At one irrational level I continue to believe that having access to a powerful self hurts those who wish that self were in them. I should therefore eradicate that self, as opposed to use it. This is how guilt is connected to access to self. The Christians would say: stop rejecting what God has given you. They would say my attitude is “not Biblical.”
I think guilt is how people handle abuse. I also think it is a poor guide. Perhaps one should just give it an anaesthetic and push on. I feel guilt because I know my paper will be good. I also feel a second guilt because that first guilt is hampering me in making it really good.
If I give guilt an anaesthetic and push on, I will be less involved with some phantasmagorical layer self and more involved with the actual world. Reeducation fostered a strange, mournful focus on self that never seemed interesting or practical to me.
I realize how odd it is that I feel that if I become the person I was meant to be, it will kill someone. I know that sounds Oedipal, and it may be. Still, its more important levels are more superficial, having to do with one’s education and reeducation to gender roles (and some other things like that, which we have discussed).
*
To this and more (which is still to come), Jennifer commented:
See my (other) recent blog entry. Humanity is destined for suffering so long as it doesn’t have the right spiritual leaders — the ones who really have the goods, and are not just intent upon deceiving and promising pie in the sky when people die.
So people may not wish you to assert your power (they’re stuck on the pie in the sky notion), but you owe it to them, and to yourself, to restore the right order to things — that is, by expressing your abilities to the full. Although people will initially resist your efforts, and it will be painful for them, they are destined to come around to see it your way — since it is the natural order of things that you are restoring.
And strong action is actually safer than prevaricating action. It’s a martial arts principle. If you commit to hit, then hit. Don’t be indecisive. Don’t waver.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
I’m not sure I agree that guilt feelings are to be ignored. But maybe your guilt is misdirected. I don’t want to say more for fear of being mislabeled as a twelve-stepper or something.
One of my guides is that if I really believe in some idea and think it’s wonderful it’s probably some self serving lie. I have had to face a lot of uncomfortable truths about myself, especially as to my real abilities, which are good but not earth shaking. But just because I’m not the next thing to god herself I’m not going to stop doing what I’m really good at.
Well, I don’t mean ignored. I know what my guilt feelings are — they are the internalization of the idea that if I individuate, someone whose identity is based on my not doing so will feel serious pain. And that my priority should be preventing that, so I should stunt myself to that end.
That’s funny, I have the opposite phenomenon. If I really believe in some idea it is because it is right. That often means I don’t feel I have the right to it, or to its benefits. So I pass it on to someone else to use — and they tend to do very well with those ideas! This is what makes me a good advisor and administrator, actually.
Ah, I had forgotten that I had a blog entry in after the one I was directing you to.
I can see that, about the administrative part. But don’t you think it’s easier to solve the problems of others than one’s own problems?
Oh, and you have no choice but to individuate, and it gets “worse” as you get older. Some eternal child types never grow up, or they spend all their time meandering down memory lane, but the rest of us just keep on differentiating.
I’m on the verge of becoming downright odd. Luckily, where I live, that is perfectly O.K.
Just a thought:
I don’t think ego is involved in effectively helping other ppl with their problems. This is more of a merging or lack of ego.
Conversely, in such activities as sparring and writing a thesis, ego must be clear and sharpened.
This seems really insightful:
“I realize how odd it is that I feel that if I become the person I was meant to be, it will kill someone. I know that sounds Oedipal, and it may be. Still, its more important levels are more superficial, having to do with one’s education and reeducation to gender roles (and some other things like that, which we have discussed).”
It is all about deportment (gender role stuff, e.g.) and yet this deportment has a connection to something more elemental, which the mention of an Oedipal dynamic nicely limns (it could probably be put other ways too)… the world will end if you actualize yourself and use your powers to be productive and happy, as opposed to holding back and hobbling yourself in order to make others feel better, which it won’t anyway— that’s the utterly depressing irony of the whole thing. There are such dark and befuddling scripts for life out there and right here. (I hope this makes sense.)
