Our partner

Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Schizoid Personality Disorder message board, open discussion, and online support group.

Moderator: Tyler

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:20 am

1PolarBear wrote:Plenty of people believe in those things, but they are able to compartmentalize, so it does not affect them in every day life. My opinion is that those things are actually more born out of experience and inappropriate interpretation, more than some sort of act of faith as their definition might suggest.


So then, once this type of thinking transfers into emotions / distress overwhelming enough to constitute compulsive behaviors, it becomes a type of OCD?

If so, then where is the line between what we're talking about and intrusive thoughts?

Yes, when it interferes. Without going into detail, I'll say my experiences with "odd beliefs" can interfere.
Not enough to stop me from functioning, but it sure as hell can slow things down and/or complicate very simple things.
I've had the schizoaffective disorder dx more than once before, but I've also dropped it more than once. I haven't been considered SZA in approximately 2+ years (I'm bad with tracking time due to dissociative / partially dissociative states).
Currently, they look at this part of me more in a way of who I am and coping mechanisms.

When you say "born out of experience and inappropriate interpretation," I'm assuming you mean?
^
Image

Which I think you're saying is not the same thing as schizotypal "odd belief" thinking.
^
But since the DSM is only really interested in labeling, what if that was to be the actual cause of it? And if not, then what?

1PolarBear wrote:More about choosing to be understood or not. Be true to yourself and not be understood, or be understood and having to lie by cutting corners.


This is particularly interesting.
I'm not sure if I'm talking along the same lines, but there are times (or phases in my my life - I shift a lot) where I have to put effort into being understood.

I make sense and am not unintelligent, but I can be quite creative in how I say things.
Sometimes it's almost a metaphorical paraphrasing.

If I'm to explain my thought processes behind what I say and tie everything together, I don't actually have "disorganized speech." I'm not as random as I sometimes appear (other times I am for fun/play) and I don't actually do "word salad."

1PolarBear wrote:having to lie by cutting corners.


I'm wondering if this means leaving out information or framing what you say differently than how you see things to avoid stigma / labels / judgment / confusion / having to explain (almost like I'm asking you to do right now :roll:) ....?

1PolarBear wrote:If you go for emotional connection, you trap yourself, and deny yourself at the same time, so it cannot last. And the other option does not bring anything of lasting value to interactions.


Also interesting. Sometimes I feel emotional connection / rapport enters me into a contract of agreement or forced alliance with people which can lead to denying my authenticity and desire to do what I want --- mainly because I'm quite opinionated and don't see things the way a lot of the people I'm around do, but I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean.

The other option being no emotional connection = no lasting value?

I might have to look for that blog.
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


ADVERTISEMENT

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:26 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:So then, once this type of thinking transfers into emotions / distress overwhelming enough to constitute compulsive behaviors, it becomes a type of OCD?


If it causes anxiety and the normal grooming does not work, it can.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If so, then where is the line between what we're talking about and intrusive thoughts?


I am not really familiar with the concept.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Currently, they look at this part of me more in a way of who I am and coping mechanisms.

When you say "born out of experience and inappropriate interpretation," I'm assuming you mean?
^
Image


It would be part of it, but there is another way to look at it. Its just that people have a pre-moral filter, that filter out things automatically from consciousness, and I say moral in a very general way, but oddities are filtered out from people's consciousness automatically. If you don't have that filter, you deal with more information, so may come to different conclusions. Some things simply have to be denied in order to function in society, even if it is right there in front of you. And that is often where conspiracy theories start, an odd thing that cannot be explained in the appropriate narrative. So taking that thing into account would be inappropriate.

That goes also for inappropriate connections. Just taking one example of aliens. it is a word used in normal speech to describe some people, but is also used in sci-fi. Mixing up the two would be inappropriate, yet this is what can happen, and writers do that often. People don't have a problem with it if it is in a kind of religious setting, like watching a movie, but outside of that setting, it is inappropriate. So people get confused, and end up having to reject one of the meaning, and they choose whatever fits them better. Psychiatrists tend to reject the normal meaning, normal people would tend towards the opposite.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Which I think you're saying is not the same thing as schizotypal "odd belief" thinking.
^
But since the DSM is only really interested in labeling, what if that was to be the actual cause of it? And if not, then what?


I think there is more to it than that, from what I read. Otherwise, it would only be logical mistakes that could be solved easily through cognitive therapy. Besides, people make those type of mistakes all the time, and it is not a problem, as long as it is an accepted mistake in the subculture. That is why there is a moral thing going on here.

Part of it is also to think in stereotypes, which again are inappropriate in most circumstances, unless hidden or obfuscated and padded and flowered in poetry so people are not sure of the meaning. Again, it is a moral thing, which the greys will denounce as lacking in nuances. :|

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I make sense and am not unintelligent, but I can be quite creative in how I say things.
Sometimes it's almost a metaphorical paraphrasing.


Right, that is how it will show.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If I'm to explain my thought processes behind what I say and tie everything together, I don't actually have "disorganized speech." I'm not as random as I sometimes appear (other times I am for fun/play) and I don't actually do "word salad."


It can be done voluntarily. If you loose control or go too far, it can look like word salad, and can be as well if you loose logic entirely. Like if there is too much information or emotions, it can be impossible to tie up entirely and freeze for primate consumption.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm wondering if this means leaving out information or framing what you say differently than how you see things to avoid stigma / labels / judgment / confusion / having to explain (almost like I'm asking you to do right now :roll:) ....?


Its part of it, and yes, it is a bit like we are doing. And yes, I let myself go more than I would usually, since you seem perceptive. Its like a starving polar bear out of water. I don't mind, it has to be done sometimes, to save humanity.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Also interesting. Sometimes I feel emotional connection / rapport enters me into a contract of agreement or forced alliance with people which can lead to denying my authenticity and desire to do what I want --- mainly because I'm quite opinionated and don't see things the way a lot of the people I'm around do, but I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean.


Its part of it.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:The other option being no emotional connection = no lasting value?


That's also true. There's a balance somewhere that is not easy to achieve.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:42 pm

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:If so, then where is the line between what we're talking about and intrusive thoughts?


