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 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:37 am

:mrgreen:
Learning curves for me

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Dancing bears wouldn't be useless, they'd be very formidable, if not very dangerous.


It's useless to see the dancing bear, unless there is a reason to, so bypassing it is energy efficient.


I like to choose what I do and do not bypass, and I like to be able to see what's going on around me.
^
I'm a lover of knowing "b" and it's relationship with "a" and "c"
^
Anything that hides in plain sight poses a threat and is thus a reason to keep an eye on it.

Do have an example of how "it's useless to see the dancing bear"?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Furthermore, in the primate world at least, the ability to dance like that, "no right or wrong," "pure potential in act" are all concepts governed by magician types.


More like the fool type. :)
https://labyrinthos.co/blogs/tarot-card ... d-meanings


Interesting!
With the Major Arcana, I always saw The Magician with his hands at "As Above; So Below" with his tools, the Cup, Wand, Sword and Pentacle, laying in front of him and ouroboros belt and infinity over his head to be the one to take intention or "pure potential" to create dances and spells (and the like) with all those "tools" and with "1" being a beginning of creating something.

I see where you're coming from though:
I'm assuming you saw "0" as infinite and potential, the fool's blind faith that the ground will be there (and so it is) as the "pure potential" as well.
His "simplicity" also pure

I've never in the arcana picked up the Fool as the subjective "no right or wrong" one.
I've always reserved that for the Magician.

I tend to see the arcana Fool as pure at heart whilst the Magician orients himself to what's right or wrong in relation to what he wants rather than what's inside of him or even in relation to decency to others.

I view modern day Magicians as politicians, policy makers, car salesmen, con artists, corporate CEOs and the like.

I'm semi familiar with fool archetypes that also involve the Jungian "Trickster" who's not so pure at heart.

I know there's also the "Wise Fool" that would be a cross between (IX) The Hermit and The Fool.

1PolarBear wrote:Or the joker type these days, which is trendy. Or in some other terminology, the bard. Usually the bard has minor magic powers, but not like the magician who is dedicated and less hands on.


I struggle with that trend because so many people are obsessed with the green haired one after Heath Ledhers character joker character's relationship with that Harlequin girl and the romanticizing and glamorization of toxic dynamics in behavior, thinking and interpersonal relationships. Dealing with people like that is a complete pain in the ass.
+
I'm not sure why society is downright encouraging and promoting the development of Cluster B personalities.
^
This all would be more off topic political and within my scope of working with people - rather than our archetypal discussion.

I've never heard of the bard - I wonder if that would also be connected to the Wise Fool
I'll have to look that up

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Words like right, righteous, empathy, values, morals, principles; all with such romanticized and idealized connotations, are really often little more than the ugliness of obedience and herd mentality dressed up in pretty costumes.


When they are false, or don't deliver their promises, it can become a superstition.


They are almost always false and they deliver ulterior motives rather than the "promises" they're supposed to symbolize.

I see that as the Magician.

If there was more depth to it, then it would be the Fool/Joker/Jester etc

1PolarBear wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_LGhj958Bw


I agree, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stranger and harder to relate to -
I think it's enjoyable though!

1PolarBear wrote: Masks can be ugly as well, and mask something different. One such that people believe these days is competition, but that competition has "rules" hidden underneath. The mask the joker takes off in that scene is that competitive mask. The one that may of may not hide rules.


To me, masks are often a mockery of authenticity.

People don't even make their own anymore! They go to the store on Halloween and buy the same cheap, factory-made, trendy and meaningless one everyone else bought.

Rules to being a "good" person, rules to being a "bad" person, rules to being "normal" and rules to being "weird" or "crazy;" rules to being "independent," rules to being a "follower," rules to being "authentic"

Rules everywhere. They're just backwards now.

Your character in your video clip said something to the effect of even "criminals ... used to believe..." = code of conduct.

I find this to be true to across all "primate" walks of life.

I struggle sitting through movies do I haven't seen it, but for example, the joker you keep going back to seems to offer lessons (the way the archetype would suggest it should) and a while back you said something to the effect that in order to devalue something, you'd had to have had to have held it in high esteem at once point. That would mean to me the character had more idealistic views and values at one point.

Then, we can go over to that next joker character guy (bright green hair + metal teeth) with the harlequin girlfriend.
^
He's a "Magician" archetype.
Shiny for sure (both him and the chick are), but useless.
No lesson. No meaning.
No code of conduct.
The opposite of the joker character you keep referring to.
^
Regression of rules even in movie theme over time.

Then I look at closer to home:
^
Where I used to live, code of conduct was black humor, call people out of their $#%^, not worry so much about social acceptability and even to an extent, morals (unless it really hurt someone).
^
Fast forward to where I live now, code of conduct look and act socially acceptable and fit in. You can do all sorts of ###$ up things behind closed doors and no one will have a problem with you as long as you act right in front of them.
^
Where I used to live, you'd call out the person who does ###$ up things behind everyone's back but apparently that's "wrong" where I am now and you'll get punished.
1PolarBear wrote: I don't believe they are contradictions. The only contradiction is if they actually mean something or not, or if they have the power of a magician, instead merely the appearance of an illusionist. They look the same from the outside.

People do need rules in order to have a society, but some cheat, in both ways. Its not the mask that is the problem, its the people behind. It used to be called, a dead faith.


How do you mean it's not the mask but the people behind it?

Like if the swastika was a mask:
At one point, it was spiritual, life-affirming and then it was warped into violence, constriction, and mass murder.

No matter what, the "mask" is ruined now.
The energy it evokes is heavy, the people it primarily draws are not spiritual or life affirming.

As a "mask" it is no good regardless of the original ideals behind it and what was supposed to mean.

I'm believing that terms like morals, empathy, and the like, are also becoming empty (albeit not violently like my example)

However, I do acknowledge society needs rules to survive.
This goes back to a few falling through the net of what works for many.

I'll have to look up the term "dead faith"

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
^ I'm thinking of my earlier mentioning of feeling like I enter a forced contract with some people just by socializing with them.


Its an unfortunate side effect. I suppose you can see it as something underneath the mask, but then you have to ask yourself if you don't expect people to simply interact with a mask and not the person, therefore creating the problem I just mentioned. In other words, socializing is a contract, so buyers beware, but it is known, or should be known.


I expect persons to have a couple brain cells and some personality - otherwise I prefer the mask.

So the masks may be compatible but what's underneath repels the other, and these uncomfortable "contracts" are instances where the mask is more desirable than the self behind it.

I just don't understand why some people dictate the terms of their "contracts" whilst I feel pressured into participation.
Maybe it's the whole lack of "filter" concept and not understanding where the hell "b" is

1PolarBear wrote: ... new idea came to the for and the new mask. I talked about humanism, but the first ones justified themselves by idealizing a social contract. They did this to replace religion which was the contract.


What an amazing way of putting it into perspective!

1PolarBear wrote:So it was a new contract based on individualism instead of transcendent ideals, but the individual is also an ideal. As humanism "perfects" itself, the mask changed, and the idea of a contract simply became a new taboo. So it is now a new superstition, and a false mask. Whether that mask is competitive or socializing, it is still a fraud. It didn't start as a fraud, but became one eventually, just like religion became a fraud eventually.


But humanism is an example of a mask being a bad thing - exactly because it becomes about the people behind it rather than the principles.

The promotion of exploitation in so many areas (extremist feminism, turning passive suicide and self destruction into circus-show enablements, etc)

More and more, when people see the "mask" (humanism), they see those people's stupidity or warped agendas (hence it's now just an embodiment of the dominant people behind the mask) and bristle, dismiss, discredit and overthrow to a colder opposite extreme like further marginalization and divisions.
^
Like terms like "morality" and the (at a different extreme) swastika

I still don't think I fully understand what you mean by competitive versus socializing masks (more so the competitive)?

1PolarBear wrote: So the world is ripe to emancipate themselves of those ideas, there is no choice that are winning choices.


Winning choice = mistrust + question everything 8)

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
In my mind, this could also mean religion and superstition were as essential to evolution as conformity and "empathy" etc


... What is meaningful is how people deal with reality. Religion is accepting it, and superstition is making it up. Irreligion is denying it. If the goal is true, then those tools are good, but if it is false, then they will cause problem...


Fascinating, I never thought of it like that.
I guess it all goes back to society needing structure and rules but the goal must be "true" and the tools "good"

I'm at a loss though because, in my mind, it's not working at all.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I know it's the laws of nature, but the polar bear isn't in mutual symbiosis with the seal, is it? Does the ever seal benefit?


The seal gets love. :D


Sweet mother of God! :shock: I'm uncertain if our definitions line up.

Interesting tangent though:
When my little snake lines up her rat to swallow she examines and nudges it with the oddest huge amount of tenderness. Still not my definition though!

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I'm a bit lost as to why that would mean it's linked to lower social status (although it's undeniable that social determinants of health play a huge role in things like the prevalence of mental disorders).


The amount of serotonine is linked to social status. In one way because primates can sniff it somehow, and know social status. In the other way, having a lower status affects the level as well, so it is a circular thing, which reinforce itself. If you go up, you go up, until the pressure is too much, while if you go down, people will keep you down at all cost, unless you can pull a Count of Monte Cristo plan.


Again, good point unfortunately.

Noam Chomsky has some sort of quote about how to keep society distracted and under control and it is by allowing "lively debate" (or arguments and even violent battles, as far as I see) amongst "the people" but making sure to only provide very limited options to use to point the finger at each other. "Discourse"?
^
That would be an invisible dancing gorilla and exactly why it's important to pay attention to such things!

1PolarBear wrote:
One way to keep people down is of course the double bind. Tell them it is their duty to not be where they are, and stop them from doing it, though morals and stuff.


I find this the same as saying humans and animals have rights though.

1PolarBear wrote: Spiritual sloth. When the monks talked about "work", they mostly meant work for a divine good, usually caring, or charity, which was the ultimate work. And caring is ultimately what makes life worth living, and that is work in its purest sense.


Oh I see, I didn't know that.
I was thinking about how people with ADHD really struggle to get things done unless it's something they naturally hyperfocus on and how some label them lazy.
Yet, if they receive the right accommodations and allowance of focus on their fixations, they can go "above and beyond"

Labeling them as "sloth" is really because they're not "producing" the way authority expects people to (which isnt in an individual's interest - especially no minority).

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Pride.
How to deal with pride and indignation when your intelligence and insights are insulted?

^ Is it a temperament thing? How do you stay quiet and stupid?


You simply let people learn from their mistakes and leave them be? You can enjoy the show as well. I knew a guy that refused to talk about difficult subjects in public, but could quite shatter about superficial things, which is probably what wisdom might look like in that regard. Or just look confused, that can work. :lol:


As I think about it, for me it's a 70% issue of needing to work on my pride/ego.

But how do you do it, when it's in an environment when you know more than your "superiors" (schooling, work, etc.) - especially when they're making very obvious mistakes?

And then they all realize they're wrong and you could have circumvented the whole drawn out process of, say, trial and error - but instead, you had to sit there and be stupid.

1PolarBear wrote: Or they will try to destroy you because you force them to think outside their prejudice, which goes against their culture, most probably. So it is a loosing proposition. Its like having pride in loosing. It does not make too much sense.


This one is very familiar. I need to try to look at it as taking pride in losing to see if I can adjust my attitude to make things easier for me.

I also feel this somehow tie into your ability to choose what terms you sign onto social contracts (rather than force/pressured contracts that I always end up in one way or another so instead, I just avoid people).

1PolarBear wrote:... need to come across something trustworthy, but also have to be open to it if it happens, and this is something that needs to be cultivated and be discerning about.


This is a "fall through the net" kind of thing; what works for many, fails a few.
^
Especially in the realm of injured attachment capacities crossing with other factors (like other mental illnesses, being stuck in ###$ up environments, etc.)

It can cause more trouble than it's worth. :idea:
Especially once you start to enjoy and embrace the freedom in it.

Of course, as you say, to an extent things like bits and pieces of trust (and then bits and pieces of attachment) happen.

Questioning should never end though.

1PolarBear wrote:Now, just because the society and the State are based on humanism, does not mean people in it have emancipated themselves. Some, many, still cling to feudal thinking, so they act in a delusion, as if there was still a king, but at the same time afraid of possible kings, or as if there was still religion while being afraid that there might be one. So they ask for privileges from people or institutions that don't exist anymore, so they are regressive. They need to emancipate themselves, and learn to be individuals, just like others did. They are too afraid to go forward, so they go backward, since some others actually do see the need to go forward and finish off humanism. Like I said above, there is not too many choices at this point.


Finish off humanism?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Yet, both those terms, in reality, are nothing more than how the terms "doing what's right" and "morals" are, in actuality, meant as "stick with the crowd" and "do what you're told."


They are more than that, they are what binds people together. Without it, there is no society, just anarchy. Like I said, it is not something that can be evaded, unless someone is able to hide from everything and everybody, which as far as I know, never happens, if possible. But its an ideal as well, the ideal of the polar bear.


Yes I'm hearing you, I believe.
Power of the group,
True goals,
Good tools

Full circle which makes sense why it's there but it doesn't solve the fact that those ideals are often not how the whole thing works in reality.
Revolution? Not quite anarchy, but rebeling or revolting.

Then again, people don't even know their own morals and values anymore though, so it might be as bad as current mainstream fake morals and obedience. :?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
It's 110% true humanism is, especially nowadays, used to to censor, and you can not question it because if you do, you're the oppressor.
That's a double bind then, you say?


yes, because part of humanism is actually that it gives the right to free speech. But feudal people cannot abide to this, so they push all the more for censure, just for the humanist cause.


What a fantastic way of putting it!

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Sweet Jesus, I hope hunting is for benign things like conversations.


Its perfect love. :D


I go back to thinking I need a dictionary and reevaluate my understanding of the English language !

1PolarBear wrote: There are made up caves in the snow. Stone caves are optional, not much better than snow caves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZH_aT0FGI


Wild, I never knew snow caves existed

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I was aware of brain shrinking, but I had no idea it could also recover.


https://psycheducation.org/depression-i ... -reversed/
It usually doesn't for diseases and such, but things like acute stress or depression, I believe it can.


It makes sense
The shrinkage is made known, yet people seem to forget to add the hope and body repairing itself part of it

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
The most I learned is that there's debate as to whether it's even the psychosis rather than the stress and cortisol release.


Stress is the cause of both, which is why they come together.


I was just yesterday reading about the connection between psychosis and trauma.
^
It also mentioned children being diagnosed with the early stages of schizophrenia when the actual problem was the result of stress and damage caused by severe neglect and maltreatment.

To bad people who actually intervene and treat the vulnerable don't actually pay attention to much other than politics and pills.
That was the type of thing humanism was supposed to address

1PolarBear wrote: The real reason you live is because you are. So caring about being is the first step, and the basic faith.


Polar Bear philosophy or language! :D

Translates to how to care about being:
Find a reason why you can't go
^
Service & Spirituality

Absolutely, you can pile up all sorts of other reasons to "care about being" on top of it, but without those roots, all other steps slide away easily and unpredictably leaving you in ruins again and again and again...

1PolarBear wrote:Improving conditions of life are not a permanent thing, and it is chasing chimeras more often than not. Wealth is somewhat of an illusion, even if we all want it to differing degree, the only question is how much is enough, and that, is the how, which is more important than the why.


You think I mean by material objects and other external things to try to fix an internal situation.

I mean things that feed and fuel the soul.
or even palliative care for the soul too, I guess.

1PolarBear wrote:Right, and hoping for things that do not exist in reality is rarely a good path, whether it is something that was lost, or a longing for something that never was. Best to focus on the present reality, or what is highly probable and sure. That is what grieving is supposed to do, refocus on the present and what you have, if done properly.


I think what grieving is supposed to do is another situation of falling through the nets where outsider's solutions worked for many but fails some and then other solutions need to be found.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I've been recently learning about Aristotle.
His ideas of the composition of the heavens and the earth are so beautiful (for the most part) to think about.

I wish I knew when alchemy began in relation to when he existed (before or after etc)


A lot later. In the West, both came together after the Crusades, so they discovered Aristotle and alchemy, and both were entertwined for some reason. Himself, he was a philosopher, and would have considered alchemy as an art, not philosophy. Just like living is an art, it is practical wisdom, while the philosopher deals with words and causes instead. Arts use philosophy as guidance and intuition, but that is about it.

So Aristotle was in 300 BC, alchemy in the 12th century AD, a bit earlier in the Muslim world.


Again, fascinating!

It makes sense to use philosophy as guidance and intuition.
What else could it be used for today? I don't see how ancient philosophers' understandings of the composition of the universe or our bodies or physics etc to be able to sit at the table of modern scientific theory anyways - but I'm quite new to it

1PolarBear wrote:So I guess, you will be a spider. :wink:


In many ways!

1PolarBear wrote:You know, they aren't bothered by flies, they seek them, they love flies.


Yes, I was going to bring my position around spiders and thus flies up in regards to things that feed off carrion along with crows, comodo dragons etc --- but then I was thinking that that is not the type of fly or squirmy I'd want any spider eating.

But, maybe that's why I was ok with hoping for dead things for so long.

Maybe crickets are better.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Yes, I've been drawn to the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms for almost as long as I can remember, but because I have some Indigenous friends who have suffered greatly at the hands of invasive primates (so lowly that they were worst than what's found in rotting flesh), I feel more comfortable trying to learn to speak in the language of Hermeticism. Although I can't say it does the relationship between self and nature justice.


I believe they tend to go too far, at least the modern interpretations. Most of it comes from Aristotle and/or scholasticism, but they don't make the same mistakes of trying to put form and matter together. Lots of it comes from pseudo-Dionysus I believe, so it is poetry, not science or philosophy.


I'm not particularly interested in going too indepth with any of it, it leaves me nauseous to do so.

I just like the fact that it offers a (very) loose translation of parts of shamanism that match my experiences and it's not as "make $#%^ up as you go" as most "new age" is these days.

I've never heard of pseudo-Dionysus though... ?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Now, I've been realizing it's a custom; a generally effective one at that.

Giving people this sentiment to wallow in, and feed off, romanticizes and increases empathy or captures the sympathy of their students to their cause. Not that I disagree with the cause most of the time. The idealism is ridiculous though; I think it goes back to the aforementioned romanticizing, empathizing and sympathizing.


Sure, it is a custom, which may or may not apply to your reality, but it is important to know and understand nevertheless, especially if you want to improve on it.


It's one of the most intolerable customs there are.

I had to step back from my job as well so the toll it's taking on me doesn't negatively impact the people I support.

That's where the toll is.
Not in working with others.
It's in the emotional appeal and sentamentalism.

They force you to wallow because they have no experiential understanding and very little field "frontline" experience.
^
That's another reason: They Get Off On It
Safety of Emotional Tourism.
^
I'd like to take them up close, and rub their faces in it
^
And, just to cheer me up, smack them with a rolled up newspaper and throw them outside to wrap up the experience for them. :D

I'm at the point that I don't think I could go further in my education because of it's kind of ######6 me up.
My psychologist says I'm not thinking clearly right now because of it, so leave my concern about continuing schooling alone and focus on completing my semester for now so that I don't further build upon the asphyxiation.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


ADVERTISEMENT

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:17 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Do have an example of how "it's useless to see the dancing bear"?


Well, I gave the example of bears can walk on water (and swim under too!).

