise. But I don't have a good answer for you. Just as anyone else, each sociopath is going to have his/her own agenda/objectives/moral code that they follow.
DeleteMy simple answer is that you simply won't know a sociopath's incentives unless they trust you and find it beneficial to tell you. But it can be hard to explain to an empath. Even an empath that is truly interested in learning cannot fathom a world where emotions are not a controlling force.
A sociopath's openness doesn't have to be malicious, either. A sociopath may open up to another if they believe it will strengthen the relationship, especially if an objective of theirs is to maintain that relationship.
As for me and my personal incentives/goals...I'd rather not get into that. :)
-Fellow Sociopath
A side point OldAndWise - you may be careful about the mindset that sociopaths are a safe to be cracked.
DeleteFor one, we aren't that simple or straightforward. For two, it can be offensive depending on the context. This is definitely the appropriate setting for that question, mind you.
Think of sociopaths as you would anyone else. We just have a less common personality. This mindset will help you in your relationships with sociopaths, at least from my point of view.
-Fellow Sociopath
http://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2013/06/07/money-sex-power-how-to-get-plenty-of-one/
Delete"In your personal life, how would you increase your travel budget when your partner is against it, obtain a refund after the warranty expired, or make an appeal to the most attractive person you’ve ever met to go on a first date with you? Your success in all these situations is dependent on your ability to negotiate.
Yes, you read correctly. If you want power, money, or influence, you must negotiate. Negotiation is not just for ABC’s Shark Tank contestants. Anytime you are trying to create an outcome with another individual or party, you negotiate."
Sociopaths, whatever their interests may be, are often if not always using diplomacy to get it; it is the social skill of getting along with others, compromising, and negotiation. It's often the safest route to take when manipulating (or really simply just for the sake of doing so, not necessarily for some antisocial desire) others, instead of seduction, intimidation, putting on haughty high society airs, etc. I find that through being diplomatic in interactions that I essentially create an emotional cushion for the other person to fall back on when they've seen they have been duped. Coming on to someone sexually, intimidating them into submission, using your savior fair to impress etc. might give an immediate strong reaction you want to get what you want out of relationships and life, but you can have equally bad consequences. A diplomatic sociopath sets the bar for success high enough to get what he wants, but not so high that if he falls he can't get back up.
It's not necessarily about some greater purpose, or power, sex, and money. Sometimes we even just want to spend quality time with an individual we adore, not because we want you for sex, money, or take any power from you for ourselves... but it can be. What are you willing to negotiate?
ESTP Sociopath
Can a duper be trusted to honestly stick to agreed upon negotiations?
DeleteThanks Fellow Sociopath, OldAndWise and ESTP Sociopath,
DeleteThese are all very interesting posts and I appreciate them.
Yesterday was interesting for a variety of reasons so haven't responded from an intellectual standpoint, which is what I had originally intended from the question. I had an emotive responsive to your posts which took me in quite a different, but also useful, direction. Still some "impacts to be worked out of my system."
Cheers
The sociopathic colleague I've referred to previously once pondered of having an open mind whether or not one loses their self if they are too open minded.
ReplyDeleteI wondered why that would be a bad thing. I deliberately allow new data to reshape my worldview.
M.E. has mentioned the more or less physical limitations to the broadness of perspective any one individual can hold.
How do these perspectives come together for me here?
We've spoken considerably about personal narrative. Narrative is most functional for helping us learn and let go, and for convincing. These help us flow through life. So development comes naturally when we allow this process in alignment with our own being. But these days, I've learnt to trust the subconscious regions of my brain and no longer feel it necessary to keep so much track of my self - what I do or like or "who" I am. I simply consider myself to be this organism.
I *do* have a model, a worldview, which necessitates limits to open-mindedness. Massive worldview changes are a phenomenal overhead: this is my second such experience and this is much more profound. But tweaking is continual. Big shifts for me require emotional burden - in fact this is *why* change is painful for most people - moving house, losing a dog, changing jobs. The brain is releasing old patterns / expectations and greasing new grooves.
But I don't discount another's narrative. I've listened when a friend told me they were hundreds of years old and when another told me he had met a Toltec who was also hundreds of years old. I haven't been in their shoes, nor do I have the model in their heads - but their narrative may hold more clues or at least teach me a little more about how their minds perceive things.
To observe is to create norms and criteria to establish an object of thought.