I am not really familiar with the concept.


I may have gone on a tangent there.

I'm trying to figure out if there's some possible connection between the obsessions some people with OCD face and schizotypal "odd beliefs"

Some people may wonder if they've have hit and killed someone with their vehicle without realizing it.
From there, they can work themselves into a state where they become close to convinced they actually have - and from there, they can swing over to questioning maybe they did it on purpose and they're "morally corrupt"

Yeah, I don't fully know where I was going with that question
- other than maybe someone who may have unwelcomed thoughts of brutally murdering their wife that they love, thoughts they can't fend off.
As a result, maybe they question if they're evil or being possessed which, in turn, may lead to beliefs such as if they watch movies with anything occult-ish in them, it will draw evil spirits towards them and force them to actually act on those intrusive thoughts.

Maybe they believe coming into contact with anything related to the topic of the "supernatural" on TV, social media, conversation, music, etc will open them up to evil because maybe they're particularly sensitive or "open" to it.

On top of it, they decide watching TV or listening to music with any type of sex or violence also aligns them with "evil"

And maybe then, anything with profanities, etc..

Now they've constructed a set of beliefs and things they must avoid otherwise they'll turn "evil" or become possessed and end up committing the violent murder of their wife that they do not want to commit.

Odd beliefs?

1PolarBear wrote:It would be part of it, but there is another way to look at it. Its just that people have a pre-moral filter, that filter out things automatically from consciousness, and I say moral in a very general way, but oddities are filtered out from people's consciousness automatically. If you don't have that filter, you deal with more information, so may come to different conclusions. Some things simply have to be denied in order to function in society, even if it is right there in front of you. And that is often where conspiracy theories start, an odd thing that cannot be explained in the appropriate narrative. So taking that thing into account would be inappropriate.


I think by moral, part of what you mean what is seen as right and what is seen as wrong by others.

I'm connecting this to a filter people must have in regards to social acceptability & anchoring themselves within societal norms.

Along with that, it reminds me of that theory that psychotic symptoms can come from the brain not being able to filter out and categorize as much sensory stimuli as normative people can. "Sensory gating" or something?

I'd say this is the source of genius and creativity.

Then again, I don't want to acknowledge it because I think it falls in line with the "dopamine hypothesis theory" for psychosis which then co-signs the digustingly mass overprescribing of antipsychotics all because our systems don't want to put any real effort, resources or investment into treating people.

(I'm not saying some people don't legitimately need them. I'm just saying at this stage, it's more often just a cop-out for the medical profession. I'll stop my repetitive rant here).

This also makes me wonder, when you speak of things that are denied by most or go unnoticed, would the reverse side of the coin be people who are paid to present information most effectively and on different levels of consciousness?
Such as news presentation, advertising, politics, etc...?

1PolarBear wrote:Psychiatrists tend to reject the normal meaning, normal people would tend towards the opposite.


As in, if you were talking about an increase of aliens in the country, a psychiatrist is likely to think you're delusional and talking about beings from outer space whilst a normal person will assume you're talking about illegal immigrants?

Or that a psychiatrist is more apt to understand metaphorical or abstract language than a normal person?

1PolarBear wrote:Besides, people make those type of mistakes all the time, and it is not a problem, as long as it is an accepted mistake in the subculture.


Infuriating. Most people are brainless; half of what they accept is a mistake.

1PolarBear wrote:Part of it is also to think in stereotypes, which again are inappropriate in most circumstances, unless hidden or obfuscated and padded and flowered in poetry so people are not sure of the meaning. Again, it is a moral thing, which the greys will denounce as lacking in nuances.  :|


Extremist feminisism forces this and they use it to hide the stereotypes they themselves project.

Speaking of descriptiveness, I'm currently enjoying the exploration of taking nouns and adjectives and turning them into "-ing" form verbs in creative expression.

1PolarBear wrote:It can be done voluntarily. If you loose control or go too far, it can look like word salad, and can be as well if you loose logic entirely. Like if there is too much information or emotions, it can be impossible to tie up entirely and freeze for primate consumption.
 

Makes sense.
For me, a flood of emotion and information stops me from being able to speak at all sometimes. Also ineffective.

I guess it must also be connected to whether or not you're willing to put the effort into making something edible enough for the primate to consume --- and whether you're practiced at it.
^
Being only exposed to people not worth the effort, can leave it difficult to do on the rare occasion when you actually want to.

This is interesting because if I isolate for too long I have can have quite a hard time adapting to the wavelengths of others and being verbally lucid for the first day or so - meaning I have to stay quiet, listen a lot and keep my sentences short.

1PolarBear wrote:Its part of it, and yes, it is a bit like we are doing. And yes, I let myself go more than I would usually, since you seem perceptive. Its like a starving polar bear out of water. I don't mind, it has to be done sometimes, to save humanity.


You may be thinking that I'm more perceptive than I actually am.
I do, however, enjoy creativity and trying to understand complex and novel things. 

As I always say, best for humanity to be eradicated.
Although, I'm uncertain of how comfortable I am in the idea that I'm asking a starving polar bear to come out of the water so I can ask it questions.

Speaking of which, do polar bears normally eat primates or only fish and birds?

Do they normally only eat what they catch?
Or do they normally eat carrion as well?

I'm wondering what meals are to you?
Words? Interactions? Expressing ideas? Human connection? Or am I totally off the mark here?

Thrill of the hunt? A source of nutritional value to stay alive and healthy, or...?

Do you have a fixed set of vocabulary you like to stick to?
Or is it adaptive and ever changing based on inspiration and situations?

Anyone who's interacted with me knows I ask too many questions, so please feel free to ignore any or all of them.
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:48 am

I just remembered that polar bears don't exactly live in the same locale as non-human primates. Whoops
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:51 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Odd beliefs?


I would put it in obsessive-compulsive category myself, more than odd beliefs, even though strictly speaking, they are odd. But they all stem from one specific anxiety, which is helped by rituals. I have read similar things in the literature about it, in relation to schizotype personality, although not the intrusive thought proper. So I can't tell for sure. What I can tell for sure, it would fit well with OCD. But the move from "possible" to "actually happened", that could fit. So maybe a mix of both.