Hi Kiwimark and welcome!
“hobbling yourself in order to make others feel better, which it won’t anyway”
It is key that it won’t make them feel better … and also (my usual error) that cluing them into reality or trying to intervene to boost confidence won’t make them feel better. It will on a normal person, but not on these types.
Yes, your comment makes sense.
Jennifer and Hattie, it’s easy to tell people stuff and if their problem really is one you’ve already solved and you give them the solution then yes, it’s easy. But otherwise I find it’s harder than solving my own problem because I have to figure out what the person’s actual situation, goals, feelings, priorities, and so on are, whereas my own are fairly familiar to me.
So it is ego you use for thesis and sparring — that’s interesting, makes sense, I think of myself as using body and mind but if it is ego then that is what Reeducation took away, on the theory that I was “too intellectual.”
*Very* interesting thought, that, that what Reeducation took was ego … I always thought it created a strange neurotic narcissism because it destroyed confidence and had me constantly looking inward, examining myself for hidden faults.
Also, it gives a yet clearer explanation of why I thought law school out of state would be the best and fastest cure for Reeducation. Leave the scene of the crime to a program that not only tolerates, but demands you use your mind, and considers it a positive trait if you can argue and win a case … not just in a narrow academic journal, but in court.
My paradox was: no ego allowed in academia. Teaching, you had to mollify resentful students so you could have decent evaluations; research, you had to write things you didn’t believe but say you did; administration/service, you had to shut up; so, if you had done this out of actual interest then staying was pointless. Whereas in law, if you were in the position of arguing something you didn’t believe, you were not expected to lie to yourself about it.
So the renunciation of “thinking” and “power” in Reeducation was the renunciation of ego. Hmmm.
And also: I still think guilt is best described (s0 far) in my case (and I am sure there is some more clinical description available) as the feeling of horror associated with failing to heal abusive people, not being able to give them all they want, aha, not WANTING to die for them and knowing that they need that and more. I think that’s it, actually: knowing you should die for them but leave them all your things and abilities, then they will not hate you any more and you can have peace, because they are the ones who deserve all those things you have and you do not, so that is why they are hitting you or whatever. GUILT is that torn feeling between knowing you should die for them and that a sufficiently virtuous person would do so, but that you have no such intention.
Yes, I realize this is neurotic, but I am wondering — perhaps it is more common than I know?
Guilt, for instance, at not having confirmed my mother’s convictions by leading a life like hers.
Things like this.
Guilt, also: is about wanting something less than I am expected to want it, or not wanting to pay the price that is being exacted for it; it is about rejecting someone who could be saved if I gave them my blood, but to whom I am not going to give my blood or at least not all of it. It is about not wanting to give my stuff and my self away to marauders who claim I owe it to them because they love me.
Yes– the guilt is caused by somebody having put you in an impossible situation. It’s like I say, you see them as a road accident victim, but you are powerless to help, and must pass by. You will be absolutely condemned for trying to help them anyway, and they will try to force you to take their place, as a casualty.
Here is a tip to consider about such casualities as well as others who need your help.
You really DON’T need to understand anybody fully and completely, or even half way, in order to help them, most of the time. If you feel that this is necessary, then it is what the situation is trying to extract out of you, but it isn’t necessary at all.
Actually if I have a problem, or you have a problem, it is not necessary for either of us to understand each other fully in order to help. A kind attitude — not deep and personal understanding — is all that is necessary to give the other person the tools and the space they need in order to assist themselves.
So those who demand something else are very possibly misunderstanding what they need, in line with the way contemporary culture overintellectualises problems to the point that they become unsolvable. Also, it is possible that such people may wish to feed off your energy as you try to intellectually solve a problem that can really only be resolved on an emotional level.
In either case, if you have a kind and consistent attitude towards that person, that is all that is necessary to help them. Anything more is a waste of your energy, and is likely to draw you in to becoming embroiled in their problem — something you cannot afford.