ReplyDeleteWhat is established by society is arbitrary, being influenced by the happenings and thinking of the period, and will manipulate the way of perceiving the world of those who are inserted in such society.
The world was perceived different by the Greeks as they did not have the word "blue", so they described the sea as being "red" or "purple". Perceived different by people nowadays in Northern Turkey who speak using whistles. By the one who painted a Down Syndrome child as an angel on Earth. And by the various cultures who killed twins as they were something mostly to be feared in their beliefs. By the people who now use echolocation, even not being blind. By animals who mostly use their smell as preferred way to perceive the world.
May be the neural wirings, may be the language. Other worlds will be mostly ineffable or unexplainable because we do not have what is needed to perceive as they do.
B.K.
Perception is reality. This is true on a much deeper level than most realize.
ReplyDeleteIt is theorized that an observer literally changes that which he observes. These changes would occur at a quantum level, imperceptible by our eyes.
That is why I believe the scientific theory, for instance, is flawed. The conclusion (hypothesis) is formed first. This in of itself changes the outcome, before the experiment can even begin. But how can you perform a study without having an objective?
Just some food for thought.
-Fellow Sociopath
Hi Fellow Sociopath,
DeleteI agree with your premises (primacy of perception and hypothesis formulation as a first step) but want to elaborate a little.
The epistemology I've arrived based on these premises. "Knowledge" is physical: neural pathways and muscle memory. The brain is a statistical machine, with experience being its input data. We create mental models of the world we are experiencing and we do this at all levels: our personal models or worldviews, social models which are shared understandings rooted in language and norms, and scientific models. Even a priori models are collaboratively developed and are maps of how our minds function.
These models are iteratively tested against sensory and experiential data and refined over lifetimes. However! there is a change overhead - changing neural pathways requires investment of energy so if a worldview is allowing an organism to survive and thrive, there's little value in changing it for the sake of potentially improved happiness levels. Those shortcut mechanisms we've previously discussed come into play, along with the "ego", especially when an individual's personal model of the world is challenged - developing it has been a massive investment and it is *closely* linked to beliefs and safety. The brainstem very carefully watches over the organism's moment-to-moment operation in the environment and physical threats or threats to the personal model / beliefs. Hence comes the strong survival reactions of fear and anger (fight, flight, freeze.)
Emotions do drive behaviour based on our beliefs (personal models) and inherent tendencies for social collaboration / other innate human behavioural patterns.
What I'm saying is that much knowledge and much behaviour is driven subconsciously.
The cortex is an integrator and planner. Much of our thinking is post-facto rationalisation of decisions made at the level of the mammalian brain. I have to quote William Gibson again because he puts it so beautifully (interestingly, this is a sociopathic character speaking)
"You ‘know’ in your limbic brain. The seat of instinct. The mammalian brain. Deeper, wider, beyond logic. That is where advertising works, not in the upstart cortex. What we think of as ‘mind’ is only a sort of jumped-up gland, piggybacking on the reptilian brainstem and the older, mammalian mind, but our culture tricks us into recognizing it as all consciousness. The mammalian spreads continent-wide beneath it, mute and muscular, attending its ancient agenda. And makes us buy things."
This resonated with me very powerfully because I had acted from very deep drivers within me that my cortex had no understanding of. My lower brain centres had been thwarted by my inadequate personal models for too long; for too long I restrained my own action.
My earlier question was seeking to elicit your experiences of incentive and impulse. I am interested in adapting my model to fit additional data across the neurodiversity spectrum.
And my practical interest is this interplay between worldview and impulses, both in myself and for others. It's a very pragmatic question: I've found that one does need these models (personal, social, and so on) to effectively function - but they can be constraining if too prescriptive or limiting. And it's best to be open to new data.
http://youtu.be/BaF-pGyKaOg
ReplyDeleteESTP Sociopath
Yes, that's what it felt like. See ya later. It was a relief to end it, to not have him phoning me every morning. He was bored by the end and very boring himself.
DeleteI asked him why he didn't let me go sooner. He said he couldn't. I pointed out that he had run through those typical stages: idealise, devalue, discard. He said "Yes" with rising intonation, as if it were the most natural thing in the world - of course he did that. I feel that he's fully aware of his psychopathy, yet not aware at all of how that plays out in a social context - completely self-absorbed, just as the girl is in the clip. He said "sometimes I get confused." I asked why he had pushed so hard for his fantasies when I was clearly distressed: he said he was teasing me. I had said he was stretching me with all his wild fantasies. He said he was learning a lot from me: I don't know what the fuck he learnt because 18 months later and he still had no clue what was in my head and he was coming with the same old seduction play.