So its a reluctant maybe.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I think by moral, part of what you mean what is seen as right and what is seen as wrong by others.


yes. What is part of the culture, or the zeitgeist of the time by the civil society. But this gets encoded in an unconscious part of the brain, so people are unaware of it for the most part, especially in themselves.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Along with that, it reminds me of that theory that psychotic symptoms can come from the brain not being able to filter out and categorize as much sensory stimuli as normative people can. "Sensory gating" or something?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

Its like having a sieve with bigger holes, or more holes.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Then again, I don't want to acknowledge it because I think it falls in line with the "dopamine hypothesis theory" for psychosis which then co-signs the digustingly mass overprescribing of antipsychotics all because our systems don't want to put any real effort, resources or investment into treating people.


I don't think so. Its different. It has nothing to do with hormones. If it does, it is very indirect.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:(I'm not saying some people don't legitimately need them. I'm just saying at this stage, it's more often just a cop-out for the medical profession. I'll stop my repetitive rant here).


It short-circuits the grooming, but does not replace it. But that has more to do with anxiety, not the filter I was talking about. So yes, someone can be over stimulated and get psychotic, but it is different than the actual odd beliefs which are part of the personality, although the result might be similar in kind, but not in degree. Basically, anti-psychotics are tranquilizers.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:This also makes me wonder, when you speak of things that are denied by most or go unnoticed, would the reverse side of the coin be people who are paid to present information most effectively and on different levels of consciousness?
Such as news presentation, advertising, politics, etc...?


They work best when they stick to the filters. If they don't, they get complaints and boycotts. People want to be told what they already know, or they "secret" needs fulfilled and articulated. :)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:As in, if you were talking about an increase of aliens in the country, a psychiatrist is likely to think you're delusional and talking about beings from outer space whilst a normal person will assume you're talking about illegal immigrants?


Yes. Of they will just ask about aliens, and get a "yes" as a confirmation or their desired outcome.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Or that a psychiatrist is more apt to understand metaphorical or abstract language than a normal person?


No, I meant the first one. The psychiatrist is the embodiement of the filter, the filter made flesh, and he or she represents the moral order and normality. He would fail if he wasn't, although I am sure some think themselves as open-minded and would try such a feat, to no avail most likely. Its just not something they are trained to do, and in fact are trained not to do.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Extremist feminisism forces this and they use it to hide the stereotypes they themselves project.


Yes, that happens. But it comes from the Enlightenment originally and the idea of Man, so humanism and the rights of man. I happen to be reading on the subject at the moment.The current forces of darkness are a particular brand of dangerous though for this.

As soon as man defined himself as a sovereign individual, the first thing he did was censure himself, so it is history repeating itself. It comes with political emancipation, or is a result of it. So democracy creates that.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Makes sense.
For me, a flood of emotion and information stops me from being able to speak at all sometimes. Also ineffective.
 

Right. It is especially bad when they are negative.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I guess it must also be connected to whether or not you're willing to put the effort into making something edible enough for the primate to consume --- and whether you're practiced at it.
^
Being only exposed to people not worth the effort, can leave it difficult to do on the rare occasion when you actually want to.
 

Yes, those are issues. But without the filter, it is pretty much impossible, so it is catch 22. You are bound to stumble at some point, and you won't even realize it until years later and lots of introspection and spying on others and their cultish practices.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:This is interesting because if I isolate for too long I have can have quite a hard time adapting to the wavelengths of others and being verbally lucid for the first day or so - meaning I have to stay quiet, listen a lot and keep my sentences short.


I know. It can be physical as well. Once I wanted to ask someone something out of the routine, like a piece of meat, and the sounds would not come out, and the ideas jumbled. I was able to get it though, because polar bears are apex predators, and always get the meat. :D

DaturaInnoxia wrote:You may be thinking that I'm more perceptive than I actually am.
I do, however, enjoy creativity and trying to understand complex and novel things. 


Its intelligence, not everybody has it. Maybe a lack of filter as well.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Speaking of which, do polar bears normally eat primates or only fish and birds?


Seals, sometimes a cow if available. Salmon in the season, before they breed.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Do they normally only eat what they catch?
Or do they normally eat carrion as well?


Fresh from hunting, you never know what the animals died from otherwise.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm wondering what meals are to you?
Words? Interactions? Expressing ideas? Human connection? Or am I totally off the mark here?


Life itself. It can be those things and more. I think in the present context, it was those two things, mostly ideas, but ideas form connections, especially ideas of emotions, it is what connects, but the idealization of the emotion disconnects, so another catch 22.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Thrill of the hunt? A source of nutritional value to stay alive and healthy, or...?

Do you have a fixed set of vocabulary you like to stick to?
Or is it adaptive and ever changing based on inspiration and situations?

Anyone who's interacted with me knows I ask too many questions, so please feel free to ignore any or all of them.


Its ever changing, although I tried in the last few years to stick with some concepts, to create an identity of sort, that can be shared, perhaps in the hope of getting out of the circle of the catch 22.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:22 am

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:I think by moral, part of what you mean what is seen as right and what is seen as wrong by others.


yes. What is part of the culture, or the zeitgeist of the time by the civil society. But this gets encoded in an unconscious part of the brain, so people are unaware of it for the most part, especially in themselves.


You think so?
So then, do you think some people just don't have that imprinted upon them?

I would think that's actually a very good thing almost like an immunity.
It would be a component of the people who create change.

There was a conversation elsewhere that leaves me thinking obedience is more important than morals and the term "moral" isn't even about what's "fair" or right for other's wellbeing but rather obeying said authorities or social norms.

1PolarBear wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

Its like having a sieve with bigger holes, or more holes.


I need to learn more on that term I only know it under one context.

Again, if manageable, that type of sieve is a really good thing.
Apparently, dopamine controls how many holes or how big the holes in the "sieve" are.