There are plenty, like people dying all the time around the world. There is nothing anybody can do about it, so it is for the most part occulted, unless it is big or unusual, like a coronavirus. But then again, that virus was there all along, we just didn't see "b". And of course, there is no time in studying all of them and care about all of them, and most people didn't know there was such a thing until people started getting sick and dying. But possibly 99% can be safely ignored, and you focus on that one you can't ignore anymore.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Interesting!
With the Major Arcana, I always saw The Magician with his hands at "As Above; So Below" with his tools, the Cup, Wand, Sword and Pentacle, laying in front of him and ouroboros belt and infinity over his head to be the one to take intention or "pure potential" to create dances and spells (and the like) with all those "tools" and with "1" being a beginning of creating something.


It is the first card, because he represents wisdom, and the study of wisdom was always considered first, because it deals with first principles. So above is ideas and truth and is considered pure acts. Its where things are eternal, just like laws of nature are eternal, but so are the words. So that is speculative wisdom.

Below is practical wisdom, and it is a mix of form and matter, represented by the ouroboros. It is preternal, just like sex. It has a beginning, but no end in sight, and it is a cycle, so the individual perishes and is replaced, but the idea stays. Just like Human stays, but not the individuals.

Pure potential in that card are the elements on the table, so they are tools to the Magician, but he deals in forms. So that card is a mix between the philosopher and the artisan, or the scientist and the engineer today. The philosopher looks at pure being and causes, while the artisan uses that knowledge and elements to create individual things or those forms.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I see where you're coming from though:
I'm assuming you saw "0" as infinite and potential, the fool's blind faith that the ground will be there (and so it is) as the "pure potential" as well.
His "simplicity" also pure


Zero does not exist, it has no form, so it is pure potential. The fool is a dreamer, it is not even faith, because for faith is a form. He just does not see the reality of the ground, even if the dog barks it up. So it is a reckless distraction mostly, which is like daydreaming. But he is still acting, but it is at a music only he can hear. See, that there is a ground and that you have to stay on it is a rule, and dogs are about enforcing rules, traditionally, like when they direct sheep where they are supposed to go, or warn of intruders. There is a flower in his hand, which is a kind of love of an ideal, or fantasies. He has no place home, since he is a traveler. Again, home is a form, like a house, it is restricted by form and property. Zero is not infinite, it is indefinite, which is different. It can although be anything you want, just like the elements on the table of the magician. But the magician is bound by rules, not so the fool. That is why he represents as close as pure potential one can be. The magician if anything is the opposite.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've never in the arcana picked up the Fool as the subjective "no right or wrong" one.
I've always reserved that for the Magician.


For having true magic, you have to do it right, otherwise, it is an illusionist that pretends to know something, but really has no power over it. So he cheats and pretend to know. He fabricates dream, and distracts from reality. Those ideas are shown in the movie the Prestige. There is a magician, who knows things others don't, and there is the illusionist, who doesn't know, but take dire measures do pretend to know. He would rather die personally to keep the illusion and the mask going.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I tend to see the arcana Fool as pure at heart whilst the Magician orients himself to what's right or wrong in relation to what he wants rather than what's inside of him or even in relation to decency to others.


You can see it as pure of heart in the sense that it does not apply to the Fool. But like I said, the Magician needs to be right practically, and its about truth. But you seem to consider pure of heart in some sort of moralistic seeking ideal good sense. That would be more the second card, the Popess, which denotes purity and justice at the same time. The Fool is simply innocence.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I view modern day Magicians as politicians, policy makers, car salesmen, con artists, corporate CEOs and the like.


I see where the difference lies. I would say all those are Wheels of Fortune, except perhaps the politician, who is the Emperor. Primates are Lovers. :D

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I know there's also the "Wise Fool" that would be a cross between (IX) The Hermit and The Fool.


Or just Polar Bear.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I struggle with that trend because so many people are obsessed with the green haired one after Heath Ledhers character joker character's relationship with that Harlequin girl and the romanticizing and glamorization of toxic dynamics in behavior, thinking and interpersonal relationships. Dealing with people like that is a complete pain in the ass.


He didn't. There is no Harley Quinn in the Nolan trilogy. Or its Jared Leto and Suicide Squad. They are completely different characters. But overall, they seem to represent individualism, which is why they are popular in general.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm not sure why society is downright encouraging and promoting the development of Cluster B personalities.


Because narcissism is the end goal of humanism. Its its perfection. A special individual that rise above the rest, but with no responsibility. The opposite is the vigilante, which is also its perfection, but in this case, it is too much responsibility. Both are narcissist in their own way. The first has no rule, the second makes his own rules and impose it on the first. :)

Heroes are the ultimate narcissists, and Leto's joker is like its dark side. Ledger's joker is more like the Trickster. He doesn't have a plan, and does not try to rule over people, he just gives them a choice, and both options are bad. So he does the double bind thing.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've never heard of the bard - I wonder if that would also be connected to the Wise Fool
I'll have to look that up


They are the same, except they can sing and make music and poetry. At least the medieval portrayal is similar, and mostly the same.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:They are almost always false and they deliver ulterior motives rather than the "promises" they're supposed to symbolize.


Yeah, I don't think so. You can look at people that give away morals and stuff. They are free, but not happier, on the contrary. People seem to be happy when they have reasonable constraints. The motives don't matter all that much, this is just envy. Maybe the king has bad motive, but it is not what matters, and should be of no concern to the ruled, as long as he does his job.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I see that as the Magician.


More like the Pope in my view. The Pope is human and has spiritual authority, just like the Emperor has secular authority. But like all humans, they have motives, but in the Tarot, there are their feminine equivalent that are not humans, they are the ideals, and have no motive and are eternal. So in the first it is justice and caring, and the other production. Both are necessary for life. That some people would cheat, or those in charge corrupt, does not make a difference in their importance.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If there was more depth to it, then it would be the Fool/Joker/Jester etc


The Fool is outside those things. He is not about truth of good, he is about pure being. But in the past, at least in the tradition of court Jesters, he was supposed to show the kings contradictions, and silly things that were going around the kingdom, so he was teaching in that way, by making fun of stupid things, and he was sacred in that task, he could not be killed in theory.

I believe it is the same as the Trickster, who shows people the error of their ways in some way or another. So their usefulness is to see "b". They are application of the general Fool, although in its purest form, he is just a dreamer. But you have to dream "b" in order to see it, so they go together.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:People don't even make their own anymore! They go to the store on Halloween and buy the same cheap, factory-made, trendy and meaningless one everyone else bought.


I remember doing my own when younger, I had forgotten about it.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Your character in your video clip said something to the effect of even "criminals ... used to believe..." = code of conduct.


Yes, there were honor among thieves. :)
That is why they are to be replaced by better criminals, humanists. Or people without rules in that sense. Total individuals.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I struggle sitting through movies do I haven't seen it, but for example, the joker you keep going back to seems to offer lessons (the way the archetype would suggest it should) and a while back you said something to the effect that in order to devalue something, you'd had to have had to have held it in high esteem at once point. That would mean to me the character had more idealistic views and values at one point.


Good catch. Yes, it is part of his origin. Two are given. One is that he tried to stopped his mother from being abused by his drunk father. So he believed in justice above authority, but it turned on him when his father turned on him violently. So individualism failed him, or in this case, heroism. So he was in a double bind situation, where he could be a coward, or be a hero and suffer the consequences. Either way he was to loose.

The second, he was trying to empathize with his girlfriend that was disfigured in an accident, so he disfigured himself to show that it did not matter, and she rejected him because of that. So again, some sort of double bind, where he could say it did matter and reject her, or say it did not matter and be rejected. So by becoming an individual and different, again he lost, and there was no way to win.

So he decides that masks are a bad thing, just a rule that nobody really believes in. That following it just leads to trouble, but not following it as well. Again it is an apt metaphor of humanism. They also thought rules of religion were only masks that were unnecessary, so they could become authentic, but reality is different. In this case, authority and looking normal are the masks. He gets punished by leaving them aside to be authentic, but the mask themselves were terrible as well. So he wants to show people what authenticity really means, which is not always pretty. But that's the thing, you need to accept both the good and the ugly. Anything else is an illusion, no different than the original mask, probably even worst.

Anyway, you should watch it, there are plenty of things that can be gathered.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Then, we can go over to that next joker character guy (bright green hair + metal teeth) with the harlequin girlfriend.
^
He's a "Magician" archetype.
Shiny for sure (both him and the chick are), but useless.
No lesson. No meaning.
No code of conduct.


Yeah, I haven't seen Suicide Squad, but he looks like a wannabe.
I would say the Tower more than the Magician. Its just vanity. Painfully self-aware edginess. :)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:The opposite of the joker character you keep referring to.


Pretty much, it is self-aware, and exterior, not interior. Its an illusion, not a dream. Its just a mask like any other. I go only by the actor and the scenes I saw, but it is my impression. Just a dude, not an archetype.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Where I used to live, code of conduct was black humor, call people out of their $#%^, not worry so much about social acceptability and even to an extent, morals (unless it really hurt someone).
^
Fast forward to where I live now, code of conduct look and act socially acceptable and fit in. You can do all sorts of ###$ up things behind closed doors and no one will have a problem with you as long as you act right in front of them.
^
Where I used to live, you'd call out the person who does ###$ up things behind everyone's back but apparently that's "wrong" where I am now and you'll get punished.


Different types of humanism. So the first is like the Fool, the second is having a public persona, Man, and a private one, that can be anything. The second is what humanism was about, the first probably where it is going eventually.

The thing is that aristocrats, and the people that were to be emancipated were not the unwashed, just the few elite. So it is an elite thing to wear a mask, and to respect other people's mask. But more democracy means people stop respecting those rules, and in fact, it has become a sport to kill idols and rip off masks. It's been like that for awhile though, it just keeps getting democratized. Pretty soon it will be hard to have any masks, because people won't believe in them at all, no matter what they are. Nihilism is pretty much inevitable. But lest you think being authentic will make the world better, the opposite is true. The violence will simply be more in the open and nobody will listen because everything will be an opinion.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:How do you mean it's not the mask but the people behind it?


Its what you do that defines you, not the mask. It is a theme in the movie. See, you assume they are different, but sometimes they are the same. Its only when they are different that it bothers you, but not if they are the same, and really it is a choice that people would focus on the difference instead of the commonality. So in the movie, the Joker has a mask, but it is pretty much the same as what is underneath, both are clowns. So it does not matter whether he has a mask or not, so you could say he is authentic. Batman on the other hand, is not, and what is underneath the mask is different than the mask, because he cheats.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Like if the swastika was a mask:
At one point, it was spiritual, life-affirming and then it was warped into violence, constriction, and mass murder.


It was the humanist rendition. Life was about complete freedom from morality, that old morality and godly things. It was a common interpretation at the time. For instance, eugenism was seen as life affirming, and Malthusian theories were a given. That prosperity needed death, was not in doubt, and even today, it is still not in doubt, it just takes other forms. Except now the justification is not wealth, but existence itself, but it is still based on individualism and science and social sciences especially. Its what people do that defines them, not their mask.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I just don't understand why some people dictate the terms of their "contracts" whilst I feel pressured into participation.


Everybody does it to some degree, you can't communicate otherwise. I guess it is just politeness, but yeah, sometimes they have to be taken down as well.

But the social contracts I am talking about are ideals. Its the idea of a few men, without any culture, starting over, and what would be reasonable for them to do. It was the project of the Enlightenment, which is also the basis of humanism, because from those fictitious scenarios, came ideas of rights and "self-evident" principles about human nature. They were self-evident to them, because some philosophers had told them so, based on those fictions. However, since the basis of that fiction is man as an individual, then the only thing truly evident, is doh, individualism, which is the end game of humanism. All the rest, the rights and so on, are simply masks, and things people just made up in their scenarios. People are bound to figure it out sooner or later. :lol:

Its the only self-evident thing, because it is the only thing that was defined to start with, so nothing outside of it will even hold any water. Its what the whole society is based on, so there is no choice there but to accept it.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:But humanism is an example of a mask being a bad thing - exactly because it becomes about the people behind it rather than the principles.


Sure, but the point was to be authentic. Its the hero Faust, which does terrible things and has no principles. He sheds his principles to live an authentic life and people around him suffer, yet he is still a hero, and avoids the fire of Hell. It was and still is, people's dream.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:More and more, when people see the "mask" (humanism), they see those people's stupidity or warped agendas (hence it's now just an embodiment of the dominant people behind the mask) and bristle, dismiss, discredit and overthrow to a colder opposite extreme like further marginalization and divisions.


Sure, it is inevitable. It was designed for that.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I still don't think I fully understand what you mean by competitive versus socializing masks (more so the competitive)?


The competition was the liberal ideal. So individuals competing between themselves, and creating wealth on their private property, which in turn gave everybody more, because it is most efficient. So it is about creating or keeping an elite that owns production and trade it.

The socializing is the individual but as an equal, which derives from democratic ideals, where there is one vote per individual but all participate and decision making is flattened. This also means that wealth has to be flattened as well, because money is power.

Both comes from humanism, and ideas of democracy. The second is simply universal, while the former is only for an elite, those few at the top. Both are rooted in an individual without any social responsibility or role, just a free man with "rights", which paradoxically are supposed to be enforced by the government, who has no interest in doing so.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote: So the world is ripe to emancipate themselves of those ideas, there is no choice that are winning choices.


Winning choice = mistrust + question everything 8)


It isn't winning, just a normal result of humanism and individualism. Its how it started. That's what the liberal believes, it is what the socialist believes.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Fascinating, I never thought of it like that.
I guess it all goes back to society needing structure and rules but the goal must be "true" and the tools "good"

I'm at a loss though because, in my mind, it's not working at all.


Humanism isn't about truth or good, which is why it is not working. Its partially true, and good is only made up. Its like the ouroboros, there is always a new good to seek, always a new product to buy or a new cause to fight for. Its a philosophy for artisans and merchants especially. Basically, it does not have to be true, it is good if it can be sold, which is the new value. The same goes for the individual. His freedom is in his ability to sell himself, to market himself. So it works quite well for what it was intended. Its just that many people are not marketable, so it does not work for them, or the value is cheap, which is no better.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Interesting tangent though:
When my little snake lines up her rat to swallow she examines and nudges it with the oddest huge amount of tenderness. Still not my definition though!


Its the right definition, to want a good. Its the Eros, and is the only one that is instinctual. Other definitions are moral. And by the way, it is the humanist way, because it is the individual that matter, everything else is either a myth or a tool, or both.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Noam Chomsky has some sort of quote about how to keep society distracted and under control and it is by allowing "lively debate" (or arguments and even violent battles, as far as I see) amongst "the people" but making sure to only provide very limited options to use to point the finger at each other. "Discourse"?
^
That would be an invisible dancing gorilla and exactly why it's important to pay attention to such things!


Yes, but in doing so, he is pointing to the elite, accusing them of doing what he is doing. :lol:
Of course he also is an elite himself, so it should not be that surprising. Although his whole life work is looking for "b" in politics, which is why he got popular. People thought things were wrong, so he gave them a narrative explaining the masks and so on. He is a killer of idols, just like the humanists, and that is also a distraction.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote:
One way to keep people down is of course the double bind. Tell them it is their duty to not be where they are, and stop them from doing it, though morals and stuff.


I find this the same as saying humans and animals have rights though.


If by right people mean obligation perhaps, which for most, seems to be the case. But is is competition. You have the right to succeed, and even the right to fail, but not the right to give up the game. When people have the actual right to give up and still live, then perhaps it will be a next stage of humanism and its end.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Oh I see, I didn't know that.
I was thinking about how people with ADHD really struggle to get things done unless it's something they naturally hyperfocus on and how some label them lazy.
Yet, if they receive the right accommodations and allowance of focus on their fixations, they can go "above and beyond"

Labeling them as "sloth" is really because they're not "producing" the way authority expects people to (which isnt in an individual's interest - especially no minority).


Maybe, but there is a lack of interest in things spiritual or intellectual as well usually. Or at least it looks that way, but supposedly there are or can be biological reasons for those appearances. Nevertheless, what people called acedia was a spirit in constant distraction or what they should be doing, so there is a lack of care about what should be. It will include chores, but indirectly, more like a causal thing. But really they were interested in prayer and contemplation mostly. Attending school is the same thing, its a form of contemplation and you don't get to choose what you may or may not learn, so you are supposed to care generally.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:As I think about it, for me it's a 70% issue of needing to work on my pride/ego.

But how do you do it, when it's in an environment when you know more than your "superiors" (schooling, work, etc.) - especially when they're making very obvious mistakes?

And then they all realize they're wrong and you could have circumvented the whole drawn out process of, say, trial and error - but instead, you had to sit there and be stupid.


Again, it is simply humility of knowing that maybe you don't know, or maybe you do, but maybe the other has other priorities or experience. I mean, you can point mistakes out, but you will have consequences, just like the Joker did. See, the whole point of being a superior is to be just that, it is the priority. Whether things are mistakes or not does not matter. So pointing it out will just be either taken as a challenge to authority, or dismissed, but will more likely than not lead to resentment and possibly a threat.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Finish off humanism?


Its not the end of history. The ouroboros never stops, unless people are all dead of course.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Yes I'm hearing you, I believe.
Power of the group,
True goals,
Good tools


Actually, I would say it is the opposite. You need good goals, but true tools. Of course the good goal needs to be possible, so true in that way. But wanting something that is, is the most sure, so if the good and true are the same, then you already have it. So the truer it is, the closer it is as well. :)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Full circle which makes sense why it's there but it doesn't solve the fact that those ideals are often not how the whole thing works in reality.
Revolution? Not quite anarchy, but rebeling or revolting.


Well, yes, the whole point of ideals is that they are not real, which often leads to deception and resentment, and overall a bad life. They are only good if they are true, or can be at best, but really the satisfaction comes when they are true, when the good is achieved.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Then again, people don't even know their own morals and values anymore though, so it might be as bad as current mainstream fake morals and obedience. :?


I don't know, it looks like people have opinions on everything, which is a bit of the problem with democracy, you are supposed to care about everything and know everything, and that is hard and time consuming, although most people just fake it. Another example why to avoid "b" sometimes that can be advantageous. But people might know if you watched the wrong TV station. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I go back to thinking I need a dictionary and reevaluate my understanding of the English language !


Its pretty mainstream, unless you think love is eating your cake and keeping it too. :D

DaturaInnoxia wrote:To bad people who actually intervene and treat the vulnerable don't actually pay attention to much other than politics and pills.
That was the type of thing humanism was supposed to address


No, it is a result of it. Education and child rearing becomes a private matter, so humanist thinking means not saying anything in the face of abuse, unless it is some sort, like physical abuse, but psychological and drug abuse are fine. People didn't want to be moralized and do what they thought best, and not only that, but children were supposed to be left to their own device as well, so ignored. The cause was supposed to be social/religious, the individual was good intrinsically. All they needed was to emancipate themselves of bad ideas, and things would magically be good, or follow their feelings and stop repressing, that also was to be good. Giving a pill is individual, and is not moral, so it is fine. No superstition of any kind.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Polar Bear philosophy or language! :D

Translates to how to care about being:
Find a reason why you can't go
^
Service & Spirituality


Or THE reason, not A reason. There is only one.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Absolutely, you can pile up all sorts of other reasons to "care about being" on top of it, but without those roots, all other steps slide away easily and unpredictably leaving you in ruins again and again and again...


RIght, like the ouroboros.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:You think I mean by material objects and other external things to try to fix an internal situation.

I mean things that feed and fuel the soul.
or even palliative care for the soul too, I guess.