Fellow Sociopath described above how he would give flowers to a love interest because she would sleep with him. It was similar with him; he was positioning to break off the relationship as a day-to-day thing, gradually bringing in religious considerations, saying "you banged me" as if he were feeling guilty for cheating; things like that. He later said "we have to stop sinning" and cried (you can't script it: I was visiting him in hospital and a priest came to visit him, gave him communion). He said "You can be my counsellor." Needless to say I fucking lost it at that point. It's so clear he wanted me on stand-by so to speak, to come back to whenever he was bored. I'm sure his previous women were in this position because he would say to me "I know someone who *will* give me my fantasy" etc. I was like, fine, you are so not getting that with me. The jealousy thing never worked with me - I don't understand why he would try that; we weren't in a monogamous relationship. Duh.
It's all just so strange. I can understand what you mean by operating from logic - but, you know and please don't be offended by this - we all operate from logic in the sense that we plan our actions. It's more like he is planning without any real understanding (because he doesn't experience life like I do); it's constructing an argument without all the premises. No matter how good he was at reverse engineering me to start with; it wasn't sufficient. He *did* put effort into it, and he tried to seduce me again many times. But I'd seen through it. It wasn't going to work, yet he kept trying with the same angle.
I sometimes still feel angry. And he runs away from me. I don't hate him; there's lots of things I like about him.
But maybe I do want more now. Maybe I'm seeing I can have better relationships, that I don't need to settle for interesting and exciting when coupled with abuse. I'm learning that my own impulses, my own direction is very effective, that my own agency is more than sufficient and that I *like* connecting with people. I've always been capable; now I feel I'm growing into the emotional aspects of my being and they are a vast resource, not something I must fight against or be confused by.
He didn't seem to understand that I was evolving with the situation and that my situation changed immensely from the time I first knew him. He didn't read that at all, he was satisfied with his static model of me because it was successful enough in getting me hooked.
DeleteYou might easily say that he just didn't care. But he took on additional work so that he could see me - he said that he came to the office only to see me and that fits with his patterns of behaviour.
He stopped trying after I left a note on his car saying I enjoyed seeing him and he could come and find me whenever he liked. Which is how I felt. He actively avoided me from then on.
It's so funny, because the whole time in the relationship I was encouraging him to be open to new ways of doing things. I encouraged his creativity in this respect. He did try, actually I was amazed with what he came up with. But it wasn't sufficient for him. He wanted me to do what he wanted, to dance to his tune.
When he gave up, he called it stalemate. He was kinder then, and took his substitute prize. Which I'd have given him far earlier had he not been stuck in his rigid view of the "game".
From my perspective, I always felt he was limiting himself with his own stubbornness. I wanted to collaborate; man, we could have achieved so much, experienced such an amazing journey.
Stuck in his stupid, limited, endlessly repeating game. I used to say to him: cap ou pas cap? He was never game. God forbid he see a world beyond his own conception.
I suppose that was the power of his lie: I believed he was capable. He broke my heart and revelled in my pain but he lost a game he designed, that operated only inside his mind. I didn't beat him. Love is not a victory march. It's a richness and vibrant colour and kaleidoscope. And it's a cold and broken hallelujah.
He pulled from me what I am really capable of. It's up to me to slowly grow into that. My experience with him was a gift, even if I still cry sometimes. He may have had fleeting pleasure with me, alleviation of his ennui. So be it. He broke my trust, but showed me I was capable of it. He conquered areas of my landscape I didn't know existed - and from there, wildflowers are springing.
I have grown from this experience.
Adaptability? Sorry. I don't buy it, not in his case. He can move fluidly in social situations but he is not adaptable to information that doesn't fit his view of the world. And he misses out on opportunities as a result.
Or perhaps I'm being harsh. It may simply be that "never the twain shall meet."
DeleteI often wonder if the act of duplicity itself shuts down areas of the mind and if only one could curb the need it would somehow free the to experience things they have been blocked from.
DeleteThe assult to one's free will is always just that, an assault, never a victory. No one has that power.
