Generational Tensions Within the New York Times

[Noah Abrams]

Moonbeam, I think the pills you are referring to is LSD. The experience of being utterly free of your ego and in unity with the universe. No I have not had it. I almost wish I could though. There doesn’t really seem to be any other way...

 

[Moonbeam]

interchange: Hmmm. You might read about the notion of intersubjectivity and third spaces. But what I believe is that we ought not to imagine the best world as one of universal agreement on values, morality, rules, etc.

M: History tells me it has never happened.

i: Instead, we need for everyone to maintain their own subjectivity.

M: OK but I'm going to read the word need loosely as maybe 'a worthwhile aim rather than a moral imperative.

i: But rigid individualism doesn't function in society as it quickly degenerates into choosing whose subjectivity is the correct one. Instead, I think we need to be better at creating third spaces. A space where individuals can collaborate and co-create that allows negotiation of values, ideas, and the rules in which we agree to follow for society. If such a thing is successful, then individuals will automatically grow from these exchanges, taking back from that 3rd space into their own subjectivity what provides greater meaning and function to them. But -- crucially -- engagement in a 3rd space requires that there be no demands that either party actually do such a thing.

M: H am hearing something like a formal proposal, a plea for reason, a methodology whereby society can function. What I see, however, is a world in which essentially this is in operation all of the time. I think this kind of feed back loop and joint advancement of understanding is at root in our academic educational situation. The sharing of ideas and opinions between people locally nationally and on the internet globally all are like such spaces. One has opened up here between you and me.

i: We must instead engage with a minimum expectation of "agree to disagree" and hope for better. Even if some compromise on rules is made out of the exchange, it musn't be required that someone believe those rules are correct. The only expectation is that they agree to follow them.

M: More or less the basis for a functioning secular society like our constitutional government, seems to me.

i: So to address your comments more directly... My perspective is not objective and neither is yours. It is possible by engaging together one or both of us will take from the discussion something that helps us make better sense of our individual perspectives. Even if we stick with who we are, we might yet find a middle ground that allows us to interact with each other in a constructive way. Even if that middle ground doesn't match what either of us believes, our engagement in it doesn't threaten our individual right to our beliefs. We may only modify them if we feel it helpful to do so.

M: It seems to me that I came to this conclusion many many years ago with the result being that I abandoned everything I held sacred as belief. and wound up believing in nothing, surrounded by a sea of delusional knowers. The result of this was that suddenly I was able to notice there were others who didn't 'know' anything too. Some of them remarked that if the so called wise are truly wise then let us call ourselves fools. My point is that while there are millions and millions of different beliefs, there is only one kind of not knowing. People who don't know anything all have the same belief, that they don't know anything and therefore can't push anything on others. And I arrived at this conclusion by exposure to belief after belief I simply rejected leading to a space where I rejected the meaning of opinions. So because of that I can agree in the value of mutual expression and sharing and giving room for others opinions, but I do feel that where that leads is to emptiness of belief.

I asked you if you believed in some sort of fulcrum point because for me that would be it. There is a group of people in the world invisible to believers that share the same psychological conditions and characteristics that come from not knowing anything. That means that I do not reject the notion of seeing the non-objectivity of ones own opinions, but that really seeing that means the rejection of all belief and that is a state of awareness that can neither be passed on nor lost. since it can only be had by losing everything. I guess, in your favor, one could say as some of them have, that they are no longer human, that they are something or somewhere else.

I think of this sometimes as climbing a mountain so high one disappears in the clouds. Curse these feel of clay.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam, I think the pills you are referring to is LSD. The experience of being utterly free of your ego and in unity with the universe. No I have not had it. I almost wish I could though. There doesn’t really seem to be any other way...

The following is just my thinking about this: Taking drugs is a dangerous business as is psychoanalysis, as is any present day traumatic present day event that forces open the doors to repressed memories. A bad trip is the surfacing of the fear of remembering and battling sometimes violently or hysterically, in a state of paranoia, to keep those feelings repressed. Drugs can facilitate mightily a delusional hallucinatory state, one that the uneducated and unprepared can too easily take as real and harm themselves or burn paranoia more deeply into the brain.

But I would not be surprised that drugs may lay at the origin of religion thousands of years in the past and I believe the most likely source of such experiences is likely from mushrooms. There are within primitive non theistic cultures shamanistic traditions that seem to use drugs induced states as part of the awakening into whatever is the training aim.

What I believe is the important thing that drugs may perform in such uses is to provide an real experience of an altered conscious state. When you are in your right mind, for example you have no idea what it means to be out of your mind. The mind is only aware of one state at a time, and as I say in my sig. some people may see things as they see them because they have never experienced seeing them in any other way than that.

So my opinion is that if somebody is going to experiment with drugs it should be done with an aim, that one will actually experience an altered state that can be reached in many many ways, but which the person who is taking such a short cut, will now know exists personally. The danger is that if the experience is some sort of peak event, that one will seek to repeat it via more drugs over and over again. This would be falling in love with drugs and not what they can teach.

I think then, that drugs can blow the ego right out of the building, but that it matters what door gets opened after that. Does one fall into the grips of repressed feelings one need the ego to suppress, or does one get blasted straight to heaven, of some like analogy. Much depends on preparation, is one among people of some understanding that can provide real help if things go wrong. Does one know that whatever bad trip may occur isn't anything but the surfacing of bad feelings one normally hides from oneself? Does one have some prior experience in a therapeutic situation dealing with such feelings so that one knows they are there?

Anyway these are some things that concern me. The most important point, for me at least, is that whatever negative feelings we hide from ourselves, we believe them only because we feel them, but the truth that we are those things is simply not real. We were taught to hate ourselves when the facts were there was nothing wrong with us.

And I believe all of this can also be done via analysis, real religion, proper meditation, or mastery of the body, which I see as conquering muscle fear.

 

[KMFJD]

Moonbeam, I think the pills you are referring to is LSD. The experience of being utterly free of your ego and in unity with the universe. No I have not had it. I almost wish I could though. There doesn’t really seem to be any other way...

DMT actually

 

[Noah Abrams]

Moonbeam, thank you for your reply again. That is an interesting point about mushrooms and origin of religions. I had not thought of it that way before and now that I think about it, there does seem to be a possibility there. Of course man's nature being what it is, all religions quickly turned into the pursuit of power over other people and wealth.

Regarding a person's current feelings being a manifestation of repressed memories, an example situation. Person X badly insults Person Y. The person Y feels the pain and anger for a long time. Isn't it normal human emotion? How does one differentiate that pain with that of repressed feelings and memories. I mean even if the Person Y does not have a lot of repressed painful memories, they would still naturally feel pain and anger at being insulted. So how does one know when what you are currently experiencing is because of repressed feelings? I hope you are able to understand the question, I am trying to frame it the best I can.

 

[interchange]

History tells me it has never happened.

Nor do I think it ever could.

OK but I'm going to read the word need loosely as maybe 'a worthwhile aim rather than a moral imperative.

Fair enough, but if I were to restate my words more accurately. I would say that it is a worthwhile aim to honor the inevitability that people will maintain their own subjectivity anyway. It is possible to traumatically affect someone's subjectivity, e.g. Stockholm syndrome. So I think there is a moral imperative in not doing that, but I can't be sure of making any kind of absolute rule on that.

I am hearing something like a formal proposal, a plea for reason, a methodology whereby society can function. What I see, however, is a world in which essentially this is in operation all of the time. I think this kind of feed back loop and joint advancement of understanding is at root in our academic educational situation. The sharing of ideas and opinions between people locally nationally and on the internet globally all are like such spaces. One has opened up here between you and me.

Certainly on all accounts, although I would also state as a person in academia that much of it is not a 3rd space advancement of knowledge. There is a lot of hierarchical politics and attempts to force paradigms and frank violations of the objectivity of science.

More or less the basis for a functioning secular society like our constitutional government, seems to me.

I believe so, although I think we are not functioning anywhere near as well as we could be.

It seems to me that I came to this conclusion many many years ago with the result being that I abandoned everything I held sacred as belief. and wound up believing in nothing, surrounded by a sea of delusional knowers. The result of this was that suddenly I was able to notice there were others who didn't 'know' anything too. Some of them remarked that if the so called wise are truly wise then let us call ourselves fools. My point is that while there are millions and millions of different beliefs, there is only one kind of not knowing. People who don't know anything all have the same belief, that they don't know anything and therefore can't push anything on others. And I arrived at this conclusion by exposure to belief after belief I simply rejected leading to a space where I rejected the meaning of opinions. So because of that I can agree in the value of mutual expression and sharing and giving room for others opinions, but I do feel that where that leads is to emptiness of belief.