There is nothing really internal. Ideas and dreams and emotions are still external to your self. Only the self is invaluable, at least for you. Others won't value it any more than what it can be used for. What fuels is good things, like seals, but you think eating seals is not love, which is where the mistake is. If you think like that, and put some weird moral ideas over normal things like eating, its just a case for not being happy ever. If you have to feel guilty for eating, you will die.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I think what grieving is supposed to do is another situation of falling through the nets where outsider's solutions worked for many but fails some and then other solutions need to be found.


Yes, but if you eat the seal and then feel aggrieved about it after, you just shot yourself in the foot for no reason, instead of cherishing its memory, and perhaps find a new one. 8)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Again, fascinating!

It makes sense to use philosophy as guidance and intuition.
What else could it be used for today? I don't see how ancient philosophers' understandings of the composition of the universe or our bodies or physics etc to be able to sit at the table of modern scientific theory anyways - but I'm quite new to it


The composition of things is not philosophy, it is the thing of artisans. Physics, yes, but aside from details, the Ancients had it right for the most part, a lot more than we give them credit for. If anything, the whole field has become delusional, so I would say they were better, just didn't care about math, which again is a thing of artisans. Measures are highly overrated.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Yes, I was going to bring my position around spiders and thus flies up in regards to things that feed off carrion along with crows, comodo dragons etc --- but then I was thinking that that is not the type of fly or squirmy I'd want any spider eating.

But, maybe that's why I was ok with hoping for dead things for so long.

Maybe crickets are better.


Spiders keep their prey alive a long time, alive but not quite.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've never heard of pseudo-Dionysus though... ?


I think he is behind all those hierarchy of things, like spiritual on top, and material at the bottom. He was the one that did those classifications. Anyway,, that is what I think, I could be wrong on that, but he was an influential Christian thinker, whose ideas lasted a long time, and influenced hermeneutism quite a lot. Its a mix of semi-obscure theology and alchemy.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:My psychologist says I'm not thinking clearly right now because of it, so leave my concern about continuing schooling alone and focus on completing my semester for now so that I don't further build upon the asphyxiation.


Yes, I don't really know what you mean by those things, like emotional tourism that upsets you. Scholars are known to be in an ivory tower, and these days, they are usually activists, at least in social sciences, and more and more everywhere.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:13 am

Here you have the humanist project in a nutshell.
http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Marx.pdf

Its quite condensed, but puts the foundation. Not that it was the foundation, it existed before that, but it is a good summary of it.

Like he said, religion was the theory of the world, which is true in its outward expression as a faith. But, the critique is that the world is bad, so whatever good religion says about the world is but a drug and an acceptance of those conditions. In this way, Buddhists were the first humanists, they started the same, that the world is suffering, and is based on an illusion and you have to wake up.

So this waking up, is the Enlightenment. And the hope of this, is that man, only based on reason, would create his own world. So he would suddenly create his own reality, and make things revolve around himself, instead of revolving around others, like society. He would revolve around himself. Its quite a project, which would assume a lot of wisdom, but as far as social organization, it is possible, but what is not possible is to deny reality, which reason has a tendentious love for. It would be like denying science in order to do what you want, which people tend to do these days. That is why irreligion is in my mind, denying reality, not just that reality that is man made, or man made creations like society.

You see it everywhere in all quarters. Global warming is one such thing for instance. Lots of people will say it is man made and therefore can be denied. Even global warmists believe this, the say weather is man made. So here, you have the humanist project to the second degree. The first degree is that the temperature in the world is man made, and therefore you can adjust the thermostat to be more comfortable. Then you have the deniers in the second degree, that say science is made up, just like religion was, and therefore, its about changing human condition, and global warming is the new opium of the people. In both cases, it is humanism and irreligion, with the exact same arguments. So that's about it for pure reason giving answers as to what to do. It just turns into a contradiction.

Fortunately, polar bears can surf on global warming, no victims at all. 8)

Speaking of bears, at least the Buddhist knew already, had went through humanism to its conclusion, and also found the way out so to speak, and the way out was simply just to die willingly. Just stop wanting stuff, so you get out of the illusion. It was highly individual, so no social salvation here, at best the Buddha is kept alive by the community to show them how it can be done. while some others are left to die, and save themselves (selfishly). But yeah, clearly humanism is not something new, it happened in the past way before the 18th century. Its just that some people like to reinvent the wheel, this time getting it right. :roll:

Now, of course, if the end game is to die, then there is no reason not to help along and make it happen sooner. I guess it was the Nietzschean point of view and the point of view of others, like Malthus, Galton and so many others. Galton especially is quite underrated, since he is the founder of social sciences. So you know what the end goal is. Its about freedom and the hope is to improve conditions, that is the new opium. That's also what activism is about, again a humanist project, but the Buddhist like I said, knew the logical conclusion, and it is not that way, even though the result is essentially the same. People are just very impatient.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:18 am

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:...The Magician...


It is the first card, because he represents wisdom, and the study of wisdom was always considered first, because it deals with first principles.


Interesting, I've always seen the High Priestess/ Popess and The Hermit as the study of wisdom
^ and the High Priestess in closer relationship to the Magician than the Hierophant / Pope.

I saw the Magician as manifesting with intention and I can see how it would take knowledge of precise laws to do so, but I envision that it's not until the High Priestess before much wisdom is applied.

1PolarBear wrote:So above is ideas and truth and is considered pure acts. Its where things are eternal, just like laws of nature are eternal, but so are the words. So that is speculative wisdom.

Below is practical wisdom, and it is a mix of form and matter, represented by the ouroboros. It is preternal, just like sex. It has a beginning, but no end in sight, and it is a cycle, so the individual perishes and is replaced, but the idea stays. Just like Human stays, but not the individuals.

Pure potential in that card are the elements on the table, so they are tools to the Magician, but he deals in forms. So that card is a mix between the philosopher and the artisan, or the scientist and the engineer today. The philosopher looks at pure being and causes, while the artisan uses that knowledge and elements to create individual things or those forms.


Wonderful translation of the principle and the archetype!

1PolarBear wrote:Zero does not exist, it has no form, so it is pure potential. The fool is a dreamer, it is not even faith, because for faith is a form. He just does not see the reality of the ground, even if the dog barks it up. So it is a reckless distraction mostly, which is like daydreaming. But he is still acting, but it is at a music only he can hear. See, that there is a ground and that you have to stay on it is a rule, and dogs are about enforcing rules, traditionally, like when they direct sheep where they are supposed to go, or warn of intruders. There is a flower in his hand, which is a kind of love of an ideal, or fantasies. He has no place home, since he is a traveler. Again, home is a form, like a house, it is restricted by form and property. Zero is not infinite, it is indefinite, which is different. It can although be anything you want, just like the elements on the table of the magician. But the magician is bound by rules, not so the fool. That is why he represents as close as pure potential one can be. The magician if anything is the opposite.


Good point.

___________________

*Can you speak on the Justice card?

*As well as why so many of the figures have one foot on land and one foot in the water?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I've never in the arcana picked up the Fool as the subjective "no right or wrong" one.
I've always reserved that for the Magician.


For having true magic, you have to do it right, otherwise, it is an illusionist that pretends to know something, but really has no power over it. So he cheats and pretend to know. He fabricates dream, and distracts from reality. Those ideas are shown in the movie the Prestige. There is a magician, who knows things others don't, and there is the illusionist, who doesn't know, but take dire measures do pretend to know. He would rather die personally to keep the illusion and the mask going.


When I said "no right or wrong" I was thinking more of idealism.

I dont know why I've never even distinguished between the two before.
Do you think they could be a spectrum or two ends of a continuum?

I'm thinking that I contradict myself because, if I'm honest, I enjoy both illusionists and magicians --- as long as they present in ways I like (non typical).

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I tend to see the arcana Fool as pure at heart...


You can see it as pure of heart in the sense that it does not apply to the Fool. But like I said, the Magician needs to be right practically, and its about truth. But you seem to consider pure of heart in some sort of moralistic seeking ideal good sense. That would be more the second card, the Popess, which denotes purity and justice at the same time. The Fool is simply innocence.


Yes, I'm an idealist.
Innocence is pure - even when doing harm.

Every thing a snake or spider does in innocent and pure at heart and never "morally wrong"

Even if a pet snake managed to eat its human it would still be innocent, pure at heart, and not "morally wrong" - it would be a different story if a magician or primate did it.

Same with children - they're never "bad" from a moralistic perspective.
The closest to "bad" as far as I'm concerned, is spoiled and over-privileged - rather than something like a conduct disorder

I've heard the High Priestess described as (moral) pure, but I see her as holding access to both the "Left Hand Path" and the "Right Hand Path" and leaving the choice to the seekers.
From that, I guess can see "purity" because she offers information either way and "justice" since there are consequences to our decisions.

* Tangent: How come the Star spills water onto the ground that then flows into the pool of water?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I view modern day Magicians as politicians, policy makers, car salesmen, con artists, corporate CEOs and the like.


I see where the difference lies. I would say all those are Wheels of Fortune, except perhaps the politician, who is the Emperor. Primates are Lovers. :D


I'm confused about them being Wheel of Fortune?

I'd only see politicians as the Emperor if they believed in the their causes and the lies they spew - and I don't think they do.

I understand the connection between the Lovers and the Devil, but why does the Hierophant have two people at his feet as well?
I've never understood why they aren't two different genders either.

1PolarBear wrote:Or just Polar Bear.


Fair enough

1PolarBear wrote:
... Or its Jared Leto and Suicide Squad. They are completely different characters. But overall, they seem to represent individualism, which is why they are popular in general.


I thought they were both the Joker just different parts of the story. I've not seen the suicide squad movie either. I just here about the couple a lot and have seen some clips.
I've started both, but I can't focus through movies very well

I see them as the opposite of individualism.
I see individualism as authenticity and here it describes isolated self-obsession or self-seeking

I do have to add as I complain about the glamourization of cluster b's:
I'd be hypocritical to say there aren't unique traits that could be capitalized off within cluster b personalities. These characters just don't embody those traits.

1PolarBear wrote:Because narcissism is the end goal of humanism. Its its perfection.


Unfortunate, I never thought of it like that.
Another a-b-c thing.
I wonder how many people consciously walk with that motive?

1PolarBear wrote:A special individual that rise above the rest, but with no responsibility.


That wasn't the way I saw it. I wonder how many actually see it that way.

1PolarBear wrote: The opposite is the vigilante, which is also its perfection, but in this case, it is too much responsibility. Both are narcissist in their own way. The first has no rule, the second makes his own rules and impose it on the first.  :)


I quite like vigilante style for the most part

1PolarBear wrote: Ledger's joker is more like the Trickster. He doesn't have a plan, and does not try to rule over people, he just gives them a choice, and both options are bad. So he does the double bind thing.


That makes sense

1PolarBear wrote: Yeah, I don't think so. You can look at people that give away morals and stuff. They are free, but not happier, on the contrary. People seem to be happy when they have reasonable constraints. The motives don't matter all that much, this is just envy.


Happiness isn't necessarily the end goal

1PolarBear wrote: Maybe the king has bad motive, but it is not what matters, and should be of no concern to the ruled, as long as he does his job.


  :x  :|

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I see that as the Magician.


More like the Pope in my view. The Pope is human and has spiritual authority, just like the Emperor has secular authority.


That makes sense


1PolarBear wrote:That some people would cheat, or those in charge corrupt, does not make a difference in their importance.


  :x  :x  :x

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Your character in your video clip said something to the effect of even "criminals ... used to believe..." = code of conduct.


Yes, there were honor among thieves.  :)
That is why they are to be replaced by better criminals, humanists. Or people without rules in that sense. Total individuals.


Individuals as disconnected rather than part of a whole

How boring. I vote some type of meaningful vigilante movement. By my definition of meaningful of course :)

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Then, we can go over to that next joker character guy (bright green hair + metal teeth) with the harlequin girlfriend.
^
He's a "Magician" archetype.
Shiny for sure (both him and the chick are), but useless.
No lesson. No meaning.
No code of conduct.


Yeah, I haven't seen Suicide Squad, but he looks like a wannabe.
I would say the Tower more than the Magician. Its just vanity. Painfully self-aware edginess. :)


My greatest issue is with the all the females who idolize the girl and the dynamic of the relationship.

Most men have the insight to know it's ###$ up and harmful to the girl but can be extremely beneficial to them.

The guys who don't understand the dynamic often end up taken advantage of and upset, and then get labeled "incels"

Women on the other hand, have this all so romanticized they actually think being dysfunctional and behaving like that girl does is a desirable thing (not even trying to be emotionally regulated; being a tease, self destructing, going back for abuse and pretending she likes it, being a bitch etc.)

Then when they meet "a guy like him" that isn't desirable to them, they jump on the "Me Too" bandwagon, but likely continue to seek "a guy like him" that is desirable to them while filling up a backpack of "me too"s

Then extremist feminism ignores that their own team is who's working against them the most, and that they should address that rather than lashing out at men and promoting the rights for women to continue behave like that harlequin girl without consequences.

It hurts and separates both genders in the long run

This is an instance where I agree with your line of thinking saying humanism (in the form of feminsm) is about "a special individual that rise above the rest, but with no responsibility."

1PolarBear wrote:Different types of humanism. So the first is like the Fool, the second is having a public persona, Man, and a private one, that can be anything. The second is what humanism was about, the first probably where it is going eventually.

The thing is that aristocrats, and the people that were to be emancipated were not the unwashed, just the few elite. So it is an elite thing to wear a mask, and to respect other people's mask. But more democracy means people stop respecting those rules, and in fact, it has become a sport to kill idols and rip off masks. It's been like that for awhile though, it just keeps getting democratized.


I don't dislike the idea of ripping off masks and the "sport kill [of] idols"
The possible change in targets may be worth the openess

1PolarBear wrote: Pretty soon it will be hard to have any masks, because people won't believe in them at all, no matter what they are


I don't see that yet in people very often, but they're the types I gravitate towards.

I haven't believed in masks for the most part for a number of years now.

When I think of humanism as you describe it, people wear clown masks thoroughly convinced they're wearing warrior masks.

As we talk, I'm starting to see why so many people dislike them though and believe they don't think for themselves.
I always thought the opposite was true but now I wonder for the majority.

I also never considered that people may know the incongruity of all this and be using it as an excuse to do as they please in an, as you call it, "individualist" way.

1PolarBear wrote: Nihilism is pretty much inevitable. But lest you think being authentic will make the world better, the opposite is true. The violence will simply be more in the open and nobody will listen because everything will be an opinion.


I think if people were taught values and critical thinking - and intelligence was promoted, being authentic would definitely make the world better.

We just need a different "breed" in charge.

Again, I'm not a fan of violence, but if it's going to happen regardless (along with oppression), the targets just need to be changed.

I don't hold value in the same things most people do.

Talents and gifts are of value, people who've walked through the fires and survived and chosen life and continue to walk in that direction have great things to offer this world.

1PolarBear wrote: It was the humanist rendition. Life was about complete freedom from morality, that old morality and godly things. It was a common interpretation at the time. For instance, eugenism was seen as life affirming, and Malthusian theories were a given.


I can fathom the concept of eugenism in things like forced sterilizations being "life affirming" - or more so, that those who promote the concept believe themselves.

Hitler, on the other hand, was a brilliant magician and an adept occultist; however, there's no way he truly believed himself when he said was promoting the swastika or eugenics as "life affirming"
^
He was canceling out competition, boosting the economy, acting on his broken psyche, trying to placate his insatiable fragile ego and God knows what else - but there's no way I'll believe he logically and rationally examined the targeted people's traits and what they were offering the world, and thought he was actually creating a "master race" by executing them.
^
He was blinded by injury and casting spells.

When they locked up and sterilized individuals with intellectual disabilities in the name of eugenics, in Canada, there was rhyme to the reason of proposed "life affirming"
^
NOT to say I agree with it at all.

I find it a terribly complex and symbolic matter that most will never have clarity on due to the polarization of the topic - with humanists making it worst, undeniably.

I don't even want to try to delve into that.

1PolarBear wrote: That prosperity needed death, was not in doubt, and even today, it is still not in doubt, it just takes other forms.


1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
But humanism is an example of a mask being a bad thing - exactly because it becomes about the people behind it rather than the principles.


Sure, but the point was to be authentic. Its the hero Faust, which does terrible things and has no principles. He sheds his principles to live an authentic life and people around him suffer, yet he is still a hero, and avoids the fire of Hell. It was and still is, people's dream.


I'll have to look up "Faust"

I idealized humanism as helping people help themselves rather than shedding "principles to live an authentic life" and, as a result, causing people around him to suffer.

I see how "give and take" are needed, but to me, it's more of renouncing martyrdom rather than embracing the side of you that disregards others well being. I saw it as service to God and His, while maintaining ones own boundaries. I don't think authenticity has to be an antonym to that concept.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote: So the world is ripe to emancipate themselves of those ideas, there is no choice that are winning choices.


Winning choice = mistrust + question everything 8)


It isn't winning, just a normal result of humanism and individualism. Its how it started. That's what the liberal believes, it is what the socialist believes.


Well, originally I was trying to make a joke, but "winning" has been subjective throughout the history of mankind.

If befriending mistrust and questioning things is a result of humanism and individualism, then there is some good in it after all.

Only those who have something to gain discourage others' from asking questions.

Perhaps, that's one of the roots in itself.

If people in power hadn't been so threatened and self-seeking while dressing up as for-the-good-of-all, and taught people how to question instead trying to snuff out questions completely, we'd be in a different position.
^
Probably wouldn't have maintained a payoff for them.
Nice how they can still displace responsibility to the people who dare step out of line and ask questions though
1PolarBear wrote:Humanism isn't about truth or good, which is why it is not working. Its partially true, and good is only made up. Its like the ouroboros, there is always a new good to seek, always a new product to buy or a new cause to fight for. Its a philosophy for artisans and merchants especially. Basically, it does not have to be true, it is good if it can be sold, which is the new value. The same goes for the individual. His freedom is in his ability to sell himself, to market himself. So it works quite well for what it was intended. Its just that many people are not marketable, so it does not work for them, or the value is cheap, which is no better.


Most real artisans are not marketable because we place our value in things like being "gangsta," status, gaining money without work or purpose so we can spend our lot in life escaping reality through drinking and using and chasing tail (female or male) yet always left unsatisfied, same with chasing purchases (again unsatisfied for more than a moment), that joker with his harlequin chick, plastic instead of gemstones, cookie-cutter factory products instead of hand carved with intention and purpose.

Being able to "market" yourself or "sell" yourself in this day and age isn't necessarily something one should feel proud of
^
Or, at the very least, one should be aware that what is "marketable" in this day and age, is the modern day "emperors new clothes."

"Value is cheap" and "no better" in those who set the bar for the "market" as much as it is worthless in faux humanists

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Noam Chomsky has some sort of quote about how to keep society distracted and under control and it is by allowing "lively debate" (or arguments and even violent battles, as far as I see) amongst "the people" but making sure to only provide very limited options to use to point the finger at each other. "Discourse"?
^
That would be an invisible dancing gorilla and exactly why it's important to pay attention to such things!


Yes, but in doing so, he is pointing to the elite, accusing them of doing what he is doing.  :lol:
Of course he also is an elite himself, so it should not be that surprising. Although his whole life work is looking for "b" in politics, which is why he got popular. People thought things were wrong, so he gave them a narrative explaining the masks and so on. He is a killer of idols, just like the humanists, and that is also a distraction.


I never even considered that before  :shock:

I'm learning I don't mind a lot of the things I complain about - as long as they present themselves in a manner I like (which, again, is something I complain about in others).