DeleteThat's a useful view. Duplicitousness diminishes free will because it makes choices seem attractive that simply aren't a decent value proposition at all. 'False advertising' in his own language.
Delete@Anon 5:21
DeleteInteresting.
M.E. has talked of being more direct and less manipulative. I wonder if she or anyone could report some results from such experiments.
My experience was a bit different. In no way shape or form would they admit any lies or misleading behavior took place. I wonder what the purpose is. I think self preservation is always first and foremost. But I wonder if it is also a safeguard to keep oneself in a certain mindset. All parties involved. It is a warping of reality that makes me wonder how one doesn't permanently slip away.
DeleteI see.
Delete"It is a warping of reality that makes me wonder how one doesn't permanently slip away."
Do you mean that the language used would affect his own understanding of reality?
" I think self preservation is always first and foremost. But I wonder if it is also a safeguard to keep oneself in a certain mindset."
I feel that these are related. Perhaps not at a conscious or logical level but at a wiring level.
There were lots of blanket type statements that I believe were meant to trick their mind as well as mine. Almost a religious fervor that I was expected to believe. And also not knowing as well as underestimating one's audience.
DeleteI had to see good and bad with my own eyes to realize it is an illusion.
ReplyDelete������
DeleteGood or Bad aren't pure illusions based on nothing valid.
ReplyDeleteThere is primary states of suffering and non suffuring.
Good would be whats pleasant for me, whereas bad would be what hurts me.
Empathy helps to project that onto everything surrounding: Rocks, plants, animals and humans.
It gave the ethic of reciprocity, The law of retaliation, Animism etc...
The problems is that all the notions are inherited and remain while the ones who perceived their necessity are constantly dying. Sometimes it looked arbitrary and maybe it is for the heirs, but fondamently those notions are not baseless.
The suffering of an ancient woman giving birth is the same ( so its still bad) but the perceptions of modern woman influenced by the fear of suffering or its absence( "doctors are going to take good care of me")is different . There is a sense of BAD appeased by our lifestyle.This BAD is not a complete illusion.
-SH8
I may not be able to leave the pain of my body but I do not have to continue to let the pain be entertained by my mind.
DeleteAnon 10:40-I LOVE YOUR COMMENT!!! SO TRUE!!! MIND OVER BODY-MIND OVER MATTER!!!
DeleteSo you choose to ignore what exists thinking it does'nt. This is the illusion.
Deletemind over matter... Do we truely shape anything or are we shaping what's anyways possible for us to shape.
-SH8
"This is contrary to the empath, letting emotion drive their actions."
ReplyDeleteSociopaths keep repeating this like a whole lot of other unfounded claims. Empaths aren't driven by their emotions mostly. Emotions (aka a heart) is our - humanity's - link with each other. It unites people and puts limits on our willingness to abuse other people's rights. When you see someone who does something which seems to you be emotionally driven and stupid - you think they would have done what you would have done had they not been obliged by their emotions. The truth is they're happy people BECAUSE of their emotionally alive interior and don't CARE to get what you so desperately need. YOU folks are lacking something and subconsciously you know but since you're too arrogant to accept that, you lie to yourselves by saying you're special and then you screw people you envy because they're perfectly happy without having to chase money, power and sex all the time.
Buying flowers to get sex is a good example of a sociopath's retardation. He keeps buying flowers like a robot but never realizes what the whole purpose of doing so is. Traditional cultures don't have this superficial nonsense yet people live happily together til death. If you're spouse knows you genuinely care about them they won't give a damn if you EVER bought them anything (unless they're socio themselves).
Sex for me is an expression of love. If I love you and know you love me, your genuine smile gives an orgasmic shock. Sex is my way of giving you as much pleasure as your body can handle. I'm in control but everything I do is intended to please you, not me, yet I could not enjoy it more any other way. That is true bliss and it's lasting. Not this madness called sociopathy.
It's bad enough that you folks are deluded yourselves but you just can't help yourselves and keep spreading your BS to others. Turn around before you're nothing but a clever ape being used like a cheap slave by your *dogs.*
Jonaid
ReplyDeleteYour judgement, contempt and ability to ignore the splinters in your own eyes speaks volumes to your real lack of self awareness.
Jonaid
ReplyDeleteYour judgement, contempt and ability to ignore the splinters in your own eyes speaks volumes to your real lack of self awareness.