Impossible situation, yes, but it’s hard to just pass by if you’re a preschooler. I did consider applying to live with another family, but I knew things weren’t bad enough for social services to believe me.
You don’t have to understand the person, but you do have to understand the situation to give decent practical advice. Many people are only willing to project their own situations or repeat standard patter, which is why they are not good advisors.
Kind attitude, tools and space, yes. Quite right by and large that if you’re making a greater effort it is probably too much! A smaller amount of kindness actually works *better* because people stay independent.
Yes, I see. But if you do have to make a great effort to educate people then you are taking up the slack for somebody else who should have put the building blocks into place for those who needed them, a long time ago.
I do think that the present manifestation of culture and cultural attitudes are the most decadent that they could be, when a university professor must stoop to teaching children their abc-s.
There is a lot of denial of responsibility along with exploitation at all levels of society.
I don’t think this present version of society can be redeemed.
When I tried to teach middle school, I came away thinking, “Why should I be the one responsible for this nest of vipers that is the product of this generation of irresponsible social actors?”
Also the kind attitude I am talking about is Buddhistic, not overly active. It is a neutral (not quite passive) openness, nothing more. And that is all you need to give.
Guilt is also about being envied. It is about existing when I have no right. It is about not having been who certain people wanted me to be. And so on, and so forth. It’s an identity issue.
It may seem like an identity issue, but I am inclined to wonder really if it is that. We automatically codify problems and tensions in terms of the dominant discourses of our times. Yet identities mean nothing in themselves. Even if we view identies in terms of access to power and wealth, there are many identities that are not totally resented for having these things. In fact it is common to look up to someone who is white and male and to accept their right to have what they have. So, I’m not sure it is an issue of identity that is at the centre of various ppl’s jealousy issues. It seems more opportunistic to me.
Well, yes, jealousy issue for them that seems to cause me an identity issue. My guilt is about not having been the right person.
But if you do have to make a great effort to educate people then you are taking up the slack for somebody else who should have put the building blocks into place for those who needed them, a long time ago.
Yes, but that is how it is. So you have to fit a lot into one college education.
I do think that the present manifestation of culture and cultural attitudes are the most decadent that they could be, when a university professor must stoop to teaching children their abc-s.
Well, here you can expect about a primary to middle school level of education of a college freshman. If they have the equivalent of high school college prep, they’re in the honors program.
There is a lot of denial of responsibility along with exploitation at all levels of society.
I don’t think this present version of society can be redeemed.
When I tried to teach middle school, I came away thinking, “Why should I be the one responsible for this nest of vipers that is the product of this generation of irresponsible social actors?”
True. The Reagan Revolution is almost 30 years old now and people who did not come to consciousness earlier are these alien beings.
Also the kind attitude I am talking about is Buddhistic, not overly active. It is a neutral (not quite passive) openness, nothing more. And that is all you need to give.
Yes. But in the case of the Blackguard we’ve been hoodwinked into giving more — partly because of the situation (small unit and so on) and partly because this person is invasive and manipulative. My guilt toward him isn’t actually about not having given him enough — it’s the feeling abuse and invasion give me (so that I will then try to further fix things). I am pretty well convinced of this. I only imagine it’s about not having given enough … really it means he’s being abusive.
AND, AHA … that means that when I feel guilt around writing and work, it is because I have taken an abusive attitude toward myself (just as when it feels like drudgery, it is because I have not allowed enough ego to go into it).
To be honest, with the levels of political and emotional blackmail that are de rigueur in schools, I could never work in one. Such an approach to getting one’s education seems so innately disrespectful of what it means .. what it ought to mean .. to be human, that I think the idea of being educated sufficiently, and yet losing the humanity that should pertain to the situation is too contradictory to be tolerated. I suspect that it is really because emotional and political blackmail have become the cultural norm and thus institutionalised as ‘the way we get things done’ that you had nowhere to go with the Blackguard. You have to go in the direction that you are played towards if your ability to earn a living depends on it.
Of course this is quite wrong.
Political and emotional blackmail, with beginning students, well one has to realize where they are — it is hard to imagine — and think carefully about what one would like to get done and can get done and how to go about it … there are things that can be done, and not all students are that way, but it takes a lot of pedagogical skill and time. I only have some.
The majors and graduate students are normal students, though.
Blackguard, well it has to do with the particular situation with authority in that one of my departments. In a different situation this would either be stopped or would have been blocked by institutional structures from coming up in the first place.
Have you ever read the works of Alice Miller? Because a lot of what you’re saying, in this post and in other entries, sounds like what she wrote about: * selfish and undeveloped parents [and other authority figures],
* who regard a child as an inconvenience or an extension of self or a resource to co-opt,
* and teach the child that zie must serve the parent’s demands exclusively and absolutely, no matter how inappropriate those might be,
* and never show any personal capability or interest that the parent doesn’t want,
* with an implied threat that if the child doesn’t comply, the parent will die and it will be all the child’s fault for being a bad child.
She called it ‘poisonous pedagogy’.
That would be the source of your feelings that “having access to a powerful self hurts those who wish that self were in them…My guilt is about not having been the right person….marauders who claim I owe [my stuff and my self] to them because they love me.”
It’s been a long time since I read them, but I think For Your Own Good and Breaking Down the Walls were especially useful. Maybe Thou Shalt Not Be Aware, too.
Yes, and I think she’s right. I haven’t read _Breaking Down the Walls_ but – yes.
Where I disagree with her, or did when I read her, was with the idea that being able to see these things would free one, sort of in and of itself.
I think my problem was not not remembering those things or not realizing them, but not knowing well enough how to counter them … and Reeducation’s emphasis on “admitting” that one “was” this wounded “inner child” reinflicted a lot, or inflicted it in a new and magnified way.
However, the reminder is good and one thing I like especially about Miller is that she talks about how these parenting techniques were embedded in German child rearing theories generally — so they’re not just actions of individually wicked parents, but also general societal attitudes toward kids in some places.
My half sister raised in DK was raised Germanically and is really opposed to it. It is one of the things that has contributed to her apparent alcoholism and so on.
On the guilt, there are these comments from Berit Aas:
It is well known that women who have been raped or ill-treated feel deeply ashamed and partly responsible for what has happened.
The fifth master-suppression technique – heaping blame and putting to shame – is illogical and difficult to comprehend. At the same time, this master-suppression technique is effective on account of the inferior status society has assigned to women and female culture. By being made invisible day in and day out, the woman feels small and insignificant; through the accustomed ridicule, she feels silly; and through the systematic withholding of information, she feels insecure and stupid: These factors feed the serious – but wholly unjustified – feelings of shame, and feed the similarly groundless tendency to accept the blame for all the world’s ills.
Thus, women do not protest as loudly as they should do when it is suggested that rape is committed because women wear short skirts, when women are blamed for the men’s boozing, or when women are branded impossible to work with if they refuse to have their bottoms patted.
Heaping blame and putting to shame is more diffuse and harder to identify. It is therefore a matter of urgency to bring this out in the open. Such consciousness will have the power to explode all myths.
When a woman has learnt to recognize the fifth master-suppression technique, she can more easily handle and counteract the “psychology” that makes the technique effective, i.e., it persuades women themselves to “accept” the picture of women and female as something uninteresting, stupid and ludicrous.
But when women gains a complete understanding of the technique and what makes it work, instead of guilt and shame, they will be able to feel joy and pride in belonging to the so-called second sex.
http://kilden.forskningsradet.no/c16881/artikkel/vis.html?tid=55475
Article discovered by Jennifer. Second comment by me myself on guilt coming right up.
OK. Part of my guilt over these sallies from that Blackguard is about the fact that they happened at all.
Part of it is about having been placed in the position, by this Blackguard, of having to deal. Instead of feeling outraged at him, I feel guilty myself.