Although I can see possible repercussions, I'm all for his work and giving people a "narrative explaining the masks and so on" or being a "killer of idols" or his distraction or angles.
I won't be convinced at this time otherwise.

You seem detached. I wonder what happens to people of the same level of intelligence, but with a high level of emotional investment (rather than the detachment you have). That could be quite uncomfortable.

1PolarBear wrote:... a lack of interest in things spiritual or intellectual...


You just described most primates in general  :lol: :shock: 

Image

They ask the least amount of questions; they have the least to contribute to the world - and that is what's "marketable" - and they thrive, or in the words of a vivacious and successful young starlet,   :lol: :? :|

"Dat ass, dat ass, dat ass, dat ass
Dat ass, dat ass, dat ass, dat ass
She bad, she bad, she bad, she bad
She bad, she bad, she bad, she bad
Gucci bag, Gucci bag, Gucci bag, Fendi bag
Prada bag, Louis bag, Gucci bag, Gucci bag
Birkin bag, she in the bag, she drip, she swag
Never mad, she glad, Louis bag, she in the bag
"

1PolarBear wrote:See, the whole point of being a superior is to be just that, it is the priority. Whether things are mistakes or not does not matter.


I'm confused, do you have an example?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
To bad people who actually intervene and treat the vulnerable don't actually pay attention to much other than politics and pills.
That was the type of thing humanism was supposed to address


No, it is a result of it. Education and child rearing becomes a private matter, so humanist thinking means not saying anything in the face of abuse, unless it is some sort, like physical abuse, but psychological and drug abuse are fine. People didn't want to be moralized and do what they thought best, and not only that, but children were supposed to be left to their own device as well, so ignored. The cause was supposed to be social/religious, the individual was good intrinsically. All they needed was to emancipate themselves of bad ideas, and things would magically be good, or follow their feelings and stop repressing, that also was to be good. Giving a pill is individual, and is not moral, so it is fine. No superstition of any kind.


That sounds about right, unfortunately.

Mind you, if we're looking at drug addiction, all the efforts to clean supply, naloxone, opioid replacement therapy and possibly legalizing opioids isn't because social justice succeeded.

It's because it decreases use of resources (hospital beds, doctors, organs, medications, paramedics..), decreases infectious disease outbreaks (HIV, hep, STDs, etc) and shuts people up
^^^
It has nothing to do with enabling people, nor does it have anything to do with helping people.

It's just that most people in general don't see that, so "humanists" feel like they're gaining "social justice" and the people who'd ask questions can point the finger at them.
It has nothing to do with humanism.

It probably has to do with a backfired covert attempt at killing off addicts via fentanyl; probably why they allow ongoing serial killings of sex trade workers too.

Cost efficient "distraction" from inadequate amount treatment centers, detoxes, interventions and improvements regarding "eduction and child rearing" and all the other parts of a zipper problem.

I'm still uncertain what the problem with that project in the USA that gives addicts money if they sterilize themselves is (and why it's not everywhere).
^
That's actually a real form of "harm reduction" as far as I'm concerned.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
You think I mean by material objects and other external things to try to fix an internal situation.

I mean things that feed and fuel the soul.
or even palliative care for the soul too, I guess.


There is nothing really internal. Ideas and dreams and emotions are still external to your self. Only the self is invaluable, at least for you. Others won't value it any more than what it can be used for. What fuels is good things, like seals, but you think eating seals is not love, which is where the mistake is. If you think like that, and put some weird moral ideas over normal things like eating, its just a case for not being happy ever. If you have to feel guilty for eating, you will die.


  :D I thanked my snake for not loving me :D

1PolarBear wrote: The composition of things is not philosophy, it is the thing of artisans. Physics, yes, but aside from details, the Ancients had it right for the most part, a lot more than we give them credit for. If anything, the whole field has become delusional, so I would say they were better, just didn't care about math, which again is a thing of artisans. Measures are highly overrated.


I can't say I understand how to define philosophy. From an artisan? perspective, it's neat to learn about Descartes' belief on "seat of the soul" being the pineal gland - given there are other sects of spirituality who also hold weight in the role of the pineal gland.

The whole field of science is becoming delusional?
As in turning into a type of rigid religion in itself?


1PolarBear wrote: I think he is behind all those hierarchy of things, like spiritual on top, and material at the bottom. He was the one that did those classifications. Anyway,, that is what I think, I could be wrong on that, but he was an influential Christian thinker, whose ideas lasted a long time, and influenced hermeneutism quite a lot. Its a mix of semi-obscure theology and alchemy.


Very interesting, I'll have to learn more about pseudo-Dionysus

1PolarBear wrote:
Yes, I don't really know what you mean by those things, like emotional tourism that upsets you. Scholars are known to be in an ivory tower, and these days, they are usually activists, at least in social sciences, and more and more everywhere.


Yeah, in the social sciences they use tragedy to sensitize you to their cause - sort of like movies like the green mile or the titanic, etc.

From one "ivory tower," I'm being tossed down requisite reading of a book composed of different vignettes of some of the most horrible experiences of child abuse possible to do a paper (basically showing I read it).

There's nothing instructional or beneficial to my future dealings with others in the book.

What's more ridiculous, the author is a neuropsychiatrist with some very fascinating ideas and ways of explaining things and how to apply them, but instead of reading a bunch of his academic works and doing a paper on that, we're reading sad little stories that serve no one.

That's sensitization and emotional tourism.

If you don't have your own sad little stories you'll love reading them. You get an opportunity to step into a nightmare; feel a feeling or two and maybe even a tear - and then return to safety.

I had another ivory tower activist decide to spend the whole last semester focusing only on a single case study from a notorious area of drug use, poverty, etc.

As a case study, it was useless in connection to the very few theories she barely even addressed anyways.

It wasn't chosen because it had anything to offer by way of what we were being taught (which we wasted so much time on, we werent even taught 1/4 of the syllabus).
The case study, however, would probably make a top notch Hollywood tear-jerker drama.

There was almost no information given on what we were supposed to address, but it was a very, very, very sob, detailed story.
Tragedy glamorized and romanticized; interesting and enjoyable if you have no real experience.

Before I lived where I live now, I worked with people in that area. I'm more than familiar ("sensitized") with that stuff.
Then on top of that, someone I grew up with / little brother type, died the same way our subject in our case study did, in the same area, at the same time I had to start working on it which I'd already been experiencing counter transference in anyways.

She's basking in opportunity to use tragedy to enlist / indoctrinate / "sensitize" her future activists - yet we learned absolutely nothing other than opinions of how attachment theory is "mother blaming" etc. AKA when you said:

"Education and child rearing becomes a private matter, so humanist thinking means not saying anything in the face of abuse, unless it is some sort, like physical abuse, but psychological and drug abuse are fine. People didn't want to be moralized and do what they thought best, and not only that, but children were supposed to be left to their own device as well, so ignored. The cause was supposed to be social/religious, the individual was good intrinsically."

But it must be an effective way of getting people to show compassion in areas they don't understand or even judge and look down upon.

When things don't stop adding up, too much for me. I prefer my sanity. Disappointing though.

Probably a good technique to apply when kids are young.

1PolarBear wrote:Like he said, religion was the theory of the world, which is true in its outward expression as a faith. But, the critique is that the world is bad, so whatever good religion says about the world is but a drug and an acceptance of those conditions. In this way, Buddhists were the first humanists, they started the same, that the world is suffering, and is based on an illusion and you have to wake up.

So this waking up, is the Enlightenment. And the hope of this, is that man, only based on reason, would create his own world. So he would suddenly create his own reality, and make things revolve around himself, instead of revolving around others, like society. He would revolve around himself.


Interesting that "humanism" and (complete make $#%^ up as you go) new age are both on the rise.

1PolarBear wrote:Its quite a project, which would assume a lot of wisdom, but as far as social organization, it is possible, but what is not possible is to deny reality, which reason has a tendentious love for. It would be like denying science in order to do what you want, which people tend to do these days. That is why irreligion is in my mind, denying reality, not just that reality that is man made, or man made creations like society.

You see it everywhere in all quarters. Global warming is one such thing for instance. Lots of people will say it is man made and therefore can be denied. Even global warmists believe this, the say weather is man made. So here, you have the humanist project to the second degree. The first degree is that the temperature in the world is man made, and therefore you can adjust the thermostat to be more comfortable. Then you have the deniers in the second degree, that say science is made up, just like religion was, and therefore, its about changing human condition, and global warming is the new opium of the people. In both cases, it is humanism and irreligion, with the exact same arguments. So that's about it for pure reason giving answers as to what to do. It just turns into a contradiction.

Fortunately, polar bears can surf on global warming, no victims at all.  8)


How would polar bears survive that?

1PolarBear wrote: Speaking of bears, at least the Buddhist knew already, had went through humanism to its conclusion, and also found the way out so to speak, and the way out was simply just to die willingly. Just stop wanting stuff, so you get out of the illusion. It was highly individual, so no social salvation here, at best the Buddha is kept alive by the community to show them how it can be done. while some others are left to die, and save themselves (selfishly). But yeah, clearly humanism is not something new, it happened in the past way before the 18th century. Its just that some people like to reinvent the wheel, this time getting it right.  :roll:


Interesting little history lesson.

On a tangent, Buddhists didn't have a very clear understanding of the necessity of emotional experiences in normative people or their needs. Spiritual bypass isn't healthy for the human spirit at all.

1PolarBear wrote:...improve conditions, that is the new opium.


Spirituality and service.

Adding to life rather than being a parasite.

There is no other position of worth on this planet for a primate; same for spiders and snakes; healers.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:24 am

The Devil and The Lovers tie in together and that makes complete sense to me, but it seems like The Hierophant is meant to tie in somehow too. I don't understand why though..?

*mod edit*
Last edited by Tyler on Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Please don't post pictures like that
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:29 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Interesting, I've always seen the High Priestess/ Popess and The Hermit as the study of wisdom
^ and the High Priestess in closer relationship to the Magician than the Hierophant / Pope.


There is different type of wisdom. The magician is about the truth, the Popess about good. The first is scientific, the second is spiritual. Its one thing to know what is, another what to do. The Hermit, he's funnily enough a humanist. The picture is the one of Diognenes the Cynic who was looking for a Man at night, but never found one. Pretty much the polar bear lifestyle. Simple but efficient.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I saw the Magician as manifesting with intention and I can see how it would take knowledge of precise laws to do so, but I envision that it's not until the High Priestess before much wisdom is applied.


They are different questions. The magician can do bad things, like the sorcerer, or the witch. On the other hand, the Pope can become delusional or ineffective. Ideally they work together.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:*Can you speak on the Justice card?


There are two type of justice, one is distributive (scale), the other retributive (sword). The first is about equality, the other right and wrong, cutting the bad from the wrong. The crown is authority.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:*As well as why so many of the figures have one foot on land and one foot in the water?


Like I said earlier, water is usually emotions and a feminine principle, the earth is the masculine principle, so bodies of some sort. A lot of time though, they have the head in the sky and are in movement, representing air and fire as well. Like temperance, she has foot in water, or is walking on water, and that's because temperance deals with emotions.

But like in the card of the Star, it represents eternity, or everything. Seven is the divine number, so in that card, you have all the divine, and all the material. That what it suggest to me anyway, I am not an expert. It could mean harmony between he above and below. Its what the magician studies essentially. Magis were astrologers. They predicted the future by looking at the stars, roughly speaking. Or by looking at principles and the divine order.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:When I said "no right or wrong" I was thinking more of idealism.

I dont know why I've never even distinguished between the two before.
Do you think they could be a spectrum or two ends of a continuum?


You mean between, the magician and the illusionist?

They both deal with the invisible, but one is predictable, the other uncertain. Its the same as the difference between pure science and social science. One is based on laws that always work, the other is about correlations which may or may not have the same cause. If you find the continuum, you will have found the theory of everything. They seem like separate but complementary concepts, that's how I see it. I suppose for a good show you need both.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Yes, I'm an idealist.
Innocence is pure - even when doing harm.


Yeah, when I say idealism, I don't mean moral stuff. I mean like the above. The illusionist is an idealist. Just the same as the humanist, who believes in a Man that cannot be perceived or found. You can find things that looks like a Man, but never Man itself. Or just like today, when people seek the Climate, but can't find it, but assume it is changing, probably why it stays hidden. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Even if a pet snake managed to eat its human it would still be innocent, pure at heart, and not "morally wrong" - it would be a different story if a magician or primate did it.


Yes, it would be, because they have values. Values is to morality what idealism is to science. Its for wannabe humans. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Same with children - they're never "bad" from a moralistic perspective.
The closest to "bad" as far as I'm concerned, is spoiled and over-privileged - rather than something like a conduct disorder


If they break their toys, that is bad. Put hand on the stove, bad too. It depends what you mean by bad, but for someone that deals in absolutes, then, yes, children are innocent, since they don't know yet they have to be human, so they just do what primates do, and in that sense, they are still pure.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've heard the High Priestess described as (moral) pure, but I see her as holding access to both the "Left Hand Path" and the "Right Hand Path" and leaving the choice to the seekers.
From that, I guess can see "purity" because she offers information either way and "justice" since there are consequences to our decisions.


Yes, essentially, but she also gives nurturing and grace to those below. So it is not just giving a choice and deal with it, there is prodding towards the right choice.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:* Tangent: How come the Star spills water onto the ground that then flows into the pool of water?


Probably grace or something like that. The right attitude.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm confused about them being Wheel of Fortune?


You described merchants and artisans. Its got to do with transformation of materials, just like artists as well. Fame and money, which are based on chance. You can bet on them, but never be sure it will work out the way you want. Most likely it won't.

The magician does not deal in chance. Truth is not a happenstance. If you see a magician in there, it is an illusionist. Even the best engineer, can see his bridge collapse due to unforeseen circumstances, and no matter the amount of failsafe, there is always a chance things will go wrong.

So the magician is like the philosopher in theory, but in practice, he falls into the wheel of fortune as soon as he makes a spell. But some things are more sure than others, so i guess it is where you would get your continuum, in practice. But in theory, they are opposite. Its the difference between form and matter. Here, you can look at this link, it explains a bit the distinctions.
https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/1041 ... 413212.pdf

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'd only see politicians as the Emperor if they believed in the their causes and the lies they spew - and I don't think they do.


They are roles. Those roles can be reversed, but the card is the same. Although today's politicians are more like the hangman.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I understand the connection between the Lovers and the Devil, but why does the Hierophant have two people at his feet as well?
I've never understood why they aren't two different genders either.


I don't know, they look like priests or bishops.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I thought they were both the Joker just different parts of the story. I've not seen the suicide squad movie either. I just here about the couple a lot and have seen some clips.
I've started both, but I can't focus through movies very well


They are different interpretations. There isn't really a cannon story in the DC universe, just bits and pieces people can take and make a new story with. They connect to some degree, but if Nolan does not put Harley Quinn in his movies, then she is simply not part of his story and his character.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I see them as the opposite of individualism.
I see individualism as authenticity and here it describes isolated self-obsession or self-seeking


Strictly speaking an individual is only a unit. The idea of authenticity, see, is only a moral stance that is only meaningful in society. Its a primate value. Its meaningless if you truly are an individual, you just are, and the idea of authenticity does not even come. How can you not be yourself? it is simply impossible. You have to assume deception for it to have meaning in the first place. If there is no deception, there is no authenticity. But you have to create deception first, just like a primate will create a human in order to dehumanize. Its just classic MO. But why care about those illusions in the first place? that is what I am asking. Just for the joy of denying them? People had to create a flat Earth in order to denounced them people that believe in it. This is just insanity. Then some trolls come around, and say, "yeah, I believe in a flat earth. 8) 8) 8) ". And then there is a meltdown.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I do have to add as I complain about the glamourization of cluster b's:
I'd be hypocritical to say there aren't unique traits that could be capitalized off within cluster b personalities. These characters just don't embody those traits.


They aren't supposed to cater to psychiatric categories, so its all good. And again, those categories are also made up, in order to denounce them. They are those dehumanized categories, but you had to create humanity first. But then when asked deny you believe in it, which is where people are at, they can't even claim they know what a human is, just what it isn't, which is usually everybody else. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Unfortunate, I never thought of it like that.
Another a-b-c thing.
I wonder how many people consciously walk with that motive?


Probably not too many, but motive is irrelevant. Today anyway, but the people that created humans knew totally well what they were doing. They knew what it entailed, and that included obviously pride and a destruction of social fabric. And that meant freedom. They also knew, of were told, that this freedom would enslave them, but they did not believe that, or denied it, whatever.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote:A special individual that rise above the rest, but with no responsibility.


That wasn't the way I saw it. I wonder how many actually see it that way.


Almost everybody. Everybody dreams to be a tyrant in his own little kingdom. Activism is about destroying other kingdom in order to achieve that security and freedom.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote: Yeah, I don't think so. You can look at people that give away morals and stuff. They are free, but not happier, on the contrary. People seem to be happy when they have reasonable constraints. The motives don't matter all that much, this is just envy.


Happiness isn't necessarily the end goal


Which is why it is not achieved. I have no problem with people seeking unhappiness, I just wonder why they complain about it. But then again, it would not matter, but they seek to destroy other's happiness as well, so that is where it must stop.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Women on the other hand, have this all so romanticized they actually think being dysfunctional and behaving like that girl does is a desirable thing (not even trying to be emotionally regulated; being a tease, self destructing, going back for abuse and pretending she likes it, being a bitch etc.)


Its freedom, their goal is not to be happy, as you said, its to be human and free. So its all good. Just stay out of bear territory.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Then when they meet "a guy like him" that isn't desirable to them, they jump on the "Me Too" bandwagon, but likely continue to seek "a guy like him" that is desirable to them while filling up a backpack of "me too"s


That's freedom and being human as well, just stay out of bear land. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:It hurts and separates both genders in the long run


The goal of humanism is to separate people so they are free, and happiness is not the goal, so hurting is quite normal, as well as being separate. I am not sure why you find that an issue.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:This is an instance where I agree with your line of thinking saying humanism (in the form of feminsm) is about "a special individual that rise above the rest, but with no responsibility."


yes, nobody can flee the consequences of it. Its only one form though, like a hydra, it has many heads.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote: Pretty soon it will be hard to have any masks, because people won't believe in them at all, no matter what they are


I don't see that yet in people very often, but they're the types I gravitate towards.


You don't see guys like Trump? he is pretty obvious. People see a con man, and they accuse him of being a con man. Then he does con man stuff instead of apologizing. Minds blown.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I also never considered that people may know the incongruity of all this and be using it as an excuse to do as they please in an, as you call it, "individualist" way.


Of course they do. Children learn to lie around four or five years old, they just forget why they do it, but at some point they knew. Then they pretend to be a husband or a wife, while cheating, or they pretend to be a worker, while stealing, etc. The idea people don't do this consciously is just funny.

The problem is not that they do it, it is to be called on it. That is the difference between now and then. There was a time when some things could be called up, not anymore. Lies are simply everywhere, which again, was the goal, because no lie means no morality. So freedom. Its not even complicated. But like I said, this game of masks and unmasking is coming to an end, because it is now too constraining. Besides, they are social roles, which implies there is a social, but individuals are not social, so masks will become valueless.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I think if people were taught values and critical thinking - and intelligence was promoted, being authentic would definitely make the world better.

We just need a different "breed" in charge.


