Psychology 101

Emerging self-consciousness produces two extreme defensive reactions:
The Narcissist/Schizophrenic, and the Cynic/Sociopath.
This type uses the 'nil' to substantiate his idealization of the absolute - a product of his mind.
His own judgements erase, usurp, all other judgements....and he is his own standard.
All comparisons are sublimated in a self-flattering, self-aggrandizing exposition.  

The first divides mind/body so as to selectively project the unwanted upon other, retaining the  preferred traits for self.
The second tried to bring it all down, disappearing in the uniformity, essentially discrediting any distinction that exposes them to a comparison, revealing their failings and their responsibilities.
This types uses the 'nil' to negate any hypothesis that threatens to expose him to the undesirable - by placing a criterion so high that no judgement can ever attain.
All is reduced to a uniformity, within which no comparisons can be made, or taken to be be anything other than superficial.

Satyr wrote:

Narcissism is the corruption of empathy. An overcompensating mind cannot place itself in another’s position without defensively deflating the other, and inflating self.
It's a partial, and selective, projection of self, where the inferior parts are unloaded/uploaded upon another, allowing the preferred traits to remain purified, as the only ones identifying the ego.

Sometimes they project morally good traits as well onto others but usually there is something to gain from this for their ego.
Like I consider someone to be intelligent because he says things which are flattering me or making me feel secure.
This is a wise mirror, because this mirror reflects to me nice things, I always look beautiful in this mirror.

Or a different scenario.
There is one authority figure in the room, so the small group surrounding this figure cares about his opinion. If I can be the brightest and best among his "pupils" then that's potentially the best I can have. Sure, I could try to be a/the authority figure myself but maybe I know in the back of my mind that it wouldn't work and so being the second or third or whatever is already quite good.
In a way, flattery is then not only used to secure my position (the narcissist thinks flattery is a valuable coin, as it is for him, and so he uses it generously) but the higher the standing and reputation of the master the higher the standing of his servants as well.

And in a way, now that I've written this, I come to think that this is what's going on as a broader social phenomenon as well. The narcissist with little confidence is satisfied with his role as a small cog in a glorious machine. The more glorious the machine the better.

Here applies the same as well - It doesn't matter if it's true, if the machine is all that great. What matters is that I and enough of the others believe in it.
The weaker the machine/society becomes, the more sickly, the more fervently I'll have to defend it to keep up appearances. Of course, the more all the energies are focused on keeping up appearances the less time and energy is used for keeping it actually healthy and functioning.

We need more believers, guys, doesn't matter who those people are, everybody come and hop on into this pyramid scheme.

The standard is 'pleasure'.
The narcissist flatters so as to have it reflected back.

There is no objective standard.
Their opinions are usually based no hedonistic principles, denying the very existence of an objective standard, or any standard that holds them accountable for the negative - the nil.

The 'nil' is part of the binary model - an abstraction.
This is their only standard; an idea(l).
negative or positive, is determined by the particular psychosis they suffer from.
The narcissist (schizophrenic) always opts for the 'positive'; the cynic (sociopath) opts for the negative.

The first is a total hypocrite; the second is partially honest, admitting that there is no absolute, but his application is dishonest, using the negative to pull the world down to his misery.
His admission is replaced with the opposite extreme: absolute negation.
If there is no absolute one, then nobody can have any degree of it....all must be pulled into the absolute nil.
Its the psychosis of a vengeful coward.
A lifetime of errors and poor judgement has to be levelled down to a universal flaw.

Hoarding - the miserly psychosis of quantities over qualities
If I were to know that I reached one mind, this would have made it all worthwhile.
If I were to know that I gave life to one noble spirit, it would have all been worth it.

The miser cannot settle for such numbers.
He is addicted/obsessed with the absolute - the singularity of one/nil - because it contrasts with his hated-self, coveting quantities to cope with his feeble spirit.

His self-hatred secretly craves to be buried in multiplicity, because it can never reach his non-existent ideal.
Through it he dreams of existing, in non-existence.

Buggery
Can't help but wonder if the last thoughts of a mosquito being swatted is one of pride: "Look, look what I made him do; look what a reaction I caused with my tiny bite and blood sucking". The mosquito dies thinking it has the jaws of a tiger.

Paranoia
Caution, evolved within dangerous environments, may prove to be excessive within sheltered and predictable environments. It may make integration less harmonious.
The more one perceives the more one has to train one’s self to ‘ignore’, pretending not to notice.


Awareness, once freed from the concerns of the immediate possible, cannot help but turn to the contemplation of the distantly possible. The greater the awareness all the more complex and multifarious the unknown becomes – stimulated by a restless imagination projecting itself towards all dimensions.
In this way, the advantage offered by higher awareness turns into a disadvantage, produced by its own hyper-acuteness.
Higher awareness leads to procrastination, and uncertainty: too many variables inhibit quick judgements.

Unable to intellectually discern, the cynic allows his body’s instincts and intuitions to compensate for his unreliable, and untrustworthy judgement; all else he ridicules and dismisses.

The desire to escape culpability places the individual in a position of innocence: victim of someone or something other than himself.
If not God, then some other will is imposing guilt upon his 'innocence'.
Victimhood is the foundation of the nihilistic psyche.
There is always some external consciousness trying to hold him accountable for what he is innocent.
His own actions, and choices are not his own, and yet he complains and tries to justify them as inevitable; he begrudgingly accept them as his faith.
The dissonance places him in the position of claiming innocence while, at the same time, accusing others, and holding them accountable for his mistreatment.

All nihilistic idealisms eventually leads to self-contradictions - the noumenon and phenomenon conflict will always expose the noumenon as nothing other than an interpretation of the phenomenon.
Paradoxes emerge when the interpretation attempts replace the interpreted in the sequence.

The narcissist embraces it as a necessary by-product of the wilful imposition of his ideal upon the real, evidence of his, presumed, divine powers; the cynic laughs at the conundrum as if it were a naturally produced universal absurdity he could only appreciate, wondering why not all posses his discerning acumen.

Pascal's wager hides a terrible cost in a trivial risk.
It's what nihilists bet on to escape the insufferable.

Emotional Corruption of Reason - How the objective is frustrated by the subjective
In the Modern absolutist either/or psychosis, the absolute refers to an extreme emotional state that corrupts awareness, tilting it towards one or the other poles in its bipolar paradigm. Emotion, not reason is directing modern judgements.
Hate, for the Modern reaches a level that clouds his perceptions. The 'hated' has no virtues – can have no virtue – becoming a representation of everything the individual fears and despises; it is idealized as pure vice, pure evil; the mind attempts to muster passion to deal with the despised other.
Underestimating one's enemy only serves to be defeated by them.
The same holds true for 'love', when it clouds reasoning with its pleasing inebriating effects.
Under its spell the Modern can perceive no flaws, no vices, in the loved one.
When turned upon self it overcompensates with a comforting, defensