My Thoughts On A Cure

[fredbloggs02]

"Poor Philomena was helpless: her guards precluded escape,
the walls of the hut were firmly constructed of solid stone,
and her speechless lips couldn't tell the truth of her barbarous treatment.
But suffering sharpens the wits and misfortune makes one resourceful.
She craftily strung a warp on a primitive Thracian loom,
and into the pure white threads she wove a message in purple letters revealing the crime."-Ovid: Metamorphosis

γνώθι σαυτόν-Thales
[know thyself]

I'm going to keep writing here, change things up as I go. You are all welcome to contribute if you find you've explored a possibility more thoroughly than I have.. Once I start this ontological self-analysis, I welcome feedback from others who either empathize or believe they know more on the subjects I discuss here, as potentially, only here do these thoughts escape my own psyche through the experiences of others. In the end this is pure ostentatious vanity believing I know how to help myself or help anyone, bear that in mind if you decide to read anything here.

The moon still chases the sun

To continually burn all surveyors of pyramid sculptors: an affirmation of instinct.

Fragment from Kierkegaard's journal... "The thought that God tests[prover], yes, tempts[frister] a man ("lead us not into temptation") must not horrify us. The way one looks upon it makes the crucial difference. Disbelief, melancholy, etc., immediately become anxious [angest] and afraid and really do impute to God the intention of doing it in order that man shall fail. However remote it may be that the melancholy anxiety a man would think of having such thoughts about God, yet in the profoundest sense he really does think in this way, but without knowing or becoming aware of it, just like the hot-headed person who is said not to know what he is doing. The believer, however, immediately interprets the matter inversely; he believes that God does it in order that he shall meet the test [proven]. Alas, in a certain sense this is why disbelief, melancholy, anxiety, etc., so often fail at the test, because they enervate themselves in advance- it is a punishment for thinking ill of God; whereas faith usually conquers."..>>> Kill the idea of cosmic justice as well as you can. I will develop this further.

1. Self-reflective hypocrisy-to practice to oneself what one condemns in others. To me, to believe one offends in the act of chastising others for the fault he considers objectively offensive presupposes shame and a distance between the subject and the offense he gives. He offends himself to appease the shame and guilt he feels for the same behaviour. This behaviour relates to himself, less to the other. This behaviour may also conceal a confession of his own which he denies himself by choosing the party he offends intentionally, for this guilt he wills himself feel that they might return the offense. The supposedly offended party needn't demand hypocrisy of himself, for he is not self-aware of the offense in the same manner as the offender. To cover oneself in the "fig leaf" is a redundancy to the party the masochist moves to hurt to appease himself, the offended party doesn't require the same hypocrisy of himself. The offended party to the masochist is his self-chastisement, for him to drape himself in the "fig-leaf" is to know he has offended himself and to anticipate his own shame rouses the offended party to the same despair, so that too hurts him. To embrace the "fig leaf" presupposes guilt that holds fast to the shame of the offense, or shame in general, the offense is a necessity to him to appease his guilty conscience through self-harm hence "the receptivity turns into something else"....This requires further development, the author appears to presuppose shame. I don't believe in original sin as the writer professes to, therefore this shame is removed when one comes to terms with the conflict or relieves this heightened concern for others through distancing his pain from others, accepting this masochistic relation to others inhibits him from his accepting this conflict himself, that it is his pain to overcome without furthering it to his own detriment.

Τι κινείται κινήσεις ούτε στον τόπο στον οποίο βρίσκεται, ούτε στην χώρα στην οποία δεν είναι

[What is moving moves neither in the place in which it is nor in the place in which it is not]-Zeno...

2...That innocence implies an observer. Immanence is never innocence and guilt is never contraposed to innocence as a result of guilty action, but a guilty mind. To reflect upon myself in silence, I who incited silence when we as individuals demand a response nurtures guilt; because I observed myself whilst trying to stand on my own shoulders, in anguish I chased my shadow through those silences. Innocence harkens to guilt, innocence surges ahead, tearing through the body to an end subsequent to motion and immediacy where judgement is posited, therefore, what was immanent was not innocence. Chasing it's own tail, guilt mistakes itself for it's final objective self-chastisement, it breathes the scent of guilt through reflection on it's first crystallization. Guilt is decrepit, it enshrowds self-consciousness. When you think back to your childhood as you lived it, whenever did you know yourself innocent? It is impossible for guilt to be the contraposition of innocence, to feel guilty for that which we do not do is twofold-guilt for what we do and guilt for what we do not so. Whatsoever first inspired the search corrupted my heart already prone to introspection. Immanence never captures the instant so long as it exists through the action to call it's totality to mind, there is no good or evil in eternity apart from the heart; but an observed heart, and the heart must be free of observers to speak it's truth... When we call action innocent or guilty, that is a self-conscious judgement subsequent to immanence, imposing itself upon the natural succession of thought. I never behave with the full motion before me! The notion of innocence should be put down and shot like the poisonous snake in ourselves at a fair price of becoming monsters to others, so do passionate hearts passionately cling to their innocence: true innocence longs to break forth whilst guilt splits innocence in two. Innocence in this sense exists as a concept of a guilty mind, a guilty mind apart from mine... So who has observed me? Who observed you, who listened in reflective silence inwardly scolding? There is no reason guilt should follow immanence, guilt is never contraposed to innocence at least in this sense I call it to mind! This concept of innocence is death to me! There is so little I want to be aware of in my innocence! There is no innocence I call to mind now, I let go of the concept: this is my freedom.

[daniel11206]

Well for me drugs are a temporary cure, and just doing stuff over and over and eventually i will be over it i hope.

I got into Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, ever since i sort of stop looking for a cure and try to live life.

I think people should at least read the introduction to Steve Hayes book Get out of Your Mind and into Your Life

[mzmz]

I just want to add about the drugs thing; DRugs are good if your in a spot where you cannot change your surrounding, but cannot survive there without some change. Say, if you live with anyone abusive, work somwhere unhealthy and cannot economicly leave, etc etc. You always can quit those drugs once you GET OUT. In fact, drugs (lithium) helped me to leave an unhelthy work enviroment, and I quit them a year after for good, so now i dont have a horrable job and i'm not addicted to anything.

[blinds8]

Originally Posted by mzmz

I just want to add about the drugs thing; DRugs are good if your in a spot where you cannot change your surrounding, but cannot survive there without some change. Say, if you live with anyone abusive, work somwhere unhealthy and cannot economicly leave, etc etc. You always can quit those drugs once you GET OUT. In fact, drugs (lithium) helped me to leave an unhelthy work enviroment, and I quit them a year after for good, so now i dont have a horrable job and i'm not addicted to anything.

I don't know I can blame people places and things quite easily but I have a good home people around me and cash and still cutting myself was the only solution I had no psych dr's or therapists could stop it but with the right meds I can work through my inner demons easier they aren't a cure but they allow me to not be controlled by my emotional and mental natures.

[fredbloggs02]

Fragments from Kierkegaard's journal: "Therefore nothing can be said of earnestness in general. It is not pure subjectivity or any similar stupidity. Earnestness is present only in the very finest concretions(the empirical self) and as a qualification of freedom. To speak of freedom in any other sense is a misunderstanding. There is no measuring rod more accurate for the determination of the essential worth of an individuality than that of learning what in a pregnant sense made him ernest in life, for with a certain kind of earnestness one can deal with various things, except that which an individual dates his life. Earnestness about the national debt, about one's own debt, or about astronomy, etc. A healthy spirit manifests itself precisely in being able to deal with everything else just as sentimentally as jocularly, and just as well. But in relation to earnestness, it tolerates no sentimentality and no joking. If it does that, it will happen to such a person as with Albertus Magmus, who boasted of his speculation and suddenly became stupid."