That was the humanist project, and still, it just happens to be contradictory. Its like reinventing the wheel. The good breed were aristocrats, but humanists did not find them up to their values, so they got rid of them. They didn't like religious values, or reason eventually so they got rid of them too. Being social is just one of those last values that will go. But creating the perfect human and putting him in charge is a humanist value, its the whole point of it. It just so happens not to exist. You can teach tricks to a primate, he will never be human, it will just be a mask.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:He was canceling out competition, boosting the economy, acting on his broken psyche, trying to placate his insatiable fragile ego and God knows what else - but there's no way I'll believe he logically and rationally examined the targeted people's traits and what they were offering the world, and thought he was actually creating a "master race" by executing them.


A perfect human, without criminality or life defect, ready to work. Then you put him in charge, just like you proposed above. Almost every nation in the West had similar programs, and like I said, still do. Its just more covert, and seemingly a choice, but it is there. The handing out of contraceptive for example, started out that way, from a feminist that thought the poor should stop reproducing. It was seen as human.

People are confused though, I believe. Master race simply meant in charge of its own destiny, instead of being under a monarch, or the bankers (Jews), or Christianity. That also is the common humanist project, except for the bankers, in this case it is also the socialist project, which is a humanist project. Liberals were fine with bankers, but still were humanists. The main thing here though, is that religion was thought to be life denying, which is not totally untrue, so get rid of it, and you are free to live however you want, as a nation, or a race. Its also based on values and free thinking, and reason and all that, just like you said.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:When they locked up and sterilized individuals with intellectual disabilities in the name of eugenics, in Canada, there was rhyme to the reason of proposed "life affirming"
^
NOT to say I agree with it at all.


It was the same reasons, except that the Nazis were socialists, while Canada was liberal. So while Canadians were sterilizing the poor, the Nazis were sterilizing the rich as well, or at least the idle rich. Anybody idle, because the master race was the same as the working class. The same happened in Russia earlier, so it wasn't exactly a new thing either. The idea that you could eradicate crime and poverty by outbreeding them was quite popular and top notch science at the time. Psychiatry was based on that. Psychopaths were the target more often than not, and usually they were low IQ people. People don't realize but work was not optional in those days. You were either a worker or a criminal, how else would you live? there was no social programs, the closest were some sort of labor camps, which were designed to be in terrible conditions, so people would try to get out of them, and find a better job on the free market. So when it comes to the German labor camps, it was the same, except they did not make the people work for something useful, just work for the sake of it, partly out of spite.

Lots of people still think that way too. In the US, they have slave labor in prisons, which has become a business. So you either work or are a criminal. Its the same idea, and its a humanist idea. No matter how one defines a human, some people won't fit the ideal. Some people won't be part of the group, and then the choices become limited. It usually is extermination, exile, slavery or segregation, and those aren't new problems.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I idealized humanism as helping people help themselves rather than shedding "principles to live an authentic life" and, as a result, causing people around him to suffer.


It was about getting rid of the monarchy and the religion, at base. Making people into masters instead of slaves. But the thing is that everybody had their own ideas about who would be human and free. Aristocrats thought it would be them, merchants thought it would be them, the workers thought it would be them. But at first, it was the aristocrats that wanted to shed their duties as aristocrats, and become rich, and no more war things. Not for them anyway.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I see how "give and take" are needed, but to me, it's more of renouncing martyrdom rather than embracing the side of you that disregards others well being. I saw it as service to God and His, while maintaining ones own boundaries. I don't think authenticity has to be an antonym to that concept.


Its not. The question is whether being authentic is a good thing, and if it is what people really want. But a deeper question is whether it is even possible to be authentic in society. Diogenes the Cynic was authentic, but people did not appreciate him in the public place, so he lived in his barrel by day, and would venture out at night, but yeah, read the story, you will see why people didn't like him in public. :lol:

Service to God is not humanism, it is its opposite. Its that one thing it rejects, since it is about freedom first, and idealism first as well.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If befriending mistrust and questioning things is a result of humanism and individualism, then there is some good in it after all.


I never said there wasn't. Like I said, it is give and take. There is some good and some bad. But it does not matter, it was also an historical necessity. Its not like people had a choice. Its mostly justification of having to adapt to a new environment. A new story, which sounded good for awhile. It still sounds good for most people, they would not want to go back, nor could they really.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Only those who have something to gain discourage others' from asking questions.

Perhaps, that's one of the roots in itself.


Sort of. But changing stories does not mean you can ask the right questions either, its just a new story that has to be believed. Really it was economical and due to urbanization. Farm was aristocratic, but the cities were liberal. While the religion worked well in the country, there was a need for different organizations in cities, and the idea of individualism is as such a normal thing, especially since you can't trust the other guy, because he is poor, just like you. Then you have the aristocrat that can avoid fighting, or the merchant that can exploit people. They all want individualism, but humanism sounds better, it suggests something good, some values.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If people in power hadn't been so threatened and self-seeking while dressing up as for-the-good-of-all, and taught people how to question instead trying to snuff out questions completely, we'd be in a different position.


Unlikely. They would have needed to change the morality to accept something that they thought was wrong, so why would they do this? would allowing people to ask questions about things they did not care about change they want or need for wealth? not likely. The reason also people wanted free sex, had nothing to do with questioning and truth seeking. :roll:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Probably wouldn't have maintained a payoff for them.
Nice how they can still displace responsibility to the people who dare step out of line and ask questions though


Nobody is displacing responsibility. If someone has free sex, there are social consequences. If someone wants free money, there are social consequences. The problem was not that people could not ask questions. They did, but they did not like the answer. :lol:

And then they refuse to deal with it too, so if there is a displacement, it is there. Its like a criminal that justifies his crime from the fact that there is a law or that they cannot question it. "Your honor, my stealing and abuse is your responsibility, because I could not question the law and do what I wanted." :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Being able to "market" yourself or "sell" yourself in this day and age isn't necessarily something one should feel proud of


No, but it is necessary, so might as well do it well if you are to do it. Why feel miserable for something that is necessary?

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Or, at the very least, one should be aware that what is "marketable" in this day and age, is the modern day "emperors new clothes."


I am sure everybody knows that.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:"Value is cheap" and "no better" in those who set the bar for the "market" as much as it is worthless in faux humanists


"Faux" is arguable. People decide the value of things, or people in a liberal society, so that makes it democratic, and humanistic. If a monarch told you your worth, you probably would not like it either, so it only leaves you the narcissistic path, to determine your own value.

That's how it was before humanism. You were born with a value, or were given either by the king or the bishop, it was given as a privilege, which was not a right, you had to be good. The only right was from birth, and even then, there were problems of enforcement. You would better have a good army.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:You seem detached. I wonder what happens to people of the same level of intelligence, but with a high level of emotional investment (rather than the detachment you have). That could be quite uncomfortable.


They scare old ladies in the street. :wink:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote:See, the whole point of being a superior is to be just that, it is the priority. Whether things are mistakes or not does not matter.


I'm confused, do you have an example?


The point of an authority is that you don't have to do the work, not to judge that their work is good or not, otherwise, it defeats the purpose. Just like having a judge, the whole point is that he judges, good or bad, and his decision stands. But people today think they know better, so everybody comes with an opinion. They don't understand the law, don't understand the case, did not listen to the witnesses, did not do the investigation, but they know the right judgement already. :lol:

So now people complain when justice is done. They simply prefer mob rule to justice. Now, again, this is humanism at work, so it should be no surprise to people if suddenly, kangaroo courts appear, and yo and behold, they do! But those will disappear as well in time, because why even keep the mask, if the prejudice is there already? why even loose time and pretend?

Its the same in politics. The point of voting representative is that you trust them. But people vote people they don't trust, don't trust their decisions, and simply hate them pretty fast, so again, what is the point? its not an authority anymore, just some clown trying to survive mob rule, and people that think they know better, yet make zero efforts to know about the issue, but they have opinions, and are sure that it is a better opinion than the opinion of their representative, so what's the point, why keep the charade?

Actually, the whole thing is old, Saint Augustin was talking about it in his time as well. People would come and see him, but would tell him what Christianity was, while he was the bishop, so he should know, so he asks, why are you coming in the first place, if you have all the answers? the whole point is that you don't know, otherwise, what's the point?

So in school, you have the same. Children know all the answers already, and if a teacher fails, he gets denounced. Or it could be their parents, or whoever. So what's the point of education? children know everything anyway, so why pretend? why not just stay all knowing in a corner? they could take soap boxes and preach instead, not that anybody would care, but there are Gretas.

At least people still trust their smart phone, but how long will they realize someone fallible wrote the code? :lol:

So yeah, you can see that all over the place, even auto-diagnosis is another one. They ask the opinion of a psychiatrist, and refuse the diagnosis, so what's the point, and what is their authority? there isn't any. And its not because they are perfect, but either you believe in it or you don't. What's weird is to pretend to believe and make stuff up.

So I come back to the fundamental issue of humanism. People will have to decide to actually become human and responsible, or believe in authority. Can't have both at the same time, they are in the end incompatible, just like democracy is incompatible with kings, or with religion, or with science. But people have a problem with that, they want their opinion to be true, just because it is their opinion, so what gives? :)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:It probably has to do with a backfired covert attempt at killing off addicts via fentanyl; probably why they allow ongoing serial killings of sex trade workers too.


People wanted to be free to have drugs and sex trade workers, it comes with problems, which everybody knows about. Its part of the risk, part of the plan. If an authority said: "this is wrong", people would panic and revolt. So people say it is good, and too bad for the consequences. You can't monitor people all the time, and even if you did, people would complain. The whole point of freeing people was to give them choice to do what they wanted, not to magically change the world. You can't protect people that don't want to be protected in the first place. Security and peace was never part of the humanist project, nor was anything good. On the contrary, peace and security was an opium, only there to stop people from revolting, supposedly. It forced them to accept their lot in life, so it was not life affirming. People wanted life affirmation, the potential to do the wrong thing, so they did. If they hadn't, then it would mean they aren't free. People want to prove that they are free, so they make mistakes and wrong things, willingly. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm still uncertain what the problem with that project in the USA that gives addicts money if they sterilize themselves is (and why it's not everywhere).
^
That's actually a real form of "harm reduction" as far as I'm concerned.


Why not sterilize Hollywood? most of them are addicts. So that's the reason, most addicts are rich and people want to have sex with them, and have maybe babies with good genes. :)

I don't know why. I guess it is considered taking advantage of people, and serves no purpose. And then there is the problem of consent. Maybe they consent then, but later on change their minds, so what then? people came back an regretted, and asked why the authorities did nothing to stop this, and why they were given the choice? why did they not take their responsibility? then the courts agree, and give compensations.

Same with those sex change things. People find it unbearable that people don't have the choice, then some change their minds, and it is considered awful, and a human rights violations, and why did the authorities allow that?

so it goes back and forth like that. Whatever society does, it is always wrong. Double bind.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:The whole field of science is becoming delusional?
As in turning into a type of rigid religion in itself?


That would be great. No, in becoming political and giving validation for people's feelings, and the politics of the day. But social sciences themselves are delusional, it is only stats, and stats aren't real. But if someone wants to build a bridge, and they don't know anything about bridge building, its the intention that counts, so people should just allow, or if they write a paper, it should be validated and put on the fridge for everyone to see.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:That's sensitization and emotional tourism.


Yeah, I get it, tragedy porn.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If you don't have your own sad little stories you'll love reading them. You get an opportunity to step into a nightmare; feel a feeling or two and maybe even a tear - and then return to safety.


I don't think it is an opportunity, you have to have the right feeling, and people are watching you, so you better bellyfeel the whole thing in the politically appropriate way, or else, you will become a non person.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:She's basking in opportunity to use tragedy to enlist / indoctrinate / "sensitize" her future activists - yet we learned absolutely nothing other than opinions of how attachment theory is "mother blaming" etc. AKA when you said:

"Education and child rearing becomes a private matter, so humanist thinking means not saying anything in the face of abuse, unless it is some sort, like physical abuse, but psychological and drug abuse are fine. People didn't want to be moralized and do what they thought best, and not only that, but children were supposed to be left to their own device as well, so ignored. The cause was supposed to be social/religious, the individual was good intrinsically."


Right. I did not know attachment theory was now illegal, its good to know. Not that I ever cared about it.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Interesting that "humanism" and (complete make $#%^ up as you go) new age are both on the rise.


Yes, its normal. If you give people the choice, they might not make the right choice. So if you want secularism and give people the choice, some might want superstition. But its okay, as long as it is not true. Until it isn't of course, then people looses their mind. Its like the little Gremlins. They are cute, until you feed them at night.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:How would polar bears survive that?


By pure awesomeness. :D

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Spirituality and service.

Adding to life rather than being a parasite.

There is no other position of worth on this planet for a primate; same for spiders and snakes; healers.


The talk about spiders, and the whole thing made me think of this comic.
https://tinyurl.com/rq2sac5

Story of an aristocrat, dealing with two humanists, one a hero, the other a villain, and he wins, thus fulfilling his destiny. Spiders have a central role.

-- Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:37 pm --

DaturaInnoxia wrote:The Devil and The Lovers tie in together and that makes complete sense to me, but it seems like The Hierophant is meant to tie in somehow too. I don't understand why though..?

*mod edit*


Not sure, you were censured. :lol:

I'd say though, the Lovers, are doing the right thing, so not having sex, The Devil though, is the opposite. That is the basic choice, which people have problem with. In the second, they are chained to their passions. In the first, they are happy in the Garden.

Traditionally, the Hierophant has the power of the key, so can "forgive" the actions and roll back the consequences of their action if they repent and of course stop doing this. That is opposed to the view that is more common in the world, that one bad action is a death sentence, at least in a social way, but sometimes literally. Not just you, but your family and descendants.

In a few hundred years, people will read Facebook, in search of dirt on their enemies, see if their grandparents did not have suspect opinions. Just like you being edited is suspect. :lol:
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:18 am

Lol, I'm ok with being censored by this admin because I've definitely (accidentally + unthinkingly) done posts against website rules in the past - and because he's good natured / goes above and beyond when it comes to being tolerant.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:The Devil and The Lovers tie in together and that makes complete sense to me, but it seems like The Hierophant is meant to tie in somehow too. I don't understand why though..?

*mod edit*


Not sure...


I posted the 3 cards mentioned from the Rider-Waite deck
May have been kind of weird or creepy for people who aren't familiar - or maybe counts as nudity
:shock: :oops: :shock:

1PolarBear wrote:
I'd say though, the Lovers, are doing the right thing, so not having sex, The Devil though, is the opposite. That is the basic choice, which people have problem with. In the second, they are chained to their passions. In the first, they are happy in the Garden.


I've never really looked at that card as not having sex, but that's a really interesting point since the girl is choosing to focus on the "higher being" as opposed to the naked man in the happy Garden (of Eden then I'm assuming) - the (moral) "right thing"

Before you framed it that way, I saw the two cards as what someone is driven by when they make decisions or take actions or what the intent is behind a situation.

At it's extreme in The Devil, they're ruled by self-imposed bondage, slaves to hedonism, pleasure principle, etc ("chained to the passions")

In The Lovers, one would be ruled by more "selfless" motives (and at it's extreme: "morality" I guess "the right thing")

Then in the Heirophant, instead of being at the feet of an angel or the baphomet, they're at the feet of the Pope and what appears to be two men instead of the "masculine principle" and "feminine principle" - all three very covered up/clothed

1PolarBear wrote: Traditionally, the Hierophant has the power of the key, so can "forgive" the actions and roll back the consequences of their action if they repent and of course stop doing this. That is opposed to the view that is more common in the world, that one bad action is a death sentence, at least in a social way, but sometimes literally. Not just you, but your family and descendants.


So then in application to what I said, I look at the two figures at his feet and say they're ruled by or slaves to societal standards and obligation rather than "good" and "bad" ?
* or following the rules because that's what you're supposed to do and/or because that's what's good for everyone?

Anyways, I'm not allowing myself to reply to the rest of what you replied until I'm done an assignment I'm extremely behind on.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:42 am

1PolarBear wrote:There is different type of wisdom. The magician is about the truth, the Popess about good. The first is scientific, the second is spiritual. Its one thing to know what is, another what to do. The Hermit, he's funnily enough a humanist. The picture is the one of Diognenes the Cynic who was looking for a Man at night, but never found one. Pretty much the polar bear lifestyle. Simple but efficient.


How on earth do you know so much about so many things?!

I've never heard of Diognenes the Cynic until now. I did a quick search and it said he was looking for an honest man - you're saying he never found one.

Have you read Paulo Coelho's The Devil and Miss Prym?
The search was whether human nature is "good" or "evil" rather than honesty.
I liked it more than his famous book, The Alchemist.

I found it good timing because I'd had a drug-induced psychotic break back when I was 19 and I ended up experiencing auditory hallucinations with the onset of them waking me up in the middle of the night in the psychward commanding that I preform an act of violence that isn't at all in my nature. I got up to do it, but stopped myself and it was a battle within myself that ended in my requesting the psych nurse to put me in the lock up room.

After that, I wondered if I was "evil" by nature (given that it was difficult to fight myself from acting that night, and I had absolutely no motive) - and if I'd have to constantly be on guard against myself.

Later down the road, after I got clean, I stumbled upon the book and it served as the first adequate answer to my nature.
Simple answer that we're "good" and "evil" together by nature - not sure why it took me so much to understand that :?

Then in a psychology class I took in the fall (different from the one I already mentioned) our professor talked about some of the different theories on human nature. How there was a time children were believed to be born immoral and another time when they were born "good" instead of taught.

Then he brought up how easy it is to corrupt children - make them into murderers and thieves, etc.
He used children from the Gulags as an example - that criminals could "enlist" children to commit henious crimes, but the children's parents would often refuse to commit the same acts.
His other example was somewhere that authorities found it relatively easy to get children rat their parents out and even kill them - genocide to create a new country society (maybe south America somewhere?) or something like that

It was confusing.

I was also left very confused because what about children who are raised with "immorality" but grow up with a strong "conscience" that was not taught.

I'm also a bit confused how the hermit reflects Polar Bear lifestyle given you don't sound like a fan of humanism.

1PolarBear wrote:So it is not just giving a choice and deal with it, there is prodding towards the right choice.


That fits the High Priestess to me too - I'd never thought of it before!

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
*Can you speak on the Justice card?


There are two type of justice, one is distributive (scale), the other retributive (sword). The first is about equality, the other right and wrong, cutting the bad from the wrong. The crown is authority.


Interesting: distributive and retributive; fairness. That first bit sounds like the Six of Pentacles.
I still feel like it's one the ones I don't have a thorough enough understanding of, but I really like the way you explain things.

1PolarBear wrote:A lot of time though, they have the head in the sky and are in movement, representing air and fire as well. Like temperance, she has foot in water, or is walking on water, and that's because temperance deals with emotions.


The sky and movement theme had never occurred to me before
I see Temperance as an alchemist, but it's another one I don't understand well enough.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
* Tangent: How come the Star spills water onto the ground that then flows into the pool of water?


Probably grace or something like that. The right attitude.


Brilliant!

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
When I said "no right or wrong" I was thinking more of idealism.

I dont know why I've never even distinguished between the two before.
Do you think they could be a spectrum or two ends of a continuum?


You mean between, the magician and the illusionist?


I did, I was thinking between talented people who know what they're doing and pretenders.

1PolarBear wrote:
They both deal with the invisible, but one is predictable, the other uncertain. Its the same as the difference between pure science and social science... [see what I did here? :wink: ] ... If you find the continuum, you will have found the theory of everything. They seem like separate but complementary concepts, that's how I see it. I suppose for a good show you need both.


Fascinating!

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Even if a pet snake managed to eat its human it would still be innocent, pure at heart, and not "morally wrong" - it would be a different story if a magician or primate did it.