Well, you can follow that reasoning to a place of questioning every aspect of everything, even the words you use to describe what you believe or even your capacity to believe anything, even your belief that you cannot believe anything. I think it more accurate to say that humans have parallel was of experiencing the world. Some very concrete, rigid, and omnipotent. Some very abstract and potentially enlightened to the point that you describe. But you don't say you've reached enlightenment and truly abandon those other ways of being. You shift between all the ways you know how to be and to make up your idea of yourself and the world, and often you will experience the here and now in more than one of those ways at the same time, and to differing degrees depending on the person, in ways that really are not logically consistent with each other.

I asked you if you believed in some sort of fulcrum point because for me that would be it. There is a group of people in the world invisible to believers that share the same psychological conditions and characteristics that come from not knowing anything. That means that I do not reject the notion of seeing the non-objectivity of ones own opinions, but that really seeing that means the rejection of all belief and that is a state of awareness that can neither be passed on nor lost. since it can only be had by losing everything. I guess, in your favor, one could say as some of them have, that they are no longer human, that they are something or somewhere else.

I think of this sometimes as climbing a mountain so high one disappears in the clouds. Curse these feel of clay.

I'm not sure. I believe in a state such as what you describe, but as I described before it is only one aspect of self. I do not necessarily believe such a thing is some absolute enlightenment, either. Let us assume that it is possible for that state to be fully enlightened, to reach that fulcrum. Does that mean an individual has attained enlightenment if they still maintain other ways of being? It sounds paradoxical, but if you study our most enlightened individuals in history you will often find some significant dark atrocities even during the peak of their enlightened contribution. To me, that simply represents that they are human. They have achieved one way of seeing the world which is truly magnificent and contributory, but such a way is not a universal guide to the world even for them. They maintain other ways of being human which do not fit with their enlightenment, but it doesn't invalidate the power of their enlightenment either. I think there is real danger in which people who attain real goodness and advancement in their sense of self may also disconnect other aspects of self and deny their existence, publicly but also to their own conscious awareness in many cases. Such a person is not necessarily a false prophet, peddling an ideology for the purpose of narcissistic gain.

In my personal view, perhaps most compatible with a contemporary relational psychoanalytic stance, the main goal of our growth as beings is to integrate all of our experience. There can be a hazardous growth that truly strengthens a valued and "good" self but serves also to deny and disconnect a less valued "bad" self. The more "good" you can see in yourself, the easier it is to ward off acknowledgement of the "bad". In truth, there is no good or bad. These are moral judgments. All of humanity is human, and a well-developed morality helps serve to organize your experiences and inform your behavior, but if you fail to integrate something within you that is seen as "bad", you will never be able to grow from it, and in some cases it can lead to hurtful action.

I realize I am still negotiating these things, and my moral system heavily influences my integration. In part that is protective because it will aid me in avoiding dangerous actions out of lack of concern for their moral implications. In part it is counterproductive because it narrows my capacity to tolerate examining and finding ways to integrate productively aspects of myself which my moral system judges as bad.

 

[Moonbeam]

interchange: Nor do I think it ever could.

M: Where I land on this is that, if it can't, would what might vary be of any significance were it universally experienced that we don't know anything, with all of those implications. In short, I don't discount what we may become based on what we have been and are today. I guess the changes of perspective I have experienced and the non special-ness of seem to leave my more hopeful.

i: Fair enough, but if I were to restate my words more accurately. I would say that it is a worthwhile aim to honor the inevitability that people will maintain their own subjectivity anyway. It is possible to traumatically affect someone's subjectivity, e.g. Stockholm syndrome. So I think there is a moral imperative in not doing that, but I can't be sure of making any kind of absolute rule on that.

M: Yes, but that is exactly how I believe subjectivity arises in the first place.

i: Certainly on all accounts, although I would also state as a person in academia that much of it is not a 3rd space advancement of knowledge. There is a lot of hierarchical politics and attempts to force paradigms and frank violations of the objectivity of science.

M: Hehe, no doubt about that. I was referring to what might survive of that lofty and much touted ideal.

i: I believe so, although I think we are not functioning anywhere near as well as we could be.

M: Same answer as the last, here

i: Well, you can follow that reasoning to a place of questioning every aspect of everything, even the words you use to describe what you believe or even your capacity to believe anything, even your belief that you cannot believe anything. I think it more accurate to say that humans have parallel was of experiencing the world. Some very concrete, rigid, and omnipotent. Some very abstract and potentially enlightened to the point that you describe. But you don't say you've reached enlightenment and truly abandon those other ways of being. You shift between all the ways you know how to be and to make up your idea of yourself and the world, and often you will experience the here and now in more than one of those ways at the same time, and to differing degrees depending on the person, in ways that really are not logically consistent with each other.

Sounds like what I experience. I do not know whether or not some experience a permanent enlightened state but I have seen that claim. I have heard of every minute Zen as the final stage, and other things in other traditions.

i: I'm not sure. I believe in a state such as what you describe, but as I described before it is only one aspect of self. I do not necessarily believe such a thing is some absolute enlightenment, either. Let us assume that it is possible for that state to be fully enlightened, to reach that fulcrum. Does that mean an individual has attained enlightenment if they still maintain other ways of being? It sounds paradoxical, but if you study our most enlightened individuals in history you will often find some significant dark atrocities even during the peak of their enlightened contribution. To me, that simply represents that they are human. They have achieved one way of seeing the world which is truly magnificent and contributory, but such a way is not a universal guide to the world even for them. They maintain other ways of being human which do not fit with their enlightenment, but it doesn't invalidate the power of their enlightenment either. I think there is real danger in which people who attain real goodness and advancement in their sense of self may also disconnect other aspects of self and deny their existence, publicly but also to their own conscious awareness in many cases. Such a person is not necessarily a false prophet, peddling an ideology for the purpose of narcissistic gain.

M: I can only restate what I have already said, that some claim the truly enlightened are no longer human in the normal sense of the word. I think you would have to experience such a state to really know it can be real. That means I do not know, only that I have heard such claims and seen people who are inexplicable to my understanding.

i: In my personal view, perhaps most compatible with a contemporary relational psychoanalytic stance, the main goal of our growth as beings is to integrate all of our experience. There can be a hazardous growth that truly strengthens a valued and "good" self but serves also to deny and disconnect a less valued "bad" self. The more "good" you can see in yourself, the easier it is to ward off acknowledgement of the "bad". In truth, there is no good or bad. These are moral judgments. All of humanity is human, and a well-developed morality helps serve to organize your experiences and inform your behavior, but if you fail to integrate something within you that is seen as "bad", you will never be able to grow from it, and in some cases it can lead to hurtful action.

M: This is why we seek to evolve and understand, in my opinion. Our actual psychological state is tragic, for ourselves and for others.

i: I realize I am still negotiating these things, and my moral system heavily influences my integration. In part that is protective because it will aid me in avoiding dangerous actions out of lack of concern for their moral implications. In part it is counterproductive because it narrows my capacity to tolerate examining and finding ways to integrate productively aspects of myself which my moral system judges as bad.

I wish more people had your problem, or rather knew they have your problem. Welcome to the world of the cross bearing self aware.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The old guard is all about traditional craft. The 'youts' are all about truth with a capital "T." Unfortunately, neither one exists and they do us all a tremendous disservice by refusing all reality checks .

 

[Victorian Gray]

DMT actually

Whoa! The colours, man. The colours.......................

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam, thank you for your reply again. That is an interesting point about mushrooms and origin of religions. I had not thought of it that way before and now that I think about it, there does seem to be a possibility there. Of course man's nature being what it is, all religions quickly turned into the pursuit of power over other people and wealth.

Regarding a person's current feelings being a manifestation of repressed memories, an example situation. Person X badly insults Person Y. The person Y feels the pain and anger for a long time. Isn't it normal human emotion? How does one differentiate that pain with that of repressed feelings and memories. I mean even if the Person Y does not have a lot of repressed painful memories, they would still naturally feel pain and anger at being insulted. So how does one know when what you are currently experiencing is because of repressed feelings? I hope you are able to understand the question, I am trying to frame it the best I can.

Would you be insulted by a child calling you a supragenyisticalicondropomorphian? Unless you have already internalized the the negative feelings of what it means to be called certain names, unless some fresh experience triggers some past one, no emotional triggers go off. People who have been exposed to sever put down can be set off, however, just by a look. You have to bring your thousand tons of cabbage, as I like to call it, your past conditioning, and particularly that which has told you to feel worthless, for a reaction to occur that is negative and hostility provoking. Words trigger feelings by association, and those words are simply vibrations in the air without if they carry no associations. Words can trigger our feelings only insofar as they have done so in the past. I often wonder if somebody like Helen Keller was such a powerhouse because she never heard words that told her she was worthless and learned all that at a time with she was old enough to remember and reflect on what she finally was able to hear through touch.

 

[interchange]

Yes, but that is exactly how I believe subjectivity arises in the first place.

Sometimes Moonie you surprise me. I stopped short of expressing that possibility, but it is something I have actively considered and even to the extent of writing a paper about.

I can only restate what I have already said, that some claim the truly enlightened are no longer human in the normal sense of the word. I think you would have to experience such a state to really know it can be real. That means I do not know, only that I have heard such claims and seen people who are inexplicable to my understanding.

That sounds lonely. But maybe that's what's meant by "no longer human".

I wish more people had your problem, or rather knew they have your problem. Welcome to the world of the cross bearing self aware.

Sometimes I find myself using my awareness of this as a position of moral superiority in the service of denial. The mind is very effective at keeping from awareness what it does not wish to see.

 

[realibrad]

Whoa! The colours, man. The colours.......................

I can hear them. They taste like awareness.

 

[realibrad]

M: Yes, but that is exactly how I believe subjectivity arises in the first place.

Are you saying that you believe subjectivity arises from the influence of others onto that person(s)?

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you saying that you believe subjectivity arises from the influence of others onto that person(s)?

I do not understand what you are saying so I don't know if that is what I believe or not. Words that I might use to describe what I believe done fresh here and now go like this: I believe that subjectivity arises as a result of the acquisition of language where words and emotional experiences become associated, such that thinking, using language in ones head can evoke emotions we were taught to suppress, to feel are unacceptable, to attribute to somebody who is the worst in the world,, and all of these generally suppressed echos from the past. For example, right now I feel, that even though I have no idea what your question really says, that you are trying to tell me there is something terribly wrong with me for some opinion about what subjectivity is that you seem to believe I believe. I hear, "seriously, do you believe this XXXX bullshit you just said. That is because I have learned over time to suspect people of trying to find something wrong with me and the phrase "Are you saying?" is a tip off to that. I also have perhaps the fantasy that I notice such things more keenly than many because, at least for me personally, the ruthless need that drove me to be honest about my motivations and regardless of how horribly ego shattering they proved to be, read here a state of hopelessness and despair, the ultimate result was an experience that turned the world on its head. I lived in a fortress of denial, impervious and defect free so I shot myself in the head, negating it's reason for being. I find myself to be very amusing.

 

[realibrad]

I do not understand what you are saying so I don't know if that is what I believe or not. Words that I might use to describe what I believe done fresh here and now go like this: I believe that subjectivity arises as a result of the acquisition of language where words and emotional experiences become associated, such that thinking, using language in ones head can evoke emotions

I'm with you up until this point.

we were taught to suppress, to feel are unacceptable, to attribute to somebody who is the worst in the world,, and all of these generally suppressed echos from the past. For example, right now I feel, that even though I have no idea what your question really says, that you are trying to tell me there is something terribly wrong with me for some opinion about what subjectivity is that you seem to believe I believe. I hear, "seriously, do you believe this XXXX bullshit you just said. That is because I have learned over time to suspect people of trying to find something wrong with me and the phrase "Are you saying?" is a tip off to that. I also have perhaps the fantasy that I notice such things more keenly than many because, at least for me personally, the ruthless need that drove me to be honest about my motivations and regardless of how horribly ego shattering they proved to be, read here a state of hopelessness and despair, the ultimate result was an experience that turned the world on its head. I lived in a fortress of denial, impervious and defect free so I shot myself in the head, negating it's reason for being. I find myself to be very amusing.

This part is unfortunate. Its not an attack, but, at most a disagreement. I do think that people's view of the world is very much influenced by other people. Now, it could be that you do not believe that subjectivity is absolutely driven by others, and is somewhat inherent to the individual. If you do have that position, I would like to know why and test that against my beliefs.

Further, I also find it sad that you would treat everyone defensively based on your negative experiences of others. You might have lived in a fortress of denial, but now it seems you have built another fortress that separates you from those you see as a threat. Open the door and let the arrow pass through you. You are likely to find that the arrow is of your own making and only has the power you give it.

 

[Moonbeam]

interchange: Sometimes Moonie you surprise me. I stopped short of expressing that possibility, but it is something I have actively considered and even to the extent of writing a paper about.

M: Well for me the Stockholm point you made WAS expressing that possibility

i: That sounds lonely. But maybe that's what's meant by "no longer human".

M: This makes me think of what I was thinking last time I said this but didn't say. In Zen I remember from long ago reading about these circles that describe the Zen journey and in some traditions they end at an eight circle that is empty, but in others there are ten circles, the eight empty and the last two the enlightened one in the market place interacting with the people of his world. There is a Rumi, one translation into English which goes like this:
“I said: what about my eyes?
He said: Keep them on the road.

I said: What about my passion?
He said: Keep it burning.

I said: What about my heart?
He said: Tell me what you hold inside it?

I said: Pain and sorrow.
He said: Stay with it. The wound is the place where the Light enters you.”

Sorry about the size of the text from the copy paste. I am to dumb to know how to fix that. But if enlightenment or whatever term you wish to use, God Consciousness, awakening, transformation, etc. all of which are just words and not the experience, can happen in this way, attention to those various themes, the experience is called other things too, oceanic love, a sense of oneness, the end of self boundary etc, again, then it seems to me we can just call it love to make our discussion more manageable. I like this saying: Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou. To me this is saying that the lover and the beloved are one. That the God Conscious and God are in one and the same space. So if there is a state that is not defined by the ego, where the self has no boundary, your though of loneliness you express would be like saying the universe is lonely. Maybe so, I don't know, but maybe too then, in such a state of loneliness the universe set out to know itself by creating conscious awareness of its being.

And this may mean as it does to me, how to understand those ninth and tenth circles. The self may have disappeared in the eight circle, but the universe walking around in the market place loves it in totality. If the light that enters the wound in the heart and ignites infinite love, then it is via the heart that love manifests in the world.


i: Sometimes I find myself using my awareness of this as a position of moral superiority in the service of denial. The mind is very effective at keeping from awareness what it does not wish to see.

M: Yes, well as you said, one can question anything. But like a cat that chases its tail it is thought that runs in circles, and what I would refer to as awareness can be only when thought isn't. To me awareness is the state of awakeness, of presence, of being here in the now. Thought is ego and thought is that moral superiority in service of denial, I think. Some external shock, I think, has to happen for thought to end. Ego will not kill itself. Grace is one word for such an event. Surrender, bottoming out, even or maybe expecially, feeling what the thought wants to hide, going in the direction of ones fears, the peace that follows the deep expression of grief as in the Rumi thing.

I see misery as an invisible prison composed of assumptions one makes at an unconscious level that as a result of that lack of awareness, create motivations of which we are not aware. 'I deserve to be miserable', for example.

 

[Moonbeam]

realibrad: This part is unfortunate. Its not an attack, but, at most a disagreement.

M: Why do you think you call my condition unfortunate rather than a statement of fact as to how I am? Does it not go without saying that the fact I feel like the worst person in the world is unfortunate. I mean how much of an idiot do I have to be to take those odds. The point is that feeling that way just about anything you say to would set me off, much less that you disagree with me. How the fuck do you dare disagree with me. Does it make you happy to remind me how worthless I am? And fuck if it's not an attack. It God damned is an attack. I can't possibly be wrong about anything. I'd be the worst person in the world if I were wrong.

r: I do think that people's view of the world is very much influenced by other people. Now, it could be that you do not believe that subjectivity is absolutely driven by others, and is somewhat inherent to the individual. If you do have that position, I would like to know why and test that against my beliefs.

M: For people who hate themselves all tests are designed to fail. I have stated my position I guess a couple of times. I don't hear my position being reflected back at me in your suppositions as to what it is. It's not that I want to deny you your exploration but I don't feel I'm really on anything like the same page. I am very much influenced by others, for example. Everybody I run into makes me feel worthless.

r: Further, I also find it sad that you would treat everyone defensively based on your negative experiences of others.

M: Well you try being a defenseless and completely naive child and get your ass dragged through hell and tell me how confident you are walking around without armor.

r: You might have lived in a fortress of denial, but now it seems you have built another fortress that separates you from those you see as a threat. Open the door and let the arrow pass through you. You are likely to find that the arrow is of your own making and only has the power you give it.

M: That's an interesting idea. Native American Roulette.

The issue we are having here is that I am speaking as a person who believes that we hate ourselves, don't know it, don't want to know it, and don't want to know we don't want to know. That means that although I am like that, I know it is a lie, that despite all denials I do hate myself, and I have real evidence in my opinion, real experiences of self exploration of my feelings to back that knowledge. So here I am expressing defects I have that I know I have to you who also feels just like I do but in your case don't know you do, don't want to know and so on and so forth. That means that all the things you see in me expressing as truths about myself that you find pathetic and sad are truth also about yourself which, in your case, you don't see so you don't have to feel pathetic and sad. Well the fact is we do feel pathetic and sad regardless of what we tell ourselves, so what you want to save me from and what you think is horrible that I feel that way, for me is simply a fact I see about myself. I have been able to see it because I have lost some of my inhibitions about admitting how worthless I feel. Feelings are our inner truth, what we actually feel, what motivates us, what we suppress or deny. They are, however, just feelings not literal facts. The likelihood I am the worst person in the world is quite improbable, and I could even say that your desire to save me from feeling that way could even be evidence of that. You might not be so kind to the actual worst person in the world. Love you to the best of my crippled ability to love anything, damaged as I am psychologically.

 

[realibrad]

realibrad: This part is unfortunate. Its not an attack, but, at most a disagreement.

M: Why do you think you call my condition unfortunate rather than a statement of fact as to how I am? Does it not go without saying that the fact I feel like the worst person in the world is unfortunate. I mean how much of an idiot do I have to be to take those odds. The point is that feeling that way just about anything you say to would set me off, much less that you disagree with me. How the fuck do you dare disagree with me. Does it make you happy to remind me how worthless I am? And fuck if it's not an attack. It God damned is an attack. I can't possibly be wrong about anything. I'd be the worst person in the world if I were wrong.

You have misunderstood. The unfortunate part is that you would be so quick to believe that a question would be an attack on you. My question was not to telling you that there was something wrong with you. My question was asked because what you said did not fit what what I believe things to be. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, we could both be wrong. I ask the question to gain your insight and challenge mine so that I might have a chance for growth.

If you truly take such questions as an attack and or an insult then it is sad that you are so jaded.

r: I do think that people's view of the world is very much influenced by other people. Now, it could be that you do not believe that subjectivity is absolutely driven by others, and is somewhat inherent to the individual. If you do have that position, I would like to know why and test that against my beliefs.

M: For people who hate themselves all tests are designed to fail. I have stated my position I guess a couple of times. I don't hear my position being reflected back at me in your suppositions as to what it is. It's not that I want to deny you your exploration but I don't feel I'm really on anything like the same page. I am very much influenced by others, for example. Everybody I run into makes me feel worthless.

You may not have your position reflected, which is why there is an if. I am not perfect and neither are you, so there is bound to be confusion.

My point had two parts. One was that I believe people are influenced by others. The other part is that people also have inherent filters that also influence them. I believe you agree with the first, my question is if you agree and or disagree with the 2nd.

r: Further, I also find it sad that you would treat everyone defensively based on your negative experiences of others.

M: Well you try being a defenseless and completely naive child and get your ass dragged through hell and tell me how confident you are walking around without armor.

I am defenseless and naive, and I do walk around without armor when it comes to ideas. The biggest benefit I get online is that I can be open and have discussions I could not otherwise have. I accept that I might be wrong, but I also believe the things I believe. Having that duality to me is important. In RL I have to worry about the repercussions of my discussions, but here, the worst that can happen is someone will tell me I am wrong. I see no reason to fear being wrong.

So, it would seem to not be necessary to infer meaning beyond the explicit. I do not fear the damage that cannot be done.

r: You might have lived in a fortress of denial, but now it seems you have built another fortress that separates you from those you see as a threat. Open the door and let the arrow pass through you. You are likely to find that the arrow is of your own making and only has the power you give it.

M: That's an interesting idea. Native American Roulette.

Do not load the gun, or fill the quiver. That way, when you do point your weapons at yourself, you can simply move on with the remainder of your day.

The issue we are having here is that I am speaking as a person who believes that we hate ourselves, don't know it, don't want to know it, and don't want to know we don't want to know. That means that although I am like that, I know it is a lie, that despite all denials I do hate myself, and I have real evidence in my opinion, real experiences of self exploration of my feelings to back that knowledge. So here I am expressing defects I have that I know I have to you who also feels just like I do but in your case don't know you do, don't want to know and so on and so forth. That means that all the things you see in me expressing as truths about myself that you find pathetic and sad are truth also about yourself which, in your case, you don't see so you don't have to feel pathetic and sad. Well the fact is we do feel pathetic and sad regardless of what we tell ourselves, so what you want to save me from and what you think is horrible that I feel that way, for me is simply a fact I see about myself. I have been able to see it because I have lost some of my inhibitions about admitting how worthless I feel. Feelings are our inner truth, what we actually feel, what motivates us, what we suppress or deny. They are, however, just feelings not literal facts. The likelihood I am the worst person in the world is quite improbable, and I could even say that your desire to save me from feeling that way could even be evidence of that. You might not be so kind to the actual worst person in the world. Love you to the best of my crippled ability to love anything, damaged as I am psychologically.

Happiness is like a coffee cup. You likely did not ask for it to be made, yet someone created it for someone just like you, but also not for "you". You have the power to destroy it, or never use it, but it will be there unless you destroy it. If you do destroy it, there will be another to take its place if you wish. You may believe you are not worth of the coffee cup, but it does not matter to the cup.