1PolarBear wrote:It short-circuits the grooming, but does not replace it. But that has more to do with anxiety, not the filter I was talking about. So yes, someone can be over stimulated and get psychotic, but it is different than the actual odd beliefs which are part of the personality, although the result might be similar in kind, but not in degree. Basically, anti-psychotics are tranquilizers.


Cortisol. Even with psychotic breaks, they wonder if the damage is actually a result of stress hormones rather than the break.
Not only that, but they find antipsychotics damage the grey matter similarly to psychotic breaks or stress hormones.
Yes, I remember when antipsychotics were classified as major tranquilizers whilst minor tranquilizers were benzos and barbs.
I believe the connotation of the term interfered with them trying to pretend they promote psychosocial rehabilitation.

I think you're saying odd beliefs have to be ingrained into one's personality rather than an episodic - abeit it regular - part of one's life that comes out in times of stress or anxiety.

1PolarBear wrote:They work best when they stick to the filters.


I was thinking that perhaps they enforce the filters for the 1%
If you disagree, where do you think the cultural/mood of the time comes from?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Extremist feminisism forces this and they use it to hide the stereotypes they themselves project.


Yes, that happens. But it comes from the Enlightenment originally and the idea of Man, so humanism and the rights of man. I happen to be reading on the subject at the moment.
The current forces of darkness are a particular brand of dangerous though for this.

As soon as man defined himself as a sovereign individual, the first thing he did was censure himself, so it is history repeating itself. It comes with political emancipation, or is a result of it. So democracy created that.


I truly hate connecting this to humanism. The polarity of it is out of control and, agree, dangerous. This can transfer to more than feminism in the human "rights" fields.

I learn of it in the classes I take, but they talk about what's currently trendy for social justice rather than applying logic sometimes. Learning through a psychology lens is a tad more realistic where I'm at. So much more schooling that route though.

I'm extremely curious what you mean by, "The current forces of darkness are a particular brand of dangerous though for this"?

"Defined himself a sovereign individual"? When and as opposed to what?
My mind's going all biblical here.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Makes sense.
For me, a flood of emotion and information stops me from being able to speak at all sometimes. Also ineffective.


Right. It is especially bad when they are negative.


Very much so.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:This is interesting because if I isolate for too long I have can have quite a hard time adapting to the wavelengths of others and being verbally lucid for the first day or so - meaning I have to stay quiet, listen a lot and keep my sentences short.


I know. It can be physical as well. Once I wanted to ask someone something out of the routine, like a piece of meat, and the sounds would not come out, and the ideas jumbled. I was able to get it though, because polar bears are apex predators, and always get the meat. :D


I wonder where this "stiffness" comes from and what it may say about neuroplasticity.
^
Given the difficulties of adapting and then returning back to where you originally were, yet being able to adapt again with some reintegration effort. Repetitively.

1PolarBear wrote:Maybe a lack of filter as well.


Lol, very much so.
I can be quite insightful and so clueless at the same time.
People get angry with me thinking I know better or am being lazy or defiant when I truly don't know what I'm saying or doing (or not saying / not doing) wrong. My whole life.
That being said I am relatively defiant, contradictory and stubborn by nature, so that may not help.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Speaking of which, do polar bears normally eat primates or only fish and birds?


Seals, sometimes a cow if available. Salmon in the season, before they breed.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Do they normally only eat what they catch?
Or do they normally eat carrion as well?


Fresh from hunting, you never know what the animals died from otherwise.


Interesting, I asked because you called others you have to try to communicate with primates.
But you mentioned tying together (as did I) and freezing your communications in a way they could understand - yet you also mentioned frozen meals that you'll eat if necessary.

Due to the frozen dinners you mentioned previously that you'd eat if necessary, I wondered about whether Polar Bears ate carrion as well.

1PolarBear wrote:ideas form connections, especially ideas of emotions, it is what connects, but the idealization of the emotion disconnects, so another catch 22.


Do you idealize emotions, then?
I devalue them, but then again, life itself is more a form of poison to me rather than a meal.

I definitely agree ideas can form connections, but I find when contrast or idealization creates the emotion it can cause disconnection once stabilization occurs.

1PolarBear wrote:Its ever changing, although I tried in the last few years to stick with some concepts, to create an identity of sort, that can be shared, perhaps in the hope of getting out of the circle of the catch 22.


What is it about polar bears and ice? Has that stuck with you?

I think it's fitting in the sense that symbolically water and land represent different states of consciousness and levels of awareness --- and polar bears are adept at existing in and switching between both. Something primates will never be able to do. Same with a primate's inability to tolerate adverse conditions such as the freezing cold.
It aligns nicely with the talk of sieves, filters, creative ways of thinking and believing etc.
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby Oblivion » Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:02 pm

1PolarBear wrote:Dissociation is the base of the idea of schizoid, but it is not proven to be there like it is in schizophrenia. But it was assumed to be the cause at some point in the past.


I've read a few times that schizoid traits can be similar to some of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The difference is that the schizoid is aware he is slipping into fantasy and has some means of controlling his inner landscape, whereas the schizophrenic is not aware and can not control it.
Oblivion
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:24 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:52 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:You think so?
So then, do you think some people just don't have that imprinted upon them?


Or they have a different imprint, no different than living as an alien in another culture. Both can be true as well. Just imagine someone living in a world that changes all the time, a chaotic world. Then there is nothing to imprint, things are just too random, so the person becomes random personified.

If there were no constants in the Universe, there would be no science. Believing you know something would be delusional and hurtful.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I would think that's actually a very good thing almost like an immunity.
It would be a component of the people who create change.


Its useful in chaotic environments, or when things change, it allows to find solutions that have never been tried. If you have a filter, then you will loose that ability and you won't even know it and never will. It takes a lot to overcome conditioning, usually a lot of violence.

On the other hand, when things are ordered, it becomes a flaw, because you go slower, and if there is competition, it is a weakness. If there is a nail to be attacked, someone that has a filter that says only a hammer can do it, will find the hammer faster than the one that looks at all the tools and try to guess the one that might be acceptable for the task. Its also more likely to work.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:There was a conversation elsewhere that leaves me thinking obedience is more important than morals and the term "moral" isn't even about what's "fair" or right for other's wellbeing but rather obeying said authorities or social norms.