"Earnestness is aquired originalty
Different from habit-it is the disappearance of self-consciousness."

"New and different waters flow around those who step into the same river. It disperses and comes together...flows in and out...towards us and away"-Heraclitus"...

3...That Kierkegaard's concept of "earnestness" is contingent upon Descartes conception of nothingness. Earnestness: the state of earnestness so far as it is ours implies self-consciousness. Earnestness is action forced to account for itself- action returned to be judged, condemned, antithetical to motion, positing an eternal primum mobile. It presupposes a suffering conscience in that he/she doubts their own innocence and believes it a state apart from themselves, something to be recaptured again and again in self-consciousness. They have been persuaded they encompass the beginning of their motion at the beginning of self-consciousness; like the force of gravity drawing the moon or the tides of the sea, they are impelled to be as absolute as the stillness of a hesitant moon gently radiating absolute subjective receptivity objectively to the eternally vascillating tides and hold them as they interract with oneanother, and in this way poison themselves with guilt for lacking whilst requiring absolute objectivity. The world interrupts someone as receptive as Soren. Descartes' ontological nothingness he speaks of with closed eyes and darkness and a theory of his thought disconnected from his senses: how far that is from nothingness! To grasp the poison inherent in Kierkegaard's notion of Earnestness, one must first understand his error deduced from Descartes concept of nothingness. I propose that his conception of self-conscious "earnestness" is that of a crystallized opposition between his relation to nothingness through a hostile environment that acts upon him, so far as my conceptualizing this truth grasps the paradox. I propose he enshrouds himself in the impossible to hold his environment absolutely still. There is no such thing as nothingness in that sense; so long as we draw breath, motion is the natural progression of consciousness, and our thoughts with it. One cannot be absolutely earnest and lack self-consciousness, one must possess it. One must possess consciousness of nothingness to possess absolute self-consciousness. The antithesis of stimulation in Descates view of consciousness, contains the poison inherent in Kierkegaard's view of "earnestness". Put simply, our conception of motion contraposed to nothingness. Our senses grasp the fleeting tailwind of the instant! This insufficient conception of nothingness is opposed to all around us, all stimulus! Still a great hollow chasm stands between that self-possession and nothingness, the supposed ontological self standing apart from it's surroundings! A consciousness of threat; but no consciousness of nothingness, no possibility of anything but darkness in his sense! So long as I seek light and I draw breath I must oppose Descartes view of nothingness and with it Kierkegaard's concept of earnestness! I breathe once more and watch once more without beginning or end, without eyes or ears! All of them at once returning to me: a perpetual cocophany!

Guilt finds itself in accusatory words. Earnestness is an observation, a state as opposed to an aspiration, it demands an end of itself as it itself chases it's tail. A thought. At some stage a person identifies with themselves as innocent/earnest as cosmic recompense in riposte to their lack of assurance. I'm of the opinion the ground beneath the patients feet was removed before this cosmic justice crystallized itself. They demand of themselves a crystallized sanctuary, a church garden[kierkegaarden].. Justice is posited above the instant, and the pain builds on itself followed by a necessity to find oneself "innocent" from then on: self-consciousness channels innocence and therefore disappears in his/her eyes, every gesture innocence. Their self-consciousness demands innocence through the impossible self-consciousness discussed above.. I would call this "innocence" a revenge, simply a self-conscious helpless vying for power which delays it's truth over the past- the promise of a new life never granted them. This is hightened state of paralysis. I think our culture is such that good, evil, our notions of selfhood are thrust upon us at an early age. Innocence is always the wounded party to children from then on...but interestingly many fairytales still end "and they packed the wicked old lady into a barrell full of nails, rolled her down a hill and they all lived happily ever after". One reason of many, to enhance desire for this cosmic justice and, to set it at odds with "innocence" the result of which expresses itself as internal conflict, guilt, paralysis and anxiety. To "become stupid" in this sense is any deviation from expressing the wound which demands only recompense and protection, justice. I ancitipate the categorical notions of "justice" are at our expense. None of us are at home in the house of Atreus. Any deviation from justice finds itself through guilt- before we say a word thoughts contrary to "innocence" emerge and suppress themselves indecipherably quickly perhaps, and so guilt, shame and innocence clasp eachother to save themselves. This motion obscures pure life as a consequence of those principles we now accept as true through crystallized experiences.