Now, if you truly felt you had no value, then, it must mean you bring nobody else happiness. Your existence would not mean anything to them, yet I find that hard to be true.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have misunderstood. The unfortunate part is that you would be so quick to believe that a question would be an attack on you. My question was not to telling you that there was something wrong with you. My question was asked because what you said did not fit what what I believe things to be. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, we could both be wrong. I ask the question to gain your insight and challenge mine so that I might have a chance for growth.

If you truly take such questions as an attack and or an insult then it is sad that you are so jaded.



You may not have your position reflected, which is why there is an if. I am not perfect and neither are you, so there is bound to be confusion.

My point had two parts. One was that I believe people are influenced by others. The other part is that people also have inherent filters that also influence them. I believe you agree with the first, my question is if you agree and or disagree with the 2nd.



I am defenseless and naive, and I do walk around without armor when it comes to ideas. The biggest benefit I get online is that I can be open and have discussions I could not otherwise have. I accept that I might be wrong, but I also believe the things I believe. Having that duality to me is important. In RL I have to worry about the repercussions of my discussions, but here, the worst that can happen is someone will tell me I am wrong. I see no reason to fear being wrong.

So, it would seem to not be necessary to infer meaning beyond the explicit. I do not fear the damage that cannot be done.



Do not load the gun, or fill the quiver. That way, when you do point your weapons at yourself, you can simply move on with the remainder of your day.



Happiness is like a coffee cup. You likely did not ask for it to be made, yet someone created it for someone just like you, but also not for "you". You have the power to destroy it, or never use it, but it will be there unless you destroy it. If you do destroy it, there will be another to take its place if you wish. You may believe you are not worth of the coffee cup, but it does not matter to the cup.

Now, if you truly felt you had no value, then, it must mean you bring nobody else happiness. Your existence would not mean anything to them, yet I find that hard to be true.

I am sorry. I thought what I was doing here would be obvious to you and even more obvious as I tried to tell you what I was doing, but you have a literal streak, that pin head engineering thing, I simply can't get you free of. I will try again. Everything I have said is true, but it is true not just of me but you and so everything I said was to show you how you are, the things about yourself you do not see. The only difference between us is that I see them and you do not. What I have described to you is what people who hate themselves are like. You don't know its you I am describing, don't want to know it and don't want to know you don't want to know so you simply don't see I'm talking about the you that I can see in me. The strange thing is that because I see it I incline to be less like that than you are because I can handle seeing it better than you can. Knowing I am like that means that which I have become aware of about myself that is negative can't motivate me at an unconscious level because I recognize, oh, that is my self hate that is causing a reaction. This amounts to the fact that the more aware I am that I act out of feelings of worthlessness that because I feel them makes that my inner reality, the less that is my inner reality. I feel very fortunate to know how worthless I feel because the more it adds up to self knowledge that it is caused by feelings I am aware of rather than unconscious assumptions its true. There is nothing wrong with you or me except the belief there is and you don't even see you believe it. I can't prove this to you, make you see the last thing you would ever want to see, but I have reached a place where I can't deny I have just such negative feelings. I have already faced felt and dealt with some measure of the pain that awareness of negative feelings create when felt. I am healthier than I used to be, more aware that my fears are of even more self awareness. I tend less now to blame the other for my own pain. I have met the enemy and it is me.

As to your points:

r: "My point had two parts. One was that I believe people are influenced by others. The other part is that people also have inherent filters that also influence them. I believe you agree with the first, my question is if you agree and or disagree with the 2nd."

I assume people influence each other but I don't know what the point of that is, and the second point I don't really understand. I don't know what an inherent filter is. I hear kidney. Do you mean blind spots. Also, if you do explain it better I am still not sure I will see how it fits in or is relevant to how I see things. But who knows.

I can say this: When I searched for the truth and had an experience that turned the world on its head, I say that wherever I had been looking the truth was 180 degrees away from that direction. I know that doesn't make any sense and that is part of the problem. Sense is 180 degrees away from what we think it is. The tipping point for me came when I gave up all hope of ever knowing anything. There was nothing for the blind man's cane to tap. The problem is that the problem is thinking and you can't think your way out of thinking. Thought is ego, the rat that runs in a wheel. If you don't think you will feel and that will bring terror or as we euphemistically say, a panic attack etc. Thinking is how we keep ourselves from feeling. It can, of course, be how we crystallize or encapsulate and tell ourselves what our feeling if we do manage to explore them. You can talk about how to fish, but you can't make somebody a fisherman with words.