Another part of it is what it brings up for me — not having been able to protect myself when I was in his situation, not being able to fully protect others from it, having received abuse from higher ups for even thinking it was a bad situation and naming it as such … and now receiving abuse for not having been able to fix it, and remembering all of the above.
There is also the often overlooked aspect of feeling guilt because one is inherently noble and feels responsible for one’s society or the individuals in it and the horrible state they are in.
Simone de Beauvoir recognised, in The Second Sex, that taking responsibility for one’s era is the sign of a powerful personality.
As we have seen, most people don’t, and cannot fathom this aspect of nobility.
Yes, they don’t, but I feel it as responsibility not as guilt. I think people feel guilt because they know they should take responsibility and do not want to, or something along those lines … and also somehow abuse infuses guilt.
Yes–I think abuse infuses guilt. I’m still waking up here in Perth, after a day of writing, sparring and Veuve Clicquot, so excuse me as I gradually come into focus. It’s complicated, but a foundation of ethics needs to be layed down, in all situations of abuse. The approach of using intimidation or emotional force to try to separate the sheep from the goats is never going to be effectively therapeutic, because a lot of psychical bruising can read like “ego inflation” when it is actually just the individuals last ditch self-defence mechanism coming into play, as a result of a strong erosion of trust.
Also, as you have mentioned, it is the victim who is usually more in touch with their guilt than the perpetrator is. So, this makes the victim look like the perpetrator in the eyes of others.
I think that if there were a common reference point for ethics, both of these problems would come into focus better than they generally do.
Also, abuse is really irrational even when disguised as “punishment.” So it goes against the possibility of laying an foundation of ethics.
It is known that abuse victims feel guilty but I don’t know if it is known how that infusion of guilt works.
Anyway it really does explain why so many people here (they beat all the kids, basically, and threaten them with God and Hell and so on) end up with a lot of fear but no respect, and on and on, and say, just give me the instructions on what I must do so as to escape the “punishment” and I will do whatever, no questions asked (unless you are not looking).
*
And, I was thinking that all this is just like economic exploitation somehow. Abusers extract blood or gold/diamonds and so on from the victim and say that when said victim has given enough they will stop ruining the land. But when the victim has no more to give and all is ruined the abuser starts to sneer and says, how did you get to be so ugly and poor, how useless you are!
Those who are threatened with hell and so on lose the mediating buffer of selfhood that separates them from the world and its immediate effects. If the abuse happens at an early enough age, they will not develop the ability to “mentalise”, which is to work with various scenarios in their heads on a hypothetical level, without having to act them out in order to see the results.
One of the consequences of perpetual or severe abuse, in consequently, a very literalistic mindset, that does not easily grasp the meaning or the purpose of a metaphor.
(Anecdotally — I have found that those whom I tend to inadvertently upset, due to my alleged “intellectual superiority” have been those who felt antagonised by my use of metaphors in everyday language.)
Early abuse can lead to a lot of frustration and inevitable “dumbing down”.
I suspect that some kind of half-conscious awareness of this is behind a lot of resentment.
Very interesting on the metaphors — it explains a lot.
Interestingly, Reeducation was *against* mentalizing. It also disliked goals and planning.
Yes, it does explain a lot.
But also, significantly, that there are totally different points of reference for different ppl, depending on whether they are from a culture of abuse or not.
So when ppl from a culture where abuse is the norm caution you that “you are a snob” or “you are not communicating”, or something like that, they do not mean it in the normal way. I know if you are like me, you immediately think that something is being reflected in my attitude that I didn’t intend. I’d better make amends.”
But actually they mean something much more fundamental — and indeed, totally different — from anything like that.
What they mean is that you are using your mind in a way that they are not familiar with, using its broader scope of powers (like mentalising), and that this way of thinking and of being sets you apart from them, and makes them feel worse off, in comparison to you.
Further to what I said, I don’t think that the people who have normalised abuse actually have any conception that they are abusing anybody. I think this is because:
1. they have accepted, from experience, that life is unpleasant in its essence, and they don’t expect that to change. (This relates to a subjective registration of negative emotions as the most common ones.)
2. In response to the first point of experience, they’ve learned to numb themselves very much to the opinions and perspectives of others.
3. They believe that the person who they have injured has received an expression of their “love”. (Remember, “love” means craven hunger and desire to possess the other person’s joy in life.)
So, they can’t see how they could have done anything wrong.
This is why it’s really difficult to communicate with someone who is in this mode. They really are on another wavelength, and as I said, understand something different by “communicate”. And point 3 really confuses the whole thing anyway. They don’t know what love is and think it means taking possession of the other person: “I was hungry so I had to eat.”
They can’t see how it is possible to deny their own instincts, in that sense.
That second comment is a perfect description of one of my relatives!!! And my evil X … and maybe the Blackguard!
This I also find particularly striking, re people who call one a snob, too intellectual, whatever:
“What they mean is that you are using your mind in a way that they are not familiar with, using its broader scope of powers (like mentalising), and that this way of thinking and of being sets you apart from them, and makes them feel worse off, in comparison to you.”
YES. And yes — the normal reaction to being told one has done something hurtful is to find out what it is, do something about it. Often though, I find out that the hurtful thing I’ve done is exist.
On abuse and guilt … yes, abuse teaches guilt, fear, outward obedience, etc., and instills resentment, destructiveness, etc., and interdicts the creation of a bone structure (so to speak) of one’s own … everything is about response to outer stimulus. This is I think why the terminally destroyed need Reeducation or something like it as a rule book or exo-skeleton.
YES. And yes — the normal reaction to being told one has done something hurtful is to find out what it is, do something about it. Often though, I find out that the hurtful thing I’ve done is exist.
It does come down to this. But it is really, really difficult to realise it at first. It’s very counter-intuitive, and hard to fathom, specifically because we tend to presume that others are like us. Actually that assumption is the basis for normal, healthy empathy. However, as it turns out, those particular others are by no means like us, but are acting on the basis of very different principles of “equality” and “fairness”. “Equality” for them is not considerate treatment, but is understood implicitly to mean concrete sameness, and any lack of being the same is considered to be “unfair”.
But because these ppl speak a totally different EMOTIONAL LANGUAGE, they are forever speaking at cross purposes with you.
And actually, to be blunt — their emotional language is illogical and yours is right. Because, even if you gave them what they THOUGHT they wanted, which is your sameness with them, this wouldn’t objectively improve their situation. They would still be hostile, vicious and struggling emotionally to survive.
“’Equality’ for them is not considerate treatment, but is understood implicitly to mean concrete sameness, and any lack of being the same is considered to be ‘unfair’.”
So true. And no, the sameness doesn’t satisfy them — it frustrates them further, how can you have sameness and not be suffering in the same way, etc.
They pursue a false solution to their problems. It’s one they grasp for because it seems obvious to them — if only that other person would relinquish some of their power, then I would have more, and we would somehow be equal. But reality doesn’t work that way, so it only makes things worse (or at least, it doesn’t alleviate the suffering of the ones who think this way).
God. In one of my departments that, I now realize, is the source of the permanent war. The ones who are always at war with each other are the vampires.
And it is a turf war. Weird.
It’s good to recognise it for what it is, so that it doesn’t suck your energy.
Again, though, it strikes me why a lot of ppl who haven’t had the misfortune to be approached by such ravenous people are skeptical as to the real nature of the problem (and how, in this sense, being eaten alive, is one of the major hazards of the contemporary workplace, since one can choose one’s friends but not one’s work colleagues.)
These people speak all the RIGHT LANGUAGE — the SPEAK of a humble recognition of life’s sordid side, of equality, of accepting one’s lot and not trying to change it, of their dislike of those ppl who purportedly have intellectual airs and do not recognise life’s intrinsic hardships, and so on.
And as you and I have recognised, we — these others who are so disliked for seeming to represent the opposite values to all of this, although we don’t plan to — actually DO experience all of life’s hardships in just the same ways as these others, who talk their walk, are on about. We just differ in that we don’t make those things key to our identity. (It might seem otherwise from the evidence of this blog, but actually, key to my identity is my joy in sparring and doing intellectual research. Analysing how to avoid the pitfalls of life, as we are doing on this blog, is just an extension of that, in some ways.)
Oh, and they also speak of “love” (meaning, as said, their craven hunger to be loved at any price.)
Ravenous, and turning things 180 degrees around, because they are through the looking glass, so to speak. (I realize this sounds very them vs. us and I don’t really mean it that way…)
Ravenous, and turning things 180 degrees around, because they are through the looking glass, so to speak. (I realize this sounds very them vs. us and I don’t really mean it that way…)
Look at it this way, if someone declares war on you, it is not to your advantage to say, “well there is no clear distinction between them and us”. You do need to mark a line clearly in your head, and say, “well there is a certain way of looking at the world which pertains to some and not others, generally speaking, although it may pertain to all people to a lesser degree, some of the time.”
And the distinction seems to be in terms of neurological wiring — that is, at the level of deep character structure when that character structure has been originally wired under conditions of too much stress.
I think that yours and my character structure has simply not been wired under a condition of too much stress, and theirs have been. This is not a moral distinction, that separates “us and them”, but a neurological one. I think it helps to realise this, because their way of looking at things back to front is inevitable, and difficult to change with any moral counselling.
(And I have just been struggling with my new Microsoft Word, since it has for some reason defined my language as “French” and I didn’t notice why I was getting some so-strange inverted commas each time. I thought it was something weird that had happened to my keyboard.)
Inevitable, a key point.
MSW — I so dislike its newer versions!
Oh, and so Reeducation *itself* — my Reeducator — was one of those people who look at things back to front. He kept suggesting he was envious that I had a “core.”
Maybe it is rare to have one if one was brought up in too stressful an environment.
I’m now reading this:
http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=8&aid=30
I’m not sure at all about some aspects of that article, though.
FK are never in places or activities suitable to them. FK allow decisions to hang INDEFINITELY, they do not just merely procrastinate. They lack any power due to this indecisiveness. This is not the case with CV who make decisions, they accomplished real things. One example is that FK NEVER carry out any punishment on anyone who is their obvious enemy, on people who have REALLY harmed them or tried to kill them. CV most certainly DO do this or they catch the person trying to harm them and nip it in the bud. FK are also unable to get enemies to submit in ANY case. This is connected to an old poisoning family situation or affair wherein they let an enemy of theirs in the family get away with harming them. They had difficulty dealing with the enemy. This “old meat” gets rotten and poisoning inside FK. Then, when this becomes an ever RENEWED problem later on, or when they seek to get their “DUE” later on, they arouse hatred against THEMSELVES to a GREAT DEGREE (consider it means SO GREAT, that FK might have people next to them, living with them, that want to MURDER them – and who might be trying to murder them). They then suffer disgrace. This old matter or affair lies or dwells deep in a PIT inside the FK’s. Their actions, character and thoughts rest on it: this ROT has become their FOUNDATION! So it is not that they have no foundation or no root. They do, but it’s inner-rot. They already GOT two chances to punish this enemy, one as a child and one in puberty. They let the chances pass. Thereafter begins an activity or project of “BECOMING SOMETHING GRANDIOSE” – something so grandiose that it will or could: “ILLUMINE THE WHOLE WORLD.” Truth is, they are UTTERLY barren and illuminate nothing, they can’t even enhance anything. They poison.
http://www.ling.rochester.edu/~duniho/evil/xtoids.html
Well it’s weird/interesting, I think I first heard of klippoth from you but from my evil X. A bunch of Satanists used to link to the blog he had, which was interesting because it wasn’t a Satanist blog … it must mean he was visiting them or something, still more involved than I knew or at least observing! Anyway it’s quite interesting, I appear to be a Satanist as well. I will have to look into this for fun although I can’t this next couple of weeks!