Yes, it would be, because they have values.


1PolarBear wrote: Values is to morality what idealism is to science. Its for wannabe humans. :lol:


I'm values based (my own values anyways), and I'm an idealist the way Justice is, I think.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I'm confused about them being Wheel of Fortune?


You described merchants and artisans. Its got to do with transformation of materials, just like artists as well. Fame and money, which are based on chance. You can bet on them, but never be sure it will work out the way you want. Most likely it won't.

The magician does not deal in chance. Truth is not a happenstance. If you see a magician in there, it is an illusionist. Even the best engineer, can see his bridge collapse due to unforeseen circumstances, and no matter the amount of failsafe, there is always a chance things will go wrong.

So the magician is like the philosopher in theory, but in practice, he falls into the wheel of fortune as soon as he makes a spell. But some things are more sure than others, so i guess it is where you would get your continuum, in practice. But in theory, they are opposite. Its the difference between form and matter. Here, you can look at this link, it explains a bit the distinctions.
https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/1041 ... 413212.pdf


Very interesting!

I'm interested to look over "An Aristotelian View of Marx's Method" when I get some more time. I'm a slow processor of information, unfortunately.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
...politicians as the Emperor...


They are roles. Those roles can be reversed, but the card is the same. Although today's politicians are more like the hangman.


Again, makes sense

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:I see individualism as authenticity and here it describes isolated self-obsession or self-seeking


Strictly speaking an individual is only a unit. The idea of authenticity, see, is only a moral stance that is only meaningful in society. Its a primate value. Its meaningless if you truly are an individual, you just are, and the idea of authenticity does not even come.


Cancer starts out as individual units that try to be something they're not.

Blessed are those you desribed:

"if you truly are an individual, you just are, and the idea of authenticity does not even come."
^
Blessed and a dying breed. I'm only authentic.
It's not natural to be yourself anymore. In my perspective, "authenticity" strives for that even if it's not a full "you just are"

1PolarBear wrote:How can you not be yourself? it is simply impossible.


Polar bear mentality :D

1PolarBear wrote: You have to assume deception for it to have meaning in the first place. If there is no deception, there is no authenticity. But you have to create deception first, just like a primate will create a human in order to dehumanize. Its just classic MO. But why care about those illusions in the first place? that is what I am asking. Just for the joy of denying them?


Deception is the goal in primates hence why your Diognenes the Cynic friend never found an "honest man"

I was going to ask the same thing, why create something to dehumanize it.
That's like cats toying and slowly killing a mouse or bird, and see, that's not innocent like it would be if a snake ate or killed its human (nor would it be innocent if a cat started eating its human's decomposing body).

1PolarBear wrote: People had to create a flat Earth in order to denounced them people that believe in it. This is just insanity. Then some trolls come around, and say, "yeah, I believe in a flat earth. 8) 8) 8) ". And then there is a meltdown.


And then humanists, as you describe them, would jump on the wagon for an opportunity of freedom and make things up as they go 8)

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Unfortunate, I never thought of it like that.
Another a-b-c thing.
I wonder how many people consciously walk with that motive?


Probably not too many, but motive is irrelevant. Today anyway, but the people that created humans knew totally well what they were doing. They knew what it entailed, and that included obviously pride and a destruction of social fabric. And that meant freedom. They also knew, of were told, that this freedom would enslave them, but they did not believe that, or denied it, whatever.


They knew/were told it would enslave them?

1PolarBear wrote: Almost everybody. Everybody dreams to be a tyrant in his own little kingdom. Activism is about destroying other kingdom in order to achieve that security and freedom.


Interesting, I wouldn't call myself an activist, but I'm often driven by the motive helping others (service). When one has anger or hatred or rage it makes fantastic gasoline.

Those who have full capacity for and full use of their empathy, yet condescend and have not an ounce of kindness or decency for broken people, make lovely wooden pallets. Otherwise they just rot and take up space.

The destroyed kingdom would be about the beauty in the flames kissing the heavens in thanks for such a wonderful opportunity to return the scum to the earth in hopeful exchange for something possibly more useful. Some valuable forms of life only sprout up from fertile ashes.

I'd not say I'm the tyrannical type though.
Way too much responsibility, redundancy and suffocation to lead or boss people around (for long)
^
Desire for my freedom I guess :shock:

Security for others who can't stand up for themselves is good too. As long I get to maintain my freedom :oops:

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Happiness isn't necessarily the end goal


Which is why it is not achieved. I have no problem with people seeking unhappiness, I just wonder why they complain about it..But then again, it would not matter, but they seek to destroy other's happiness as well, so that is where it must stop.


I see it as the opposite. People achieve "unhappiness" because all they seek is "happiness." That's about the only value primates have left.

Seek happiness through trying to achieve status, trying to achieve wealth, trying to hoard up on things, plastic surgeries, fancy clothes, trying to make themselves look at perfect as possible, using and drinking or shopping/sex/gambling/adrenaline addictions, seeking relationships for the sake of a relationship rather than a person, seeking "to destroy other's happiness" to feel better about themselves, and on and on and on.
^
Not to deny there isn't some good in a lot of those things when it's not an obsessive compulsive attempt at happiness.

1PolarBear wrote: Its freedom, their goal is not to be happy, as you said, its to be human and free. So its all good. Just stay out of bear territory.


I think I may have meant the humanist freedom goal is an attempt to make them happy?

If we're going to complicate things, "seeking unhappiness" is also fulfilling for a lot of people and thus in some way it does make them happy.
So I guess you're right, a lot of people have the goal "not to be happy" - including +80% of the MeToo women and Incel men

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
It hurts and separates both genders in the long run


The goal of humanism is to separate people so they are free, and happiness is not the goal, so hurting is quite normal, as well as being separate. I am not sure why you find that an issue.


Differences between the genders is great, but separating as in pitting men and women against each other is definitely a serious issue to me.

The Me Too movement, now a runaway train (as we've both already said), is an opportunity to proclaim victimization (80% of the time).
^ The same way PTSD was a "trendy" diagnosis that literally almost everybody had for the longest time and people would proudly announce that they had it, yet remain magically free of any and all debilitating symptoms associated with it. It was like talking about being vegan these days or only organic. Now two drunk people have sex and the woman is a rape victim. Hell, she could have initiated and had a great time but not remembered it in the morning and then it becomes "How could he do that to me?!" Men start to become weary and avoid women (aside from sex relations of course).

The normative compassion and ability to try to relate to each other doesn't get a chance to form anymore due to the segregation.
^
What is it developmentally? After you mature into tolerance of differences, you learn to enjoy or at least respect them. That stops happening between men and women.

Men express fear that they don't want to end up in situations that could set them up for false accusations. Women get enraged and their argument is they've had to work for men and they dismiss the concerns because it's rare for false accusations to happen = "necessary evil" (I don't think we actually know how rare or common it is, but they're certainly biased).

Animosity kills compassion = increase in disrespect, abusive relationships and actual assaults between the sexes.

Moreover, the women (or men) who do end up badly abused and aren't borderline enough to think they enjoy it, cannot receive the help they need because it's "victim blaming" and "sexist" to point out ways of thinking and acting that need to be addressed. Then men continue be given sole responsibility and blame in two way dynamics between the sexes with double bind of victim blaming accusations. Increase animosity. Increase abusive behaviors of both genders.
Ouroboros building up and rolling into the less glamorous Harley Quin and Joker (and beyond).

1PolarBear wrote:
You don't see guys like Trump? he is pretty obvious. People see a con man, and they accuse him of being a con man. Then he does con man stuff instead of apologizing. Minds blown.


I've always seen Trump as a peacock or a self-obsessed puppet that struts around masking the psychopaths who are actually in charge in the background.

His attention-whore, con-man stuff instead of apologizing is when his mask starts to light up and do eye catching tricks.

Maybe I misunderstood your point and you meant the mask of diplomacy, appropriateness and how they're supposed to pretend to be in the public eye?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I also never considered that people may know the incongruity of all this and be using it as an excuse to do as they please in an, as you call it, "individualist" way.


Of course they do. Children learn to lie around four or five years old, they just forget why they do it, but at some point they knew. Then they pretend to be a husband or a wife, while cheating, or they pretend to be a worker, while stealing, etc.


Children learning to lie is natural; cheating is bad; stealing from the rich is excusable :P

1PolarBear wrote: The idea people don't do this consciously is just funny.

The problem is not that they do it, it is to be called on it. That is the difference between now and then. There was a time when some things could be called up, not anymore. Lies are simply everywhere, which again, was the goal, because no lie means no morality. So freedom. Its not even complicated.


110% agree on the "called on it" part.

1PolarBear wrote: But like I said, this game of masks and unmasking is coming to an end, because it is now too constraining. Besides, they are social roles, which implies there is a social, but individuals are not social, so masks will become valueless.


What do you think that will look like?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
We just need a different "breed" in charge.


That was the humanist project, and still, it just happens to be contradictory. Its like reinventing the wheel. The good breed were aristocrats, but humanists did not find them up to their values, so they got rid of them. They didn't like religious values, or reason eventually so they got rid of them too. Being social is just one of those last values that will go. But creating the perfect human and putting him in charge is a humanist value, its the whole point of it. It just so happens not to exist. You can teach tricks to a primate, he will never be human, it will just be a mask.


How are you defining aristocrats as a good breed?

What about them was not up to their values?

How are you defining religious values?
"Love thy neighbor" style? Or "do what you're told" style?

How do you differentiate between a primate and a human?

1PolarBear wrote:Almost every nation in the West had similar programs, and like I said, still do. Its just more covert, and seemingly a choice, but it is there.


:(

1PolarBear wrote: The handing out of contraceptive for example, started out that way, from a feminist that thought the poor should stop reproducing. It was seen as human.


Can't say that's a bad thing; contraceptives do seem to enable women to go further in their lives and improve their SES than if they get knocked up right away - which they do have a habit of doing when they don't have easy access to contraceptives or know how to use them properly.

If there was a good standard of judgment, it would be neat if all people could be sterilized immediately and undergo training and testing before given back their rights to fertility. I'm certain they'd use the wrong criteria (at least as far as my idealistic values are concerned) though. :roll:

1PolarBear wrote: The main thing here though, is that religion was thought to be life denying, which is not totally untrue, so get rid of it, and you are free to live however you want, as a nation, or a race. Its also based on values and free thinking, and reason and all that, just like you said.


"Religion was thought to be life denying" because you had to "do the right thing" like not having sex in The Lovers card or...?

1PolarBear wrote:The idea that you could eradicate crime and poverty by outbreeding them was quite popular and top notch science at the time. Psychiatry was based on that. Psychopaths were the target more often than not, and usually they were low IQ people.


I remember learning that they did IQ tests with immigrants who'd be just off the boat and didn't speak English and decide they were idiots.

So do you think they decreased psychopaths by doing so? I thought they were usually quite intelligent

1PolarBear wrote: People don't realize but work was not optional in those days. You were either a worker or a criminal, how else would you live? there was no social programs, the closest were some sort of labor camps, which were designed to be in terrible conditions, so people would try to get out of them, and find a better job on the free market. So when it comes to the German labor camps, it was the same, except they did not make the people work for something useful, just work for the sake of it, partly out of spite.

Lots of people still think that way too.


No, I didn't realize that until you stated it. I'm not sure why I didn't because it makes sense. Wasn't that religion though?
^ You're "undeserving" and "immoral" if you don't work?

1PolarBear wrote:In the US, they have slave labor in prisons, which has become a business. So you either work or are a criminal. Its the same idea, and its a humanist idea. No matter how one defines a human, some people won't fit the ideal. Some people won't be part of the group, and then the choices become limited. It usually is extermination, exile, slavery or segregation, and those aren't new problems.


High school to prison pipeline

I've always understood humanists to be against that - or at least most think they are.

I'm very against people not really having a chance from the get go.

So that's what you mean by violence not in the open, I'm assuming

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I idealized humanism as helping people help themselves rather than shedding "principles to live an authentic life" and, as a result, causing people around him to suffer.


It was about getting rid of the monarchy and the religion, at base. Making people into masters instead of slaves. But the thing is that everybody had their own ideas about who would be human and free. Aristocrats thought it would be them, merchants thought it would be them, the workers thought it would be them. But at first, it was the aristocrats that wanted to shed their duties as aristocrats, and become rich, and no more war things. Not for them anyway.


Really? Would you tolerate being a "slave"? :?

Both "master" and "slave" sound like extremely undesirable positions.
"Master" would be 97% undesirable, and since people are thoroughly untrustworthy, "slave" would be 99% undesirable.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I see how "give and take" are needed, but to me, it's more of renouncing martyrdom rather than embracing the side of you that disregards others well being. I saw it as service to God and His, while maintaining ones own boundaries. I don't think authenticity has to be an antonym to that concept.


Its not. The question is whether being authentic is a good thing, and if it is what people really want. But a deeper question is whether it is even possible to be authentic in society. Diogenes the Cynic was authentic, but people did not appreciate him in the public place, so he lived in his barrel by day, and would venture out at night, but yeah, read the story, you will see why people didn't like him in public. :lol:


It's a major challenge to be authentic in society. You're right though, a lot of people don't appreciate it! :lol:

It's not really a concern when you see people for the scum most of them are anyways - then you don't want to be around the general public either. :)

However, people who struggle do very well with authenticity when it comes to being worked with. It often makes it easier for them to develop rapport and feel safe/supported enough to get honest with themselves, and as a result, start looking at how to help themselves.

1PolarBear wrote: Service to God is not humanism, it is its opposite. Its that one thing it rejects, since it is about freedom first, and idealism first as well.


God/spirituality would be my first value.
Fairly soon after, comes my value for freedom and authenticity :oops: :wink:

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
If people in power hadn't been so threatened and self-seeking while dressing up as for-the-good-of-all, and taught people how to question instead trying to snuff out questions completely, we'd be in a different position.


Unlikely. They would have needed to change the morality to accept something that they thought was wrong, so why would they do this?


My line of thinking with this was I noticed severely traumatized kids (be it generalized high risk or conduct disorders / sociopathic behaviors) better if they allow you to teach them how to question.

Trying to prevent them from asking or challenging makes the behaviors worst. Respecting their challenges to authority by providing as much information as possible relatable to them (and in all directions without moralizing) allows them to feel in control enough to occasionally allow you to tell them what to look for when they challenging authority and even "play the tape through" when it comes to behaving in harmful to themselves (or others) ways.

You're right, it doesn't change morality, but it's the best chance at decreasing repercussions and even circumventing ways of coping, acting and living before a personality type gets solidified.

Others add it to their tool belt to take advantage, but it's still worth it if it gives at least some of them a chance, before things like corrections systems, death, addiction, etc. get them.

1PolarBear wrote: would allowing people to ask questions about things they did not care about change they want or need for wealth? not likely. The reason also people wanted free sex, had nothing to do with questioning and truth seeking. :roll:


Free sex as in without commitment of a relationship or as in not paying for prostitutes?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Probably wouldn't have maintained a payoff for them.
Nice how they can still displace responsibility to the people who dare step out of line and ask questions though


Nobody is displacing responsibility. If someone has free sex, there are social consequences.


I think getting caught paying for / taking money for sex is where the consequences are these days

1PolarBear wrote:"Your honor, my stealing and abuse is your responsibility, because I could not question the law and do what I wanted." :lol:


I agree that's not how it works, but most who end up in front of judges are set up to fail from before kindergarten and our corrections systems are an absolute joke.

Double Bind

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Being able to "market" yourself or "sell" yourself in this day and age isn't necessarily something one should feel proud of


No, but it is necessary, so might as well do it well if you are to do it. Why feel miserable for something that is necessary?


Oh they don't - but they're not happy either.

1PolarBear wrote: The point of an authority is that you don't have to do the work, not to judge that their work is good or not, otherwise, it defeats the purpose. Just like having a judge, the whole point is that he judges, good or bad, and his decision stands. But people today think they know better, so everybody comes with an opinion. They don't understand the law, don't understand the case, did not listen to the witnesses, did not do the investigation, but they know the right judgement already. :lol:


Maybe you've been exposed to competent authority.

In this exact moment, my mind goes directly to the psychology professor who taught her students that attachment theories are "mother blaming" and invalid.

Attachment theories are still recognized as valid by other professionals (including the psychology teacher I've mentioned in this current reply).

A feminist who taught her opinion as fact rather than curriculum as an authority figure.
That type of thing is not uncommon in my experience which is why I was asking you about it. You seem to feel strongly the opposite.

This specific topic, matters a lot to me.
One reason being that when you look at something like reactive attachment disorder at it's extremes, you often get early onset conduct disorders with callous unemotional traits.

If you don't tie it in to something like trauma, the child gets written off as a "bad seed" or inherently "evil"

Tie it with something like reactive attachment and at least there is a sliver of a chance they'll try to work with the kid instead of writing them off and tossing them into the prison system (or let them get themselves killed) as soon possible.

I'm not even saying the causes are necessarily a result of injured attachments or trauma; just that it's the only door available to have a chance at accessing help - at least in low SES

1PolarBear wrote: Its the same in politics. The point of voting representative is that you trust them. But people vote people they don't trust, don't trust their decisions, and simply hate them pretty fast, so again, what is the point? its not an authority anymore, just some clown trying to survive mob rule, and people that think they know better, yet make zero efforts to know about the issue, but they have opinions, and are sure that it is a better opinion than the opinion of their representative, so what's the point, why keep the charade?


Do you trust them?

1PolarBear wrote: So in school, you have the same. Children know all the answers already, and if a teacher fails, he gets denounced. Or it could be their parents, or whoever. So what's the point of education? children know everything anyway, so why pretend? why not just stay all knowing in a corner? they could take soap boxes and preach instead, not that anybody would care, but there are Gretas.

At least people still trust their smart phone, but how long will they realize someone fallible wrote the code? :lol:


I haven't seen that - maybe elementary and high schools.

The point of education for me is to learn what's on the curriculum.

As I said, I also need it to not include "tragedy porn" as you called it but I'm assuming that's a what works for many, fails some: where I'm S.O.L.

I like learning what I'm supposed to.

There's a bit of a double standard with people in lower positions. They aren't allowed to make mistakes while those who are in authority are.

If I make a mistake, it's wrong and I'm accountable, but if an authority like a professor or someone makes a mistake, rules are bent and I'm unreasonable or cocky if I want to hold them accountable to the level I am.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
It probably has to do with a backfired covert attempt at killing off addicts via fentanyl; probably why they allow ongoing serial killings of sex trade workers too.


People wanted to be free to have drugs and sex trade workers, it comes with problems, which everybody knows about. Its part of the risk, part of the plan.


Sex trade workers that are targeted by serial killers (and violence in general) dont do it because they want to be free - they usually don't know freedom even exists anymore.
They're so far underground and buried by chains, they don't even make it onto The Devil card.
^
I understand that it is hard for most people to get or value them though. Same with addicts and the homeless. I know most people believe they should be allowed to die off.

But as far as I'm concerned, to give them a shot at survival, a chance to have a future, decriminalization enough to screen "johns" is important - and it would probably good to look at regular STD checks and stuff for the workers too. Public health concern.

There are other types of individuals that deserve genocide than the vulnerable, and people who make it out of the pits of hell, have much more to offer than those who come off pedestals.

Humanists advocate it and try to make selling yourself look like a healthy viable option.
^ I assumed it was good intentioned niavetee because many so-called "activists" haven't had any "front line" experience working with individuals like sex trade workers, so I assumed they didn't know enough about how that life actually looks up close or that most (female and male prostitutes) end up absolutely hating sex, hating men and unable to form relationships even if they leave the trade.
Escorting tends to be a different story in those regards.