Yes, but that is something else, because it is not unconscious. Norms that are ordered and revealed to people, they don't go through the filter. This is moral proper, not pre-moral.

The thing is that morality is simply habits, they can come from different sources, one is authority, the other customs, the other personal experience. You are talking about authority, I am more talking about customs. What is right is usually in the personal realm, because it is contingent on reality.

I will take the analogy of food again. Frozen food is the one from authority, the personal is fresh food. And there is a middle one, which is the filter and customs. That would be cured meat and the like, canned food. :| Polar bears use fat instead. :roll:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Again, if manageable, that type of sieve is a really good thing.
Apparently, dopamine controls how many holes or how big the holes in the "sieve" are.


I don't see dopamine being involved. It sounds more like neuron clusters. That is how people learn in general. If there is point a, b and c that follow a logical path, the filter will create new neurons that go directly from point a to c, dismissing b. So it is good if you never need b, it is faster, but in the odd case b might be relevant, then you are screwed because you've just made b invisible and inexistent. The only way to get it back is to destroy those neurons, and the most you used them, the harder it will be. So in essence, b is a hole, it does not exist anymore.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Cortisol. Even with psychotic breaks, they wonder if the damage is actually a result of stress hormones rather than the break.
Not only that, but they find antipsychotics damage the grey matter similarly to psychotic breaks or stress hormones.


And they should, only grooming can fix this and there is no magic pill. Either that or get rid of the stress, which means isolation.

Its not rocket science. If a child is scared of monsters in the dark, a normal parent would groom, and it fixes the problem biologically. If you give a sleeping pill instead, it is expedient, but does not solve the monster problem, they will still use scare tactics against the child, and if anything you just took out the ability to defend and deal with the monsters appropriately. So the pill will simply postpone and make things worst in the long run.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I think you're saying odd beliefs have to be ingrained into one's personality rather than an episodic - abeit it regular - part of one's life that comes out in times of stress or anxiety.


If they be a personality trait, yes. Its a different issue than dealing with stress. But if someone is in a stressful environment, especially an early one, and grooming fails or does not exist, it will create odd beliefs, because normal solutions don't work. So authority and customs fail, which means there is a need for independent thinking to solve monsters, and once it is solved, there is no reason to go back, but since the solutions is different than the one of the others in the environment, it will cause clashes in place you would not necessarily expect, like a butterfly effect. That is what I believe.

Not only that, but trust can disappear, so if trust is not there, there will be a mistrust of any filter in general, since they will be hurtful and not appropriate ever, because situations are different. And that lack of trust will cause issues by not adopting solutions that could work, or just finding one that works personally, but not socially. Its the whole point of authority and customs, to have something that works decent for most, but if someone falls in-between the net, the whole thing fails for that person.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I was thinking that perhaps they enforce the filters for the 1%
If you disagree, where do you think the cultural/mood of the time comes from?


It comes from pretty much everybody together. You are thinking too grand scale, I am thinking small. Its usually little things, like having the correctly groomed fur, or how to dispose of dead animals and what is the proper time to hibernate or mate.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I truly hate connecting this to humanism. The polarity of it is out of control and, agree, dangerous. This can transfer to more than feminism in the human "rights" fields.


Its just that in order to understand "rights", you have to be politically emancipated, and be under a state that is emancipated from custom/religion/ideologies. That is how the liberal scheme came to be. But it so happens the liberals only emancipated themselves, so now you have a bunch of feudal people that are jealous because constipated. Since they don't understand rights, they ask for privilege, because a feudal state can only give privilege, not rights, since the state is itself constipated. And constipation creates a lot of you know what in the wrong place. Bad diet.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm extremely curious what you mean by, "The current forces of darkness are a particular brand of dangerous though for this"?


Since they have bad diet, they try to ban good diet. Make others as miserable as they are.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:"Defined himself a sovereign individual"? When and as opposed to what?
My mind's going all biblical here.


With good reason. As opposed to the sovereignty of God. But understood as it should, so the sovereignty of reality, especially social reality. In a feudal state, the reality is authority and customs, which are more important than even the king. It does not mean the king does not have some leadership, but it is not a totally emancipated one. He is even less free than his subjects, with all the courtiers and priests around, without counting the people who want his head. What he can do though, is give privilege to some classes of people, give them a political existence separate from others, through which they can talk to him. Today it is called identity politics.

The only problem is that in a democracy where there is no king, the state is supposed to treat people equally, since it is owned by the people as a whole. Its the concepts of equality and liberty, and rights. So people have individual rights, not class privileges. They are men, not roles. Man is the ideal, the political man, that has no identity, but is a citizen. The real man is free to have whatever identity he wishes, but it is one that has no political power. Its the secular humanist scheme, or liberal scheme. Feudal people in such a scheme are regressive and asking for the impossible. The best they can get is a dictatorship, and that is the end of rights and privileges. China for example, is such a scheme. Their population is feudal and not emancipated, and never was, so they can only have something that looks like democracy from their point of view, which is simply totalitarian, but with people equal in misery and a meritocratic way for the peasant to become king. Although they have started to give privileges in the free market zones.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I wonder where this "stiffness" comes from and what it may say about neuroplasticity.
^
Given the difficulties of adapting and then returning back to where you originally were, yet being able to adapt again with some reintegration effort. Repetitively.


Same thing as above. They are old neurons that have been relatively disconnected, so getting back to them take some efforts to get the right data rate. Its like having an old route. with a bridge. The bridge is still there, but the path to it might have potholes, so it is harder to get to, or it is covered in grass, although it still exists, just not working for carts.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Lol, very much so.
I can be quite insightful and so clueless at the same time.
People get angry with me thinking I know better or am being lazy or defiant when I truly don't know what I'm saying or doing (or not saying / not doing) wrong. My whole life.
That being said I am relatively defiant, contradictory and stubborn by nature, so that may not help.


Yes, it looks like it.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Interesting, I asked because you called others you have to try to communicate with primates.