"He tears off both her legs, ties one of her hands behind her back, puts a little stick into her free hand, and invites her to defend herself. Then he attacks her, weilding his sword with great vigour and dexterity, wounds her here and there, and finally discharges on her wounds"-Sade: The One Hundred And Twenty Days Of Sodom...

4...Observed fate. I found this hilarious when I first read it, only when I dwelt on the thought did it sink in, did I start to feel worse for having laughed. I want what it is to dwell over a thought. Something I've heard from narcissists through the way they allegedly associate with the objects of their violence: they are two-dimensional, as in a picture over which they have no influence at all, they are "fated", they do not make instantaneous decisions in relation to them, this disturbs them and paves the way for their sadism. That they have no inherent control over others provokes them, also that their environment screams to them. This was how I first imagined it, a drawing that didn't care to defend itself, that did so as instinctively as I laughed. Laughter cloaked the impression, the phenomena of the instinct, simply as it was.. Free will was replaced by thoughts of observed fate, self-consciousness in relation to others mitigated. When I first introduce the idea of free will, I started to think objectively of the violence, immediately I invest myself with the same concept of freedom as others; whereas in narcissists they instinctively feel their will vascillate alone. Free will to someone without empathy is theirs alone, the rest are "fated". Free will to someone without that obejective capacity considers free will objective immediately. To someone who neglects these first injuries done to her, to whom guilt descends later like the tide of the sea drawing back to leave the patterns draped over the rocks, building unlike the initial burst of laughter, as if it had inadvertendly cauterized a wound I inflicted myself in a frenzy, only now do I feel the door closing behind the scar, the rain stop and find myself bathed in acid. Considering these two states separate, I can choose to crystallize one and allow the impoverished reflective patterns on the rocks to subside with the sea.

Turnings off fire: first, sea; of sea, half is earth, half lightning-flash...All things, exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods for gold and gold for goods"-Heraclitus...

.. How I react in that instance is quantitatively fated not qualitatively objective "evil", the instinctive reaction is on a lucid continuum always in motion: always! This qualitative reaction doesn't define my thought, only an overinvestment in my experience! Whether free will exists or not, I have still decided "fate" the way to conceive of others in aid of shooting at an overstimulated conscience, either I will resist this and return to adjudcating subjectivity to people, or not and find true conscience; but I will set out to find true conscience! I think insecurity resists the Greek thought of fate, it invests in other people whilst neglecting it's own autonomy in relation to that investment, receiving in moonlight as parted statues wilt awaiting a passing breeze to carry them together; whereas conquerors open their arms to the midday sun, "the great noontide" beating down on oiled bodies, scaling with titans, together!

[fredbloggs02]

"The dreams that come in daylight are not to be trusted, everyone knows that, and even night-dreams often go by contraries. That one is weeping or being beaten or even having one's throat cut, is good luck and usually means prosperous change, whereas to dream that one is laughing, stuffing oneself with sweets or having fun under the bedclothes is bad luck and a sure sign of illness or unhappiness."-Apuleius... I've had difficulty learning about regression or hypnosis to work it into a cure.

Schopenhauer on education/indoctrination. "What the person wants, both generally and particularly, the ambition of his inmost nature, and the aim he pursues accordingly, this we can never change by outside influence, by instruction; otherwise we could transform him....From outside, the will can be affected only by motives. But these can never change the will itself; for they have power over it only on the assumption that it is precisely such as it is. So all the motives can do is to alter the direction of the will's endeavour, i.e., to make it seek by a new route what it constantly, unalterably seeks. Therefore tuition, a perceptive faculty which has been corrected- in other words, influence from without- may indeed teach the will that it erred in the means it employed, and accordingly can make the will pursue the goal it aims for(once for all according to it's inner nature) on an entirely different path and in an entirely different object from that hitherto pursued. But it can never make the will want something actually different from what it has hitherto wanted; this remains unchangeable, for the will is, after all, only this willing itself, which would otherwise have to be suspended"-Schopenhauer...

Self-consciousness i.e. I do not need that which I do not have.

5. The clearest phenomenal expression of this is the experience of self-conscious walking behind others and secretiveness, defensively closing my jacket all the way up to my neck for fear of being observed, by the particular individual and in general. Self-consciousness expresses itself in relation to most others, to noise and motion, but emphatically in this case in relation to a particular individual, and, as a consequence anxiety in general heightens to often barely endurable intensity. "I may never have intended to; nevertheless, I find myself walking behind." When this thought attains consciousness, it expresses itself in anxiety, I notice my immediate thoughts, for example: "do not let them think that is what [you are] doing, because [you] are not, [you] know where you are going" and that may be true but; that doesn't dismiss the possibility of diversion. Why should it occur to me to fear the knowledge I was truthfully walking behind them if I weren't? I note here similar instances I would pass off as "conscience" i.e. "they should fear me walking behind them, I do them kindness to fear the intrusion"... However, I have noticed this fear expressed itself indiscriminately, regardless of the individual, however fine or intimidating, and I am not so vain as to presume myself at 6'1/2 feared by all indiscriminately...despite the supposed comfort derived from the incongruency between the thought and deeply etched truth.

Συνεπώς είναι αναγκαίο να υπακούουν στην καθολική?, Αλλά αν ο Λόγος είναι καθολική, οι περισσότεροι άνθρωποι ενεργούν σαν να είχε μια ιδιωτική κατανόηση

[It is necessary therefore to obey the universal; but although the Logos is universal, most people act as though they had a private understanding]-Heraclitus

αν ο ήλιος αθετήσει ορθό μέτρο του, οι Ερινύες θα τον ανακαλύψει

[If the sun transgresses his proper measure, the Furies will find him out]-Heraclitus

Like a galley who only smoothly drifts through waters where the cliffs part for him, a deeper relation to others sees through the valley, only passing through in thought, meets with resistance. It's sides tear itself apart like Titanic expressing itself in tension. Suffering from this particular expression of inwardness, I wonder now, if I'd have felt the same following someone through a desert where there were only myself and them. When the group is under threat and the individual threatening them knows this, I suspect he fears the mob's collective will, testament to the group instinct or an excess of desire/sadism and or suppression/insecurity on the part of the individual threatening them.

I imagine my fears once affirmed sweep me away, or that acceptance vascillates one stage removed from action(which supposes deeper feelings of inferiority)- a dependence on imperturbability as a virtue prepossessed through thought. It is not, it is cowardice. Cowardice to hide from that which I imagine disturbs me most. There are greater fears than these every moment. I used to find myself walking behind people or otherwise seeking to escape them unconsciously because I cannot bear the thought of moving forward in my own power, because my will etched onto my soul is a past opposition between myself and others which expresses itself as petty denial of my desires in relation to others expressed through inwardness and introversion. It is that which I have through my intellect according to Schopenhauer's theory of thought denied as a consequence of an opposition. Schopenhauer's philosophy does not remove this opposition; but the courage to face our own Furies is one staged removed(according to Freud) from removing the opposition, to accept it consciously through techniques such as regression. The phenomenal denial resolves itself as it permeates me as pure will no sooner than I accept that which I most desire; it may not permeate the phenomena of anxiety entirely, that's something I'm still working on... "I don't need people because I do not get on with them is false". It is infact more truthful to say I have always wanted to interract with people and the incongruency of my intellect opposing my underlying will instructs me to restrain myself. From now on, I choose to accept all I desire, to affirm my fears.