My issue isn't at all with decriminalization; my issue is activists pretending that it should be embraced - rather than addressing the underlying issues the majority of survival sex trade workers have.

On a tangent, it sounds interesting that somewhere in Europe funds disabled individuals to pay for escorts a certain amount of times a year - haven't fact checked it, but it's a neat idea.

1PolarBear wrote: Why not sterilize Hollywood? most of them are addicts. So that's the reason, most addicts are rich and people want to have sex with them, and have maybe babies with good genes. :)


And then sell tickets for it Bedlam style

1PolarBear wrote: I don't know why. I guess it is considered taking advantage of people, and serves no purpose. And then there is the problem of consent. Maybe they consent then, but later on change their minds, so what then? people came back an regretted, and asked why the authorities did nothing to stop this, and why they were given the choice? why did they not take their responsibility? then the courts agree, and give compensations.

Same with those sex change things. People find it unbearable that people don't have the choice, then some change their minds, and it is considered awful, and a human rights violations, and why did the authorities allow that?

so it goes back and forth like that. Whatever society does, it is always wrong. Double bind.


Scary, fake battle :(

1PolarBear wrote: That would be great. No, in becoming political and giving validation for people's feelings, and the politics of the day. But social sciences themselves are delusional, it is only stats, and stats aren't real. But if someone wants to build a bridge, and they don't know anything about bridge building, its the intention that counts, so people should just allow, or if they write a paper, it should be validated and put on the fridge for everyone to see.


Makes sense.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
If you don't have your own sad little stories you'll love reading them. You get an opportunity to step into a nightmare; feel a feeling or two and maybe even a tear - and then return to safety.


I don't think it is an opportunity, you have to have the right feeling, and people are watching you, so you better bellyfeel the whole thing in the politically appropriate way, or else, you will become a non person.


Maybe. I just see people get excited and "dive in" as soon as the really heavy stuff is pulled out, but maybe they find it easy/enjoyable to handle because they don't experience it more than at a surface level.

1PolarBear wrote:
The talk about spiders, and the whole thing made me think of this comic.
https://tinyurl.com/rq2sac5

Story of an aristocrat, dealing with two humanists, one a hero, the other a villain, and he wins, thus fulfilling his destiny. Spiders have a central role.


I liked that the spider (or spiderman) was the hero, but I didn't fully understand the interplay between the characters.
The rat guy somehow reminded me of Gollum (very vaguely remember that character when I saw a couple of the Lord of Rings movies when they came out)

Remember you're dealing with an arachnid, our brains are quite simple. I risk getting disoriented easily :lol:

This is more at my skill level and it explains why I have such a bond with alligators (or crocodiles I guess) 8)
^
http://imgur.com/a/PuwYLxi
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:34 am

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've never really looked at that card as not having sex, but that's a really interesting point since the girl is choosing to focus on the "higher being" as opposed to the naked man in the happy Garden (of Eden then I'm assuming) - the (moral) "right thing"


She's following God's will, or God's command not to touch the tree in the middle of the Garden. But in some ways, Adam is the Garden, and Eve is the Nile or the river that runs through the Garden. There is a double meaning in that story, but put both meaning together, and the rest is clearer.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Before you framed it that way, I saw the two cards as what someone is driven by when they make decisions or take actions or what the intent is behind a situation.

At it's extreme in The Devil, they're ruled by self-imposed bondage, slaves to hedonism, pleasure principle, etc ("chained to the passions")

In The Lovers, one would be ruled by more "selfless" motives (and at it's extreme: "morality" I guess "the right thing")


Its not untrue, but it comes back to the question of authority. The lovers are following the authority blindly, out of faith and love. They don't know really good and evil until they try evil, and then it is the Devil's card. Its not morality, it is faith, which is pre-moral in a sense. They don't know first hand the bad, only the good, if they accept it. But they are given the choice, and they choose the Man instead of the God. So it is an analogy to humanism. The Devil is the perfect humanist, who "frees" the individual, or tempts them to do so.

What the Church called it was grace, not morality. So before the bad decision, they are in a state of grace, and when they decide to make their own determination of good and evil, they fall from grace, and then they are not in tune with nature and their environment, they become alienated from it, and from each others as well, yet bound to them at the same time.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:So then in application to what I said, I look at the two figures at his feet and say they're ruled by or slaves to societal standards and obligation rather than "good" and "bad" ?
* or following the rules because that's what you're supposed to do and/or because that's what's good for everyone?


That's kind of a secular humanist interpretation. Not particularly useful.

What happens here I assume, is the sacrament of ordination. So you have the high priest, which you can see as the Pope, bestowing that power to others, so they become like him.

The power of the key is to bind things and unbind things. So what is bound on Earth, is also bound in Heavens and vice versa. Its the power to reconcile from an alienated world. Its also the definition of religion, so the power of the key is the power of religion, this time seen as an institution, because the power of the keys are given to certain people, the authorities. They in turn, can apply that power for other sacraments, two of them being baptism, that take out the temptation to rebel in the story above, or marriage, that makes the same act above acceptable and good. But overall, it is the power of giving mercy and forgiveness, which is a divine power, so it has to be given from above. So it deals more about giving back a state of grace than about good and evil directly. If anything, it is going away from it and getting back in line with what should be, which is beyond good and evil. Its about redemption from it.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:00 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:How on earth do you know so much about so many things?!


I studied religion, and I studied hermeneutism when I was younger. I stole some grimoires from the witch in the house. But mostly it is contemplation and time.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've never heard of Diognenes the Cynic until now. I did a quick search and it said he was looking for an honest man - you're saying he never found one.


Well, you don't search for an honest man at night, all you will get are thieves, because honest men are asleep, just like good polar bears. :D

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Have you read Paulo Coelho's The Devil and Miss Prym?
The search was whether human nature is "good" or "evil" rather than honesty.
I liked it more than his famous book, The Alchemist.


I believe I only read his most famous book.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I found it good timing because I'd had a drug-induced psychotic break back when I was 19 and I ended up experiencing auditory hallucinations with the onset of them waking me up in the middle of the night in the psychward commanding that I preform an act of violence that isn't at all in my nature. I got up to do it, but stopped myself and it was a battle within myself that ended in my requesting the psych nurse to put me in the lock up room.


That's interesting, so you interpreted that as the Devil commending you I suppose? That's what people meant by being possessed, although you resisted, so real possession never happens unless people agree. Free will is also about doing the right thing.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:After that, I wondered if I was "evil" by nature (given that it was difficult to fight myself from acting that night, and I had absolutely no motive) - and if I'd have to constantly be on guard against myself.


That's why Christianity taught people are good by nature and have free will. Its what you do that defines you, not who you are type of thing.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Later down the road, after I got clean, I stumbled upon the book and it served as the first adequate answer to my nature.
Simple answer that we're "good" and "evil" together by nature - not sure why it took me so much to understand that :?


I would suggest you unlearn it. :)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Then he brought up how easy it is to corrupt children - make them into murderers and thieves, etc.
He used children from the Gulags as an example - that criminals could "enlist" children to commit henious crimes, but the children's parents would often refuse to commit the same acts.
His other example was somewhere that authorities found it relatively easy to get children rat their parents out and even kill them - genocide to create a new country society (maybe south America somewhere?) or something like that


It takes about 15 minutes to turn an educated adult into a mass murderer last I checked. Plenty of experiments on that. But yes, in the USSR, children were ratting out their parents, and they are now doing it in democracies as well.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I was also left very confused because what about children who are raised with "immorality" but grow up with a strong "conscience" that was not taught.


They can have been taught by others. But the first principle of morality is to seek good and avoid evil. So if the environment is evil, then it is possible the child would reject it, and by negation know good. So the reverse of the Garden above. It goes both ways.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm also a bit confused how the hermit reflects Polar Bear lifestyle given you don't sound like a fan of humanism.


I am not against humanism, I am just pointing out it is not perfect and it is not particularly moral or good in many ways, although it can be if it respects its Christian roots. But even then I am not a fan of Christianity either, but its better than nothing. Polar bears are different than the Hermit, but there is no Polar Bear card, which is clearly a weird denial of existence. :lol:

The similarity is about the loneliness and the asocial behavior, the difference is the search for Man and the antisocial behavior. Besides, polar bears hunt in the day, not at night, and they wait for the seal, not constantly looking for it in the wrong places. The contemplative aspect is similar as well, which I suppose it the true meaning of the card. Its my problem with Christianity, they don't really like hermits, and that is their loss. Missionaries are a good source of proteins, and you don't have to go look for them, they come to you, just like seals which are a good source of fat. Having a balanced diet is a virtue.

But there is more to it in my mind. The wheel of history is turning and it is in nobody's control, so just like humanism is in theory the perfection of Christianity, the Polar Bear is the perfection of humanism, so it is ahead of the curve. Man is not the end goal, its not the end of the story. And men will have to follow whether they like it or not, resistance is futile.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:The sky and movement theme had never occurred to me before
I see Temperance as an alchemist, but it's another one I don't understand well enough.


Temperance is to eat to make fat, not for canned goods, because canned goods are illimited, you can stack them, and that is what primates to. Polar bears, just like temperance can walk on water, so it is a form of justice as well. The fat tells you just how much is too much, and vice versa about the passions. If it is not part of you, then it is in the too much category and forces you to invent rules about private property, laws of all kinds like consent and all other types of frauds. Temperance cuts into the pork.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I did, I was thinking between talented people who know what they're doing and pretenders.


Yeah, well it can be hard to tell the difference, but I would not call it a continuum. Truth is the judge, just like the sword in justice. So it is black and white if you can see behind the scenes, but not if you as watching the show. And that is also the fundamental difference between the two. The magician looks for causality, while the illusionist looks for categorization. Its the same difference as between morality and values. The first is practical, the second is fantasies. Like personality disorders, they are values, it is an illusionist's trick, its fantasy and idealism. Its political, not scientific.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm values based (my own values anyways), and I'm an idealist the way Justice is, I think.


Justice is not idealist, it is based on truth and history. Whether something happened or not and how to address the problem. Its based on rules that are written, so based on authority. A judge that would judge on his or her values would be unjust, just like the one breaking the law for his values would be unjust. In the story of the Garden, good and evil are values. They are the fruits of rebellion. And in this case, also the fruits of passion. Passion drives tempts to rebellion and make up values.

And it is not to say values are bad, they are good and bad, but they have nothing to do with justice. Someone who thinks their values are just, is simply delusional. A God walking amongst the forest, who frightens animals and children alike.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm interested to look over "An Aristotelian View of Marx's Method" when I get some more time. I'm a slow processor of information, unfortunately.


I am giving it only to understand the Aristotle's metaphysics so to speak, not everything is true in that article, but that part is pretty decent.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Cancer starts out as individual units that try to be something they're not.


:lol:

Individuals that reproduce themselves despite the rules not to do so, destroying the whole organism, just like the God walking in the forest. I do believe they are authentic, so authentic they want to share the grandiosity. :lol: They are zealous and empathic, just very small minded.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Blessed are those you desribed:

"if you truly are an individual, you just are, and the idea of authenticity does not even come."
^
Blessed and a dying breed. I'm only authentic.
It's not natural to be yourself anymore. In my perspective, "authenticity" strives for that even if it's not a full "you just are"


Its impossible to reach while still being social, or part of society. And its a game with masks and deceit, so the path of authenticity is to loose big time, be the biggest looser, and that's how you win back your self. But you have to care about the self, or you will die. So its not for everybody. It takes a lot of work as well, so it is the hardest path in the end. Its just easier to follow authority and conventions, but then you have to be grateful for it, otherwise, there is no purpose to it.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Deception is the goal in primates hence why your Diognenes the Cynic friend never found an "honest man"


Yes, but he was also looking in the wrong place, and wasn't honest himself. If he had searched inside or in the good places, in the light, then maybe. He was deceiving himself. Its something.
Here is the final scene of the Dark Knight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTVqQ0lbYLM
Harvey is a humanist. He had plans and ideals, and it failed, and he blamed the world.
Now, of course, carrying a lantern in the night, may attract attention of Jokers. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I was going to ask the same thing, why create something to dehumanize it.
That's like cats toying and slowly killing a mouse or bird, and see, that's not innocent like it would be if a snake ate or killed its human (nor would it be innocent if a cat started eating its human's decomposing body).


Yes, there is premeditation of a crime. But it is inevitable in some way from the start. This is from Batman begins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTq93_VQGuw

Totally blue flowers are hard to spot though. 8)
https://external-preview.redd.it/j0yTP6 ... 177549b105
Ras will have to wait...

So here is the thing. It starts with a humanist looking for criminals, just like the Hermit, or similar, maybe the reverse Hermit. Then he becomes an idealist, or the idea itself, which is like zeal. So you have this deal with justice, but more importantly hatred of criminals. So it is the reverse of the above, but the principle is the same. He creates a criminal in order to humanize himself.

In the second movie though it is reversed in Harvey Dent, who becomes the ideal man and he gets dehumanized by the Joker. But then again, he was cheating, it was just a mask, which is why he was two-faced. So the ideal of the first movie, created the ideal of the second movie, and they in the end both fail, because a pragmatist came around and messed up with their plans. They had to make a choice and could not live with it, since it broke their ideal. Once they killed, they were no better than the criminals, not human anymore. Its not done voluntarily in this case, but is it not always the case? So again, it is that rebellion against how things are, and how they will be, then gaining freedom and individuality, according to a value or an ideal, becoming that ideal, then falling from grace.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:And then humanists, as you describe them, would jump on the wagon for an opportunity of freedom and make things up as they go 8)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23E0OgEHuY :|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmnKbBmYii8 :D

DaturaInnoxia wrote:They knew/were told it would enslave them?


Yes, by the tarot cards. :lol:
Just because people are ignorant today does not mean they always were.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Interesting, I wouldn't call myself an activist, but I'm often driven by the motive helping others (service). When one has anger or hatred or rage it makes fantastic gasoline.

Those who have full capacity for and full use of their empathy, yet condescend and have not an ounce of kindness or decency for broken people, make lovely wooden pallets. Otherwise they just rot and take up space.


Yes, but that is also what Batman thought at first. The road to PF is paved with good intentions. :roll:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:The destroyed kingdom would be about the beauty in the flames kissing the heavens in thanks for such a wonderful opportunity to return the scum to the earth in hopeful exchange for something possibly more useful. Some valuable forms of life only sprout up from fertile ashes.


That's what Ra's al Ghul thought as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAaRlTrSNcE

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I see it as the opposite. People achieve "unhappiness" because all they seek is "happiness." That's about the only value primates have left.

Seek happiness through trying to achieve status, trying to achieve wealth, trying to hoard up on things, plastic surgeries, fancy clothes, trying to make themselves look at perfect as possible, using and drinking or shopping/sex/gambling/adrenaline addictions, seeking relationships for the sake of a relationship rather than a person, seeking "to destroy other's happiness" to feel better about themselves, and on and on and on.
^
Not to deny there isn't some good in a lot of those things when it's not an obsessive compulsive attempt at happiness.


But then, the problem is more about the definition of happiness, not happiness itself. People thought and still think those things will give them happiness, just like people chose the happy path as well in the Garden, or at least they thought so, and so did Batman. But they knew better or should have known better, since they were told. But they chose the other path, because it was easier. In other words they are seeking in the wrong place, just like the Hermit card.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I think I may have meant the humanist freedom goal is an attempt to make them happy?


Yes of course it was, it always is, but it was their own definition, and it became the goal itself, which is inevitable, since there is nothing else. Of course, you can make it yourself, but if it includes primates, they are indecent. :lol:

Its the chicken and the egg problem. Which comes first, the primate or the human? Humanists say the primate comes first, and are looking for humans, it is a work in progress. Christians and most people in history thought men came first, and in the case of Judaism, that there was a war of the apes, so men created apes in order to play God. But the keen eye of the Polar Bear only sees apes either way. 8)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If we're going to complicate things, "seeking unhappiness" is also fulfilling for a lot of people and thus in some way it does make them happy.
So I guess you're right, a lot of people have the goal "not to be happy" - including +80% of the MeToo women and Incel men


I would go on a limb and say 99.88% and the 0.12% are the rests of a missionary. 8)
I'll finish it later.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:^ The same way PTSD was a "trendy" diagnosis that literally almost everybody had for the longest time and people would proudly announce that they had it, yet remain magically free of any and all debilitating symptoms associated with it.


Really annoying thing. Well, really disgusting, bad food.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:The normative compassion and ability to try to relate to each other doesn't get a chance to form anymore due to the segregation.


Yes, but like I said, it is a normal course for humanism, it was designed for that purpose, and it was the new happiness to be had, all about choice and individuality. Its good for Polar Bears, not for some primates, but primates are free to be unhappy. It would need a change of paradigm, and nobody wants it. Its like climate change, everybody needs to work together or it does not work at all, and people disagree because they are humanists, they speak different languages, just like in the Tower of Babel. Its the Tower card, and I guess it is humanism itself. And as you see, both men and women are thrown down individually. But they were already separate inside the tower, they could not communicate anymore, because of different language, and they thought their construction would be better than how they were born, and there was lots of place for canned food. All people can do at best is figure out individually on an ad hoc basis, and yes, it is a lot of work, nobody said humanism would be easy, it was supposed to be hard. So now, people want to go back, but it is too late, the tower is gone. Primates need to grow a fur, stop wearing dead fur or their killings. :x

DaturaInnoxia wrote:^
What is it developmentally? After you mature into tolerance of differences, you learn to enjoy or at least respect them. That stops happening between men and women.


Well, the humanist position was that there was no difference, so that was the humanist project, and also it was Christian. People simply found differences in order to fight and have war, in order to win, but that was also inevitable. Take out the structure and the rules of the game, and there is no more game. So it was based on an illusion. That's why people have to beware of illusionists. Its too late now though. Its the same with race, it was supposed to be invisible, that was the game. People cheated quite simply. There is no ultimate solution to those problems of inclusion, or at least, nobody found one. Segregation and shared activities was the solution in the past. It works, but it means specialization and therefore roles.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Men express fear that they don't want to end up in situations that could set them up for false accusations. Women get enraged and their argument is they've had to work for men and they dismiss the concerns because it's rare for false accusations to happen = "necessary evil" (I don't think we actually know how rare or common it is, but they're certainly biased).


They aren't rare, they are almost an every day thing, so the solution is pretty obvious, at least for men that are smart. But even those situations are not safe either, there just is no safe, not if you can utter a word. Constant surveillance is not safe, everything you say can be held against you is not a way to live. Its like posting on PF, but the stakes are higher. You were censured, but there was no punishment. If you had to loose everything for that same mistake, then you would think twice about posting here, or you should. And it affords a possibility for women to work for themselves, so the solution is pretty obvious. Or it would be if it was not a lie, and everybody knows it. Its a game people have to stop playing quite simply.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Moreover, the women (or men) who do end up badly abused and aren't borderline enough to think they enjoy it, cannot receive the help they need because it's "victim blaming" and "sexist" to point out ways of thinking and acting that need to be addressed. Then men continue be given sole responsibility and blame in two way dynamics between the sexes with double bind of victim blaming accusations. Increase animosity. Increase abusive behaviors of both genders.
Ouroboros building up and rolling into the less glamorous Harley Quin and Joker (and beyond).


Yes, it is a double bind situation, which means no contact automatically. People shouldn't even think about it, just don't play the game, or else get crazy, and you will, it is a promise. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've always seen Trump as a peacock or a self-obsessed puppet that struts around masking the psychopaths who are actually in charge in the background.

His attention-whore, con-man stuff instead of apologizing is when his mask starts to light up and do eye catching tricks.

Maybe I misunderstood your point and you meant the mask of diplomacy, appropriateness and how they're supposed to pretend to be in the public eye?


Yes, that is what I meant. He is genuine in ways others aren't. Not to say he isn't hiding things, but what you see is pretty much what you get, at least in some things.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Children learning to lie is natural; cheating is bad; stealing from the rich is excusable :P


:lol: Children are supposed to stop lying at some point, but if there isn't any incentive, they clearly won't. But then they cheat themselves of a meaningful life and meaningful relationships, and get upset and resentful, etc. Unhappy.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote: But like I said, this game of masks and unmasking is coming to an end, because it is now too constraining. Besides, they are social roles, which implies there is a social, but individuals are not social, so masks will become valueless.


What do you think that will look like?


More people like Trump, people to stop caring what other people think about themselves, and people stop caring what other people think or some other people and so on and so forth. Not that Trump is the end thing, but it is a baby step in that direction. He is just acting, but what if he wasn't?

DaturaInnoxia wrote:How are you defining aristocrats as a good breed?


If a parent is good at something, chances are their children will be as well, or it is more likely, both genetically and socially. So they are good at what they do and of good breed. Its not something that exists anymore, of rarely, for many reasons.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:What about them was not up to their values?


Christian values, but also their own value as a class, which is to lead and to do politics and war properly. But also, one thing they could not do, is economics, and it is where they failed the most, since it was outside their area of expertise, and none of them wanted to become merchants, because it is vile. Its a lot of things, and everybody had their issues. Like in the US, it was a lack of representation. The aristocrats were clueless and on the other side of an ocean. Basically they lost their legitimacy to rule, but why differed. The most predominant was probably the economy in the cities, and a general lack of knowing the people which were too numerous and diverse. General corruption, love of money, making bastards. Plenty of things really. But they got booted for some values and immorality.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:How are you defining religious values?
"Love thy neighbor" style? Or "do what you're told" style?


In that context, it would be do what you are told, or those things you are told to do. Humility being one of them, obedience another, but then again, it is the tricky part, because obedience had to be denied because they had to get rid of aristocrats. It was a means to an end, not a scorched Earth thing like today. But also intemperance, especially in terms of money, which also ties in with the problem of aristocrats. So greed had to be good. Its like overcompensating for problems, but then again, its not like religious authorities were listening either. They kept the love that neighbor part, or at least they thought it would be kept, it was obvious, but I guess, forgot to mention, it was assumed. Some did though, like in the French Revolution, there is fraternity in the streets, but not in the actual declaration, the paper thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarati ... he_Citizen
Must be an omission right? :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:How do you differentiate between a primate and a human?


If I can see it, it is a primate. If I can't see it, it is human. 8)
I heard humans taste good, like a seal but better. Their muscle structure is similar to Polar bears, which is why they taste good. :o

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Can't say that's a bad thing; contraceptives do seem to enable women to go further in their lives and improve their SES than if they get knocked up right away - which they do have a habit of doing when they don't have easy access to contraceptives or know how to use them properly.

If there was a good standard of judgment, it would be neat if all people could be sterilized immediately and undergo training and testing before given back their rights to fertility. I'm certain they'd use the wrong criteria (at least as far as my idealistic values are concerned) though. :roll:


Well, it is a primate issue, but there are always reasons for eugenism, so it is not like nobody believed in it, which was the point.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:"Religion was thought to be life denying" because you had to "do the right thing" like not having sex in The Lovers card or...?


Yes, or some other things, like killing people. Basically, any rule was inhuman, so they were wannabe Polar Bears. Some humanists like in the US were Christians, but some others weren't. In Germany, philosophy was that humans were animals, and should act as such, and anything else was a sin, so it is the reverse of the Tarot cards. Primates with synthetic fur. It was a train of thought in humanist circles in the 19th century and a bit before. So for guys like Hitler or Darwin, people are animals, and humanity is but a construct that is meaningless, or at least the one liberals and communists believe in, which is a denatured animal. Germans wanted to get back to nature, and be animals, which they did. That was their democratic emancipation, which others didn't like. But they all agree that no rules was better, except for the Germans. :lol: They have that one rule, and Germans were not part of the plan. Germans had bad intentions. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I remember learning that they did IQ tests with immigrants who'd be just off the boat and didn't speak English and decide they were idiots.

So do you think they decreased psychopaths by doing so? I thought they were usually quite intelligent


Hollywood psychopaths are really intelligent. Masterminds that can predict your every desire and fool you in complicated schemes. They changed the definition at some time, so the IQ was not relevant anymore. The new psychopath was normal intelligence, or unspecified, but had some authority issues, and it became personality disorders or borderline in psychoanalysis, then came the Hollywood one, which is perfect evil.

Not sure what you are asking. They got rid of idiots, and there still are plenty of idiots, so clearly it has failed. :lol:

They didn't understand genetics well in those days, and it is still the case, but the idea that you can get rid of a phenotype is pretty dumb. That you can get rid of crime through genes is moronic, so they should have killed themselves, just like the modern equivalents.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:No, I didn't realize that until you stated it. I'm not sure why I didn't because it makes sense. Wasn't that religion though?
^ You're "undeserving" and "immoral" if you don't work?


More like the liberal humanist world order, so no. Its mainly a thing of the 19th century, which in itself was a precursor of eugenics programs. All of those things were to eradicate poverty, but the Darwin/competitive idea of progress meant also people have to die, whether directly or indirectly, unless excellence is not achieved. Its a secular humanist morality. It was also one reason they killed aristocrats, because they didn't work, so killing them was progress. But killing the poor is even more progressive. Or the old, or the child. They are all useless. In fact everybody is useless, so that would be the ultimate progress, just kill everybody, and that's the plan.

Like I said, work in religion was spiritual first, and that can be done by doing nothing useful, and to some degree it is best when it is the case. This being said, work was still encouraged because idleness causes acedia and ultimately antisocial behavior. So it was a means to an end, not about survival. Real Christians thought they would die tomorrow, so all they needed was enough to get there, or at least it was the idea. So no need for killing or stocking on canned goods and all that. Maybe not tomorrow but soon, that was the general attitude, and on top of that, nice people would get eternal life, so only a moron would not help others. So it could be an act of caring, for oneself and others, not a requirement. So you could have people who's only job was to pray, and people would take care of them, it was fine, as long as they did not do antisocial things.

Its usually the case, because religions are to create community for everyone, in theory, so there are old and young, maimed and well, less intelligent, more intelligent, and plenty of different types of people. When it stops doing that it fails, just like any society that fails to do it gets destroyed eventually, it is only a matter of time.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:High school to prison pipeline

I've always understood humanists to be against that - or at least most think they are.

I'm very against people not really having a chance from the get go.

So that's what you mean by violence not in the open, I'm assuming


Not sure if that is what I meant, but it is one type yes. Can't loose those slaves. :lol:
Yeah, they might think they are, and some are, but most aren't, otherwise, it would not be there. But its part of the plan.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Really? Would you tolerate being a "slave"? :?
Both "master" and "slave" sound like extremely undesirable positions.
"Master" would be 97% undesirable, and since people are thoroughly untrustworthy, "slave" would be 99% undesirable.


Polar Bears can't be slaves.
But slavery has many forms. wage labor is worst than slavery. I am not talking about Hollywood slavery, which is horrific.
Real slavery wasn't always that bad, it depends on the masters and cultures. Take Greek slaves, a lot were teachers, and lived in the house of the master. Some others were pretty bad.
Religion was also about being a good master. Of course you don't want to be slave to a humanist, which is what people know and imagine. A humanist master would be like in the Hollywood movies.

In the US for instance, which was on the bad sides, plenty of slaves thought it was better. They thought it was better to work hard and have few freedoms, than to starve on the side of the street. I heard some audio about it, some lived long enough to be able to be recorded. Lots of them were fairly well educated, with good character, and happier than the average young adult today, it is not even close. It provides structure and security, which humanism does not provide, because freedom. Its important to know, that it is the plan.

People sometimes become slaves voluntarily, in religious communities, and it worked in the past. It does not anymore, because the masters are humanists, and they abuse people, rape them and so on.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
It's a major challenge to be authentic in society. You're right though, a lot of people don't appreciate it! :lol:

It's not really a concern when you see people for the scum most of them are anyways - then you don't want to be around the general public either. :)

However, people who struggle do very well with authenticity when it comes to being worked with. It often makes it easier for them to develop rapport and feel safe/supported enough to get honest with themselves, and as a result, start looking at how to help themselves.


Yes, but even then, it has to be done in private, or with select few people at best. But here is the point, it can't be a goal in itself, not in society, so there is no need to pretend, unless you can tell me a polar bear can eat a seal in a meeting room, or anywhere in public. That is authenticity, and people won't like it, so there is nothing to work about. Its just an illusion. And it is a dangerous one at that. So you can act in society and be moral and decent, or you stay home. Authenticity is a trap, it is a where people die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLVjt4PNtAE

DaturaInnoxia wrote:God/spirituality would be my first value.
Fairly soon after, comes my value for freedom and authenticity :oops: :wink:


Mine is seals, then salmon, but over all the Burger. Sleeping is nice too, but after.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:My line of thinking with this was I noticed severely traumatized kids (be it generalized high risk or conduct disorders / sociopathic behaviors) better if they allow you to teach them how to question.

Trying to prevent them from asking or challenging makes the behaviors worst. Respecting their challenges to authority by providing as much information as possible relatable to them (and in all directions without moralizing) allows them to feel in control enough to occasionally allow you to tell them what to look for when they challenging authority and even "play the tape through" when it comes to behaving in harmful to themselves (or others) ways.

You're right, it doesn't change morality, but it's the best chance at decreasing repercussions and even circumventing ways of coping, acting and living before a personality type gets solidified.

Others add it to their tool belt to take advantage, but it's still worth it if it gives at least some of them a chance, before things like corrections systems, death, addiction, etc. get them.


Sure. What my problem is, is to tell people "be yourself", or those type of lies. Nobody wants others to be themselves and people know that, and in which way. Its not about answering question, but about knowing what you want, and be able to communicate it. If someone does not know, there is no point in asking questions. And of course if the goal of asking is just to try and whine about it, it is another problem. So there are presumptions in what you say, and I don't take them for granted.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Free sex as in without commitment of a relationship or as in not paying for prostitutes?


As if any time you want with whoever you want, and all that. Free to have sex, which was considered sacred before. You could turn around it, but not touch unless with some ritual, like getting married. The problems you talked above, were cause by this desacralization. So people say it is not sacred, until it isn't. So it is whimsical and mentally abusive.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Maybe you've been exposed to competent authority.


Not too many, not live ones. But it is missing the point. If you are looking for an authority that will agree with you all the time, you won't find it, except inside yourself. But accepting authority in itself, can be good if you have the right attitude. Whether the actual authority is good or not, is irrelevant. Of course if it is not tolerable, it isn't, but it is another problem, but even then, people have gone to great height, because they were abused by an authority. That is where people are at their best. Ok, let's take an example, Jim Mattis. He had to deal with a bad authority, and he did his best, and didn't rebel like a child, but he kept his honor through all this. He left eventually, but it is the attitude, and it makes him a better person. Obedience is a virtue, it has to be learned. Its also what makes good masters, because they know how to obey. Those that can't are always tyrants when given the chance. Someone that does not obey, should never lead, ever.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:In this exact moment, my mind goes directly to the psychology professor who taught her students that attachment theories are "mother blaming" and invalid.

Attachment theories are still recognized as valid by other professionals (including the psychology teacher I've mentioned in this current reply).

A feminist who taught her opinion as fact rather than curriculum as an authority figure.
That type of thing is not uncommon in my experience which is why I was asking you about it. You seem to feel strongly the opposite.


So guess what, she does not obey, because she is undermining the authority that was given to her. She is a mole. Moles need to be blown up with dynamite, lots of it.

This being said though, obedience is to live with it somehow, even if you don't like it. The other is to rebel against illegitimate authority. Or something. It is up to you, but the first option is probably the best. You shut up, and roll with it. Its not like it will last long. Its a difficult subject, and I am not good at it, so I may not be the best to ask.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:This specific topic, matters a lot to me.
One reason being that when you look at something like reactive attachment disorder at it's extremes, you often get early onset conduct disorders with callous unemotional traits.

If you don't tie it in to something like trauma, the child gets written off as a "bad seed" or inherently "evil"


Yes, that is the unfortunate result. She wants to be a humanist and not blaming the mother, thus sacrificing the child. She is a follower of Molech.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Tie it with something like reactive attachment and at least there is a sliver of a chance they'll try to work with the kid instead of writing them off and tossing them into the prison system (or let them get themselves killed) as soon possible.

I'm not even saying the causes are necessarily a result of injured attachments or trauma; just that it's the only door available to have a chance at accessing help - at least in low SES


Yes, I can't say I can give advice here. Is she in charge of those services? if she is just some teacher pouting, it does not matter that much. You obey because you are told, for the time of the class, then you can refute her or something. Make a paper denouncing it, since others agree with you if I understood well. But you have to obey first. Try to understand her point of view and so on, be able to reproduce it, and then once it is known, you can challenge, taking on both sides. Its true there was a lot of mother blaming in the past, probably too much, and we don't know how much is bad parenting, or children just born this way, or what. Also, I don't know those theories, at least not the childhood part, I know only more or less the different types of attachments. Maybe it will allow you to go deeper in the problem and find a solution. Its by being challenged that people do great things, not by fleeing duties, and this is true generally. But then again, some mothers are bad and need to be denounced as well. Momsters. But when it is too general, it may put anxiety in others that aren't bad, just unsure of themselves, so there is some truth to what she says, and what you say.

That's my opinion, just like that, no expertise here. To be honest though, I believe those categories are too broad, and yes, I am aware that they are trying to pinpoint children for early intervention based on those correlations they make, which to me sounds superstitious for the most part.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote: Its the same in politics. The point of voting representative is that you trust them. But people vote people they don't trust, don't trust their decisions, and simply hate them pretty fast, so again, what is the point? its not an authority anymore, just some clown trying to survive mob rule, and people that think they know better, yet make zero efforts to know about the issue, but they have opinions, and are sure that it is a better opinion than the opinion of their representative, so what's the point, why keep the charade?


Do you trust them?


No, but its the way the system works, so I live with their decisions, unless it is really bad. But then again, I rarely vote, so. I can't say they do a bad job, at least here. The question is more about if I were to do it, would I do it better? and could I do better if people were always complaining? probably not, so I let them do their job, until election time if needed, which is the time and place to criticize and stuff. Not that I bother with it that much.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I haven't seen that - maybe elementary and high schools.

The point of education for me is to learn what's on the curriculum.


That is true for lower education, higher education, in some fields, especially social sciences, there is no curriculum, because there is no real truth, so it is all political, and it is about the authority more than anything else. In other words, they have a lot more leeway usually.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:There's a bit of a double standard with people in lower positions. They aren't allowed to make mistakes while those who are in authority are.


Yes but in theory, they went through this as well. Its not uncommon for a bunch of students to just go through the motion, then they all decide it was crap and they redo the whole thing, so a change of paradigm. Sometimes they have to wait until some of the older folks die, sometimes not. Its a master slave relationship, and yes, it is what humanism didn't like, but they kept it nevertheless in Universities. If the field is attacked though, by someone, then they will go after the authority, not you, so you are safe. :)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If I make a mistake, it's wrong and I'm accountable, but if an authority like a professor or someone makes a mistake, rules are bent and I'm unreasonable or cocky if I want to hold them accountable to the level I am.


Yes. Its not perfect, and it sucks when you are being abused by them. I was quite a bit, by many. One of them simply abused me straight up, in the introduction course. I hadn't done anything, he just had prejudices and there had been gossip of some kind. He was reading mind as well, an empath. So I said yes sir and left the course. There is lots of abuse in Universities, but then again, there is lots in the workplace as well, or anywhere. Its the unfortunate reality, which is why the North Pole is better, no global warming, just nice fresh air. I should have sued those clowns, and all the others of the same kind, but there are too many of them. Well, I am in court with some new ones, so its a start. If I win, they will be on the hook for potentially millions. That should teach them something. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Sex trade workers that are targeted by serial killers (and violence in general) dont do it because they want to be free - they usually don't know freedom even exists anymore.
They're so far underground and buried by chains, they don't even make it onto The Devil card.
^
I understand that it is hard for most people to get or value them though. Same with addicts and the homeless. I know most people believe they should be allowed to die off.


I didn't say they themselves did, but the society in general did, and at some point, unless under duress, they chose it too. But its allowed, it is part of the plan. The only question is whether people like the plan or not, because those people will always happen.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:But as far as I'm concerned, to give them a shot at survival, a chance to have a future, decriminalization enough to screen "johns" is important - and it would probably good to look at regular STD checks and stuff for the workers too. Public health concern.


Yes, and pretty much a lot more, all that to save an institution. Some other problems will appear even in the best of systems.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Humanists advocate it and try to make selling yourself look like a healthy viable option.
^ I assumed it was good intentioned niavetee because many so-called "activists" haven't had any "front line" experience working with individuals like sex trade workers, so I assumed they didn't know enough about how that life actually looks up close or that most (female and male prostitutes) end up absolutely hating sex, hating men and unable to form relationships even if they leave the trade.
Escorting tends to be a different story in those regards.


Everybody has to sell themselves. Sex is just easier to start, low capital investment, but we all sell something, that was the plan. This is just a commodity like any other. Its being slave of the system, and others, but there is no master, nobody is responsible, therefore there is no redemption. Clever.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Maybe. I just see people get excited and "dive in" as soon as the really heavy stuff is pulled out, but maybe they find it easy/enjoyable to handle because they don't experience it more than at a surface level.


They can get out anytime, so there is control.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I liked that the spider (or spiderman) was the hero, but I didn't fully understand the interplay between the characters.
The rat guy somehow reminded me of Gollum (very vaguely remember that character when I saw a couple of the Lord of Rings movies when they came out)


Its something to ponder upon to really get it. May take years, who knows. I can't say I get it all. Kraven wants to beat SM, but entirely, and to take his place and to better than him. So its like a narcissist injury he had over the years, being defeated. But it was the symbol that he thought was defeating him, not the man, he only saw the appearance, not the truth behind the mask.

Vermin, is used for that purpose, for some reason SM could not defeat him in the past, so Kraven does, but Vermin is interesting. He was hurt by people, and was experimented upon, then became a cannibal. In some ways, he wants to be human, just like Kraven eats spiders to become the spider, although it is unconscious for Vermin. But Vermin is a victim in all this, the stuff humanism rejects, the anti-hero, the trash, so he hides in the sewer. SM is the hero, and he represents what defeated Kraven, socially. He is a hero, fighting for freedom and so on, rights of animals perhaps. :lol:

Anyway, you can look at it the way you want. I think it is a good story, and there is deepness in it.

Symbolism is something to work on, it is rarely given just like that, and searching is the goal in some ways. You keep it in mind and someday maybe, it will make more sense, you will get what the author wanted. You will have reached empathy. :D

It deals with spirits though, and how eating things make you those things, which is something to think about. Human, animal, what's the difference? what is a mask, and authenticity? all questions it raises.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:http://imgur.com/a/PuwYLxi


:)
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Schizoid Personality Disorder Forum




  • Related articles
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests