Tag Archives: anger

Emotional Morbidity and Psychopathology

Anger

Now the difference between the Psychopath and a rational or  sane person is that the Psychopath acts out of emotional morbidity.  I created Shared State Theory of Communication in part because I was observing two things, the fact that I was aware of the fact that I was changing states, emotional states and the way I was in relationship with people, the world, facts,  and events.  While every time I would communicate that I had changed states I noticed that almost everybody else would change the way they were in relationship with me and the relationship either without knowing, or without communicating that something had changed.

Whereas I was able to be self aware, self conscious, and self controlled, these appeared to be intelligences that others did not possess in the same proportions or at all.  I was constantly the victim of this unconscious changing of states, some of the time it was strategic, subversive, or passive aggressive.  I was the first to get screwed.  Instead of being considered a virtue, people seemed to consider being self aware a form of sorcery of which they were suspicious.  Baba Muktananda had always mentioned how he studied people that were successful and people that failed.  I found this interesting as well, how over and over again I was the first person to get sold down the river, not because I was wrong, or bad at my job, but because people feared my knowledge, insight, and ability.  They didn’t want to compete with me on a level playing field because they were afraid of how they would look in comparison to me, and they would have been right, given a chance I would have made them look like they were moving backwards in time.  This is also a clue to why we as a country and a world are in the state of affairs that we are in.  No money in the economy, cleptocracy in the banks and stockmarket, propaganda in the media, puppets in the government.

Knowing that I was in an emotionally morbid state I wouldn’t make decisions or act.  Psychopaths on the other hand only act on their issues, and out of emotionally morbid states.  They don’t take responsibility for their issues or their emotions, as far as they are concerned, everybody else is responsible for their emotions and their emotions are responsible for their behavior.  So a psychopath will throw an histrionic fit, and it is your fault, because you attacked them by existing and them being aware of your existence.

q

Histrionic psychopaths keep their pain fresh, like an open wound, and they use it as a source of power, they are consciously looking for things to get offended by and they think they win be getting offended.  Then when they have an opportunity they loose their venom on somebody that they are projecting their damage onto.

We now know that Anger comes from feelings of frustration, according to my SSTOC people are always communicating whatever state they are in, even if they are concealing that state, they are probably still leaking that state.  A person that feels thwarted will communicate thwartedness, unjustly thwarting others that don’t deserve it.  In an environment in which people are not educated knowing psychology, America, and not encouraged to be mentally healthy, what we see now is a creeping normalcy.  People are acquisitively mimetic, and they copy behaviors they see.  Monkey see monkey do, ad nauseum.  I refer to it as the tragedy of the commons in regard to strategic behavior.

The problem with modern psychology is that it is normative, which means that it compares the individual to the normal person in society which presupposes that the society itself isn’t batshit insane.  Which as it happens right now, is the case.  This also means that people that are quite rational will be singled out, and considered insane, because the crazy society has to be protected from the sane individuals that every day see the decay of the form of the good.

As part of my theory of rational relationship, a person should communicate in a timely manner if their behavior has been modified from what is rational or expected or necessary so that the other person can respond or change their mind or plan.  This maximizes the value in a rational relationship.  If you don’t communicate correctly, you do not think correctly and you do not act correctly which means the end result will be bad.  All force is a subtle form of rape.

Some of you know my theory on how philosophy and religion came to the west from India through Greece and for those of you this word will be meaningful.

auspicious (adj.) Look up auspicious at Dictionary.com1590s, “of good omen” (implied in auspiciously), from Latin auspicium “divination by observing the flight of birds,” from auspex (genitive auspicis) + -ous. Related:Auspiciouslyauspiciousness.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=auspicious

Etymology[edit]

From auspice +‎ -ious, from Latin auspicium (augury), from Latin auspex (augur), possibly via French.

  1. Of good omen; indicating future success.
  2. Conducive to success.
    This is an auspicious day.
  3. Marked by successprosperous.

Ask yourself these questions:  What stimulated my need recognition?  What are my intentions?  What is my motivation?  What is my desire?  What is my end game?  What is my desired result? 

Things end as they begin, and nothing ends well that is motivated by negative emotions.

fgo

Advertisements

Obsession and Psychopathology

Image

Dr. Stylianos Atechlys known as Daskalos (Teacher) once said that obsession is demonic possession.  Something I have always thought was interesting is how quickly people introduce you to their issues.  I believe that things end as they begin so I am always very interested in the first meeting I have with a person.  How they approach relationship.  The initial approach.  If relationship is an approaching where two people begin to understand each other, than how we approach relationship is how we approach approaching.  In the initial approach does the person approach authenticly and honestly or do they approach strategically?  Do they approach me as a superior talking to a subordinate?  Forcing a frame and trying to get me to participate?  or do they approach me looking pathetic and trying to elicit sympathy?  Do they approach me telling me how awesome they are and expecting me to agree?  In the case of Charles Manson the first thing you see is the swastika carved into the middle of his forehead.

People flaunt their issues and attract attention to their issues.  How many times do you start a conversation and the person ends it by saying, “god bless.” or “All I need to know is do you believe in Jesus?”  The fact of the matter is that I do believe in Jesus but not the Jesus you believe in.  I believe that Jesus in the quintessence, the fifth element, he was the incarnation of reason which is why they called him the Logoish, and I believe that god is the faculty of reason in man.  So should I say no or yes?

The fact of the matter is that people are either rational and in relationship with truth and reality (which is much, much, rarer than you think)  or they cling to morbid emotions and delusions and psychosis.  Some people are traumatized in certain areas, and rational in others.  When you stimulate a certain issue they enter a refractory state, but each individual has to be responsible for their own mental and emotional health and willing and desiring of being a whole person.

Image

In relationship people will ask you in some form or another “are you a good person?” and this is stupid because psychopaths conceal their emotional morbidity and misrepresent themselves.  They are manipulative.  Psychopaths have to do the wrong things, they have to do things psychopathicly in order to work their will and attain their good.  So stop asking people if they are good people, figure it out for yourself, stop exposing yourself to being manipulated, learn to recognize the behavior and challenge people to be mentally and emotionally healthy.

Image

One of these people always lies and one of them always tells the truth.  If I ask, “are you a good person?”  the psychopath is going to be the first to respond very convincingly in the positive and they will probably even have reasons why they are a good person.

People understand themselves and agree with themselves.  Contemplate that for a second.  The world view of the individual makes them correct in their behavior.  In order for them to be correct in doing certain things they have to perceive the world in a certain way.  This is their gestalt.  This is their philosophy, their soul.  The problem is that people don’t enter relationship to understand the other person in the relationship which is a necessity.  You have to understand how the other person in the relationship thinks.  You have to understand the human organism.  You have to understand yourself,  only in understanding yourself correctly can you understand other people correctly in relationship to yourself.  You have to understand the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases.  You have to know your issues, what stimulates your issues, what puts you in refractory states, when you are in a refractory state should you act and what actions should you take, and how do you get out of a refractory state and back into a positive mental and emotional state.  Do you act when you are in relationship with your morbid emotions?  When do you act?  Do you get good results, do you get the result that you desired?  Why not?  Why are you trying to get the result that you are trying to get?  Why do you desire that result?  Are your relationships based on shared diseases?  or on allying yourself with the better angels of others?

The Psychopath has to attack.  They can’t not attack.  They can’t keep themselves from attacking and they are looking for people to attack and reasons to attack.  They don’t have self discipline or self control.  They can’t stop looking for the thing that they hate so they can kill it.  Recent research suggests that feeling thwarted is the source of anger.  Based on my Shared State Theory of Communication, we communicate whatever state we are in.  So if we are in a state of feeling thwarted, we communicate thwartedness, and we want to thwart.  But antagonizing the problem is not necessarily moving towards the solution.  To use my terms something happened to the person that they never want to happen again, a state they want to avoid, but the psychopath is in relationship with desiring to kill the thing that they perceive as the cause of the state they want to avoid.  But in doing so they are constantly restimulating the refractory state reminding them of the state they want to avoid.  Which means they are keeping themselves in a permanent refractory state permanently, which Paul Eckman says is the same as being insane.  They are obsessed with the thing they are trying to get away from.  The only way the can rest is if that thing ceases to exist in reality.  So we have the form of the conquest.

Image

http://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/shared-state-theory-of-communication/

http://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/problem-centric-narrative/