I’m now reading this:
“There is a trance state where you see people as if in the “dimension” of time; you see the weave of life. That is, you don’t see solid objects in space; you see them as a weave moving through time and have to be able to distinguish their particular weave from the whole web of life. This is often used to ward off evil spirits (whether the spirits are of dead people or living people doesn’t matter) and to protect the person whose weave is being attacked (self or another). ”
http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/shamanism.html
It’s what I was getting at with being able to disinguish “rigid” people from “liquid” people, kind of mentally and viscerally.
I used to do that sort of normally. Every day. Not as protection or anything, just as some form of — integration. Now freed, I think for real this time, of (maybe) the last of Reeducation — which actually refers not just to commercialized psycho”therapy” / Al-Anon but to professordom — thanks to my battle with the Blackguard, I am free to start doing this again.
Also interesting, from here:
http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=8&aid=113
They grow up with this craving for “worth,” and “self-worth” is a concept almost alien to anyone else as these people have it. Anything said to them is sifted into a dualist structure and re-interpreted as either pro or con, an expected judgement made on them; as such they are extremely defensive people and others perceive their defensiveness as an attack. Told they are attacking, they never grasp this. It’s impossible to communicate across this almost unbridgeable gulf of being.
This is actually quite interesting. AAAAHHHH I now want to read that but I have to read other stuff!
I’m now reading more of their stuff. One of the things that strikes me in retrospect about the way some people (the majority perhaps?) are, is that it has been so difficult to convey to them what it is like to be in exile, or to fail to find one’s feet in another country. They think you are trying to find a way to make yourself special, when in fact, you are trying to find a way out of your suffering. This is hugely, hugely, obstructive. It is such a huge gap to try to close, I just don’t think it can be done. The reflex response of most people in encountering something they do not understand is:
“You must be trying to make mileage out of that.”
Yes — that is what they think. Because that is how they are. My family making mileage out of being Katrina victims. My X, who adores it here but uses Britishness as an excuse for not having to be polite. “I am a stranger in a strange land!” he wails. My colleagues, who are here by choice and go home all the time but have reason to like working in the US university system. They hang out together all the time in a posse, don’t speak much English, lament their putative exile and the crassness of the Americans, and take liberties, and complain of complain of “Puritanism” when not allowed to run completely rampant.
All of them are trying to make mileage out of some melodrama. It is very disgusting to have this projected into one.
All of them are trying to make mileage out of some melodrama. It is very disgusting to have this projected into one.
And to be honest, I think that this is why I have detached myself from ideas about promoting my book. I don’t want to become the kind of person who has managed to make mileage out of my own misery. And I feel that I would have to flip into my opposite, and become that.
I think it must be capitalism. People are actually compelled to “capitalise” on absolutely anything at all, in order to survive, actually. I’m unusual — and I feel this more and more — because I would rather not survive than be pressured into thinking in this way. I used to think that I could do it — adapt to Western modes of thinking. I had some partial success for a while, but my core being eventually got very tired of the novelty, and effectively I saw the whole pressurised dynamic to be something that you’re not as very unpalatable.
What I don’t get is how ppl ALWAYS assume that if you bring some difference to their attention, you are automatically trying to capitalise on it. Aren’t there some exceptions? I mean the conclusion seems to make the assumption that everybody has as much as they already need or more. So any request for help, for instance, can’t be a genuine cry for assistance, but is rather just a case of somebody angling to capitalise on something.
Very true and *weird.* It must be capitalism — the words new, different, and revolutionary mean products one should switch to, gurus one should follow, and so on. !
Yes, the word “different” is very loaded. If you want to say, somewhat shamefacedly, perhaps, “Oh, I seem to be different in some ways from the rest,” you will get many who are immediately up in arms. “What RIGHT have you got to claim difference?” they yell out. “How have your EARNED your difference?”
So difference is simply not permitted unless you’ve earned it. You might come from elsewhere and think differently, but you are not allowed to say so.