No, I speak with all the animals of the forest. Its just that there are primates everywhere, they breed like crazy. They self-identify with "men", I know who they really are. :roll:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:But you mentioned tying together (as did I) and freezing your communications in a way they could understand - yet you also mentioned frozen meals that you'll eat if necessary.


Its the other way around. Primates and lots of animals can't eat fresh, so you have to either cure it or freeze it for conservation. Primates are like squirrels, they hoard things that they cannot eat right away, instead of doing it right and fatting. 8)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Due to the frozen dinners you mentioned previously that you'd eat if necessary, I wondered about whether Polar Bears ate carrion as well.


I don't eat them, but I read in their entrails. That's what dead things are good for. They can tell you the future. They can also attract animals that can be eaten, although they rarely are of much nutritional value.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Do you idealize emotions, then?
I devalue them, but then again, life itself is more a form of poison to me rather than a meal.


Yeah, you don't understand what I mean by idealize. Its about freezing it and putting it in cans. In order to devalue something, it needs to be idealized first. Whether you keep it or not is a second step. I just learned that having the right attitude is the most important thing. There is no point in living if you are miserable.

See, it relates to the above in politics. Man was idealized, although not everybody understood what Man meant. So some accepted it and understood it and thrived. Others rejected it and got miserable. But that is what is there to eat, it is the reality, so its up to people to either accept it or keep hoping for dead things and be reactionaries. Or carrion crawlers as it were.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I definitely agree ideas can form connections, but I find when contrast or idealization creates the emotion it can cause disconnection once stabilization occurs.


You can feel things without sharing said feeling and idealizing it. That is fresh diet. Frozen and cured foods are dead meat, although better than rotten.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:What is it about polar bears and ice? Has that stuck with you?


Water is emotion, and the unconscious, a good place for ursus maritimus. The land is where other animals are, the social idealized sphere. That is where farmers live, which have not much to give to ursus maritimus, aside from some fresh vegetables, but it lacks fat, so cannot be conserved in the right way. But it can do in a pinch.

Ice is the personality. In order for ursus maritimus to go on land, he has to get through the ice, sometimes walk on it and reach the wastelands where primates roam and fight for their piece of farm. Primates create global warming that melts the ice. :(

But the real thing about ice, is that you can swim under, break through it and take seals by surprise, or simply wait besides a whole that a seal use it for breathing. Its part and parcel of the traditional hunting techniques.

Primates on land have values, which are idealized morality, dead things again. Ursus maritimus is one with his environment in reality, and is properly moral, since natural. One with the sea. 8)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I think it's fitting in the sense that symbolically water and land represent different states of consciousness and levels of awareness --- and polar bears are adept at existing in and switching between both. Something primates will never be able to do. Same with a primate's inability to tolerate adverse conditions such as the freezing cold.
It aligns nicely with the talk of sieves, filters, creative ways of thinking and believing etc.


Yes

-- Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:56 am --

Oblivion wrote:
1PolarBear wrote:Dissociation is the base of the idea of schizoid, but it is not proven to be there like it is in schizophrenia. But it was assumed to be the cause at some point in the past.


I've read a few times that schizoid traits can be similar to some of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The difference is that the schizoid is aware he is slipping into fantasy and has some means of controlling his inner landscape, whereas the schizophrenic is not aware and can not control it.


Its one way to see it. Its just that in a case like psychosis, reality and dream become one, so impossible to distinguish except here and there and with efforts. So it gets out of control internally and externally as well. But overall it is the same thing in my opinion, even if the cause might be different.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby poxalis » Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:12 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:There was a conversation elsewhere that leaves me thinking obedience is more important than morals and the term "moral" isn't even about what's "fair" or right for other's wellbeing but rather obeying said authorities or social norms.


i don't think that's right. i think there's a reasons schizoids don't and can't be part of society and social groups. it's easy enough to remove others from the equation if they want to compromise who i am with conformity. the pressure to obey when nothing feels natural is not pleasurable. i only put myself in those situations at the bare minimum. instead i'll just lie and not involve myself. like asking if i'm registered to vote. i'll just say i'm Canadian and the conversation is over. i don't make myself sign up to vote because someone else expects it of me.
User avatar
poxalis
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:01 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:22 am

Ideas, especially creatively expressed, are like "meals" or drugs to me now. It used to be different forms of art but that went away.

* Posts that require more reflection take me longer to reply to hence the delay.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:You think so?
So then, do you think some people just don't have that imprinted upon them?


Or they have a different imprint, no different than living as an alien in another culture. Both can be true as well.


I find this beautiful.
Another culture could be an internal or a spiritual (etc) layer of what is.
They'll look at genius as an abnormality and thus wrong.

1PolarBear wrote:Just imagine someone living in a world that changes all the time, a chaotic world. If there were no constants in the Universe, there would be no science. Believing you know something would be delusional and hurtful.


Since I'm currently on the early childhood development train, I'd say this is true for many with mental health disorders especially at the extremes of and dissociative identity disorder and reactive attachment disorder (even disorganized attachment) - not just those genetically predisposed.

1PolarBear wrote:Then there is nothing to imprint, things are just too random, so the person becomes random personified.


I can see this in a variety of ways.

At its more dreaded; fully psychotic, alone, at war with self and others.

Or romanticized; mask after mask after mask, with no human-ness underneath.

At its more aesthetic/artistic, a shapeshifter.

And everything in between.

Do you think you can be "random personified" with a core that's very purposeful rather than random all the way through?

1PolarBear wrote: Its useful in chaotic environments, or when things change, it allows to find solutions that have never been tried. If you have a filter, then you will loose that ability and you won't even know it and never will. It takes a lot to overcome conditioning, usually a lot of violence.


I'm interpreting this as a theme.
An Inherent vs Aquired lack of imprint as opposed to those having an imprint, and I'm uncertain if I should ask for clarification of the last sentence.

1PolarBear wrote:On the other hand, when things are ordered, it becomes a flaw, because you go slower, and if there is competition, it is a weakness. If there is a nail to be attacked, someone that has a filter that says only a hammer can do it, will find the hammer faster than the one that looks at all the tools and try to guess the one that might be acceptable for the task. Its also more likely to work.


Beautiful translation.
I've been trying to put that into words for a long time in regards to a few areas of my life.

Still worth being that way though.

1PolarBear wrote:Yes, but that is something else, because it is not unconscious. Norms that are ordered and revealed to people, they don't go through the filter. This is moral proper, not pre-moral.

The thing is that morality is simply habits, they can come from different sources, one is authority, the other customs, the other personal experience. You are talking about authority, I am more talking about customs. What is right is usually in the personal realm, because it is contingent on reality.


To tangent, I was looking at how, to many, hurting people is ok when authority says it's the right thing to do, and how most people will obey that with little or no question - even if they don't want to.

And yet, it's immoral or "evil" or sociopathic/psychopathic if one does it out of authority to self or reasons that make sense to self.

People have tried to explain this to me, but have so far not been fully successful.
It may be my own idealism, lack of imprint, and stubbornness (best I don't go too far in that direction since that's not a topic allowed to be examined at the moment).

^^^
I don't see how those things I just mentioned are conscious since I can't think of a culture that doesn't adhere to this one way or another.

▪ I think I do see your point though. I'm examining broad scale issues whilst you're trying to explain this in the context of personality.

1PolarBear wrote:I will take the analogy of food again. Frozen food is the one from authority, the personal is fresh food. And there is a middle one, which is the filter and customs. That would be cured meat and the like, canned food. :| Polar bears use fat instead. :roll:


So (new term for me) pre-moral would be the processed food aka filter / cultural norms conditioned, implicit or unconscious.

So when you say you use fat instead, you describe your own mode of filtering / customs, I'm assuming. I really like how you've created your own type of language.

1PolarBear wrote:I don't see dopamine being involved. It sounds more like neuron clusters. That is how people learn in general. If there is point a, b and c that follow a logical path, the filter will create new neurons that go directly from point a to c, dismissing b.


That sounds like you're describing the neuropsychology behind experience and behaviourism (or conditioning as you called it).

When I was talking about the sieve analogy, I was referencing sensory filtration.
The extra or too big of holes causing information to become jumbled - but also when managed, a point of creative genius.
^
Problems with "Sensory Gating" where people with psychotic disorders are believed to not always be able to tune out or categorize information from the environment and their relationship to the overload of incoming information (internal and external).

The role it ("dopamine hypothesis theory") is claimed that dopamine plays a part in, is the more dopamine you have, the faster one's neurons are firing off and the more sensitive to input the brain is and the more likely sensory input is to be miscatagorized.

I find this interesting on another tangent because it may apply to different "languages" of causation and thus treatment.

I was watching something on ADHD where the doctor was talking about how addressing the proper workings of points a, b, and c, would actually have the same effect as treating the kid based on brain chemistry aka drugging the $#%^ out of them.

Speaking of which, I'd love it if you felt like translating (your analogies) how ADHD works if you're at all familiar with it.

1PolarBear wrote:So it is good if you never need b, it is faster, but in the odd case b might be relevant, then you are screwed because you've just made b invisible and inexistent. The only way to get it back is to destroy those neurons, and the most you used them, the harder it will be. So in essence, b is a hole, it does not exist anymore.


Do you have an example of what activities can lead being made to go from "a" directly to "c" causing "b" to become invisible and inexistant albeit needed?
Is this in the application of being taught or conditioned?

Is it doing what you've been conditioned to do without not fully connecting why and then being expected to use it transferably.
Then you have a go and then really having no idea why and as a result, when other related areas are expected for you to be able to, again, transfer you end up lost as hell?

Needing "b," but it's not there, resonates deeply with me, and I'm trying to understand why.

1PolarBear wrote: And they should, only grooming can fix this and there is no magic pill. Either that or get rid of the stress, which means isolation.


Also descriptive of the ADHD treatment situation I just mentioned.

1PolarBear wrote:Its not rocket science. If a child is scared of monsters in the dark, a normal parent would groom, and it fixes the problem biologically. If you give a sleeping pill instead, it is expedient, but does not solve the monster problem, they will still use scare tactics against the child, and if anything you just took out the ability to defend and deal with the monsters appropriately. So the pill will simply postpone and make things worst in the long run.


Beautiful analogy.
Benzodiazepines as well.

Do you think primate child rearing has gotten worst or that we're just more aware of the issues correlated to it? Or that the landscape has changed and they haven't (yet?) adapted?

If they be a personality trait, yes.

1PolarBear wrote:Its a different issue than dealing with stress. But if someone is in a stressful environment, especially an early one, and grooming fails or does not exist, it will create odd beliefs, because normal solutions don't work.


A different issue? I would think that's just a way a personality forms (how and if someone is groomed)...

And what if one is genetically predisposed to be hypersensitive to stress, and as a result, normal solutions are ineffective and so they end creating odd beliefs to cope?

1PolarBear wrote:So authority and customs fail, which means there is a need for independent thinking to solve monsters, and once it is solved, there is no reason to go back, but since the solutions is different than the one of the others in the environment, it will cause clashes in place you would not necessarily expect, like a butterfly effect. That is what I believe.


Very, very true.

Setting clashes and resulting discomfort aside, this is a fantastic direction to head in as far as I'm concerned - although I know many, oftentimes monsters, disagree.

No reason to go back because by independently thinking, all the cancer-causing, poisonous, monster ingredients they saturate canned food and cured meat with, becomes repulsively visible.
Others do not see it.
Almost ever do they not see it.
^
Aside from predisposed challenger types.
If they can keep their heads out of their asses, they see it too. They usually have the skills to work with it though.

1PolarBear wrote: Not only that, but trust can disappear, so if trust is not there, there will be a mistrust of any filter in general, since they will be hurtful and not appropriate ever, because situations are different.


True; however, I've only seen people go on to thrive if they befriend their mistrust - rather than trying to squelch it or put it in a box under their bed with the other monsters (that also never go away and need to either also be befriended - or lobotomized instead). Regardless, probably shouldn't be left alone, and in private, with things as alluring as trinkets like trust and mistrust.

1PolarBear wrote: And that lack of trust will cause issues by not adopting solutions that could work, or just finding one that works personally, but not socially. Its the whole point of authority and customs, to have something that works decent for most, but if someone falls in-between the net, the whole thing fails for that person.


That's a good point, unfortunately.

When adopting solutions that should work - and fast do work decent for most - even when some trust is drummed up, but they do not work no matter how hard one tries:
- Does it go back to ingrain personality and not having imprints then?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:"Defined himself a sovereign individual"? When and as opposed to what?
My mind's going all biblical here.


...As opposed to the sovereignty of God. But understood as it should, so the sovereignty of reality, especially social reality. In a feudal state, the reality is authority and customs, which are more important than even the king. It does not mean the king does not have some leadership, but it is not a totally emancipated one. He is even less free than his subjects, with all the courtiers and priests around, without counting the people who want his head. What he can do though, is give privilege to some classes of people, give them a political existence separate from others, through which they can talk to him. Today it is called identity politics.


Ideal, but there's never been a time when actual Sovereignty to God actually existed.

You're describing the way things worked in New Testament as well as present day and time in between.

Authority, customs, courtiers, priests, people who want the king's head, enforcers = Almost all monsters.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:I wonder where this "stiffness" comes from and what it may say about neuroplasticity.
^
Given the difficulties of adapting and then returning back to where you originally were, yet being able to adapt again with some reintegration effort. Repetitively.


... They are old neurons that have been relatively disconnected, so getting back to them take some efforts to get the right data rate. Its like having an old route. with a bridge. The bridge is still there, but the path to it might have potholes, so it is harder to get to, or it is covered in grass, although it still exists, just not working for carts.


I was seeing it more from the angle of resilience.
The fact that there's an overgrown bridge, full of potholes, covered in grass, where no carts (essential for modern day primates to function) have the ability to access, yet if deemed desirable or necessary, some are able and continue to be able to cross that bridge - even if it's barely held together by rotted, crumbling wooden slabs and shakey sinew.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Lol, very much so.
I can be quite insightful and so clueless at the same time.
People get angry with me thinking I know better or am being lazy or defiant when I truly don't know what I'm saying or doing (or not saying / not doing) wrong. My whole life.
That being said I am relatively defiant, contradictory and stubborn by nature, so that may not help.


Yes, it looks like it.


Of the posts/interactions you've seen me, am I poorly behaved?

1PolarBear wrote:In order to devalue something, it needs to be idealized first. Whether you keep it or not is a second step.


Something for me to think about.

1PolarBear wrote:There is no point in living if you are miserable


I'm uncertain I agree; granted there are a lot of things people can do to improve their existence.
Not everyone is bound to earth by a desire to be here - they may still have a point in living, fortunately or unfortunately.

If it was that easy it could be one way of a large scale depopulation of the planet.

1PolarBear wrote: But that is what is there to eat, it is the reality, so its up to people to either accept it or keep hoping for dead things and be reactionaries. Or carrion crawlers as it were.


Two things here.

Firstly, carrion eating animals like crows and (well-fed) komodo dragons sound like very desirable company to keep. And, I'm curious now what a well-fed vulture's disposition is like - some are kind of cute. Seriously.

Secondly, "keep hoping for dead things" is fascinating because a theme in past non-drug-induced psychotic symptoms was seeing flies.
When I meditated upon it, that's why they were there.
Another world I walked in, parallel to what I could see - the world of me, was barren and there was something(s) decomposing.
Decomposition so bad that the flies made it over to my conscious perception of reality.
It was exactly that.

Hoping for dead things.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:...I wondered about whether Polar Bears ate carrion as well.


I don't eat them, but I read in their entrails. That's what dead things are good for. They can tell you the future. They can also attract animals that can be eaten, although they rarely are of much nutritional value.


So many potential layers to this.

I'm going to choose to stick with the surface concept of something metaphorical or benign haruspicy.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Interesting, I asked because you called others you have to try to communicate with primates.


No, I speak with all the animals of the forest. Its just that there are primates everywhere, they breed like crazy. They self-identify with "men", I know who they really are. :roll:


You have a catagory for actual humans too then (what you consider to be real "men")?

1PolarBear wrote: Water is emotion, and the unconscious, a good place for ursus maritimus. The land is where other animals are, the social idealized sphere. That is where farmers live, which have not much to give to ursus maritimus, aside from some fresh vegetables, but it lacks fat, so cannot be conserved in the right way. But it can do in a pinch.

Ice is the personality. In order for ursus maritimus to go on land, he has to get through the ice, sometimes walk on it and reach the wastelands where primates roam and fight for their piece of farm. Primates create global warming that melts the ice. :(

But the real thing about ice, is that you can swim under, break through it and take seals by surprise, or simply wait besides a whole that a seal use it for breathing. Its part and parcel of the traditional hunting techniques.


Beautiful... and foreboding.

I wonder if you put a lot of planning into this or if it was a sort of intuitive finding out of how relevant the symbolism was.

You're familiar with the fact that in less processed cultures, people with schizo and/or psychotic symptoms, lack filters/imprints, have been seen more as "shamans" / "medicine people" / teachers / people who walk between the different worlds?

Looking at your command of metaphorical language and talent for creating fables, might just have been born in the wrong place or time rather than having a personality disorder.



___________________________


poxalis wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:There was a conversation elsewhere that leaves me thinking obedience is more important than morals and the term "moral" isn't even about what's "fair" or right for other's wellbeing but rather obeying said authorities or social norms.


...i don't think that's right.


Agree, double standards.
Guess they keep people in check.
Kinda like what PolarBear said, it keeps things in working order for many (if I understood correctly).

poxalis wrote:...it's easy enough to remove others from the equation if they want to compromise who i am with conformity.


What a joy it is to know, one doesn't owe anyone ###$ all.

poxalis wrote:... instead i'll just lie and not involve myself.


More double standards in this too though.

It's ok to be an idiot, but it's frowned upon to try to sidle your way out of an idiot's agendas (in general, not voting in particular).
Last edited by DaturaInnoxia on Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:10 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Schizoid Personality Disorder Forum




  • Related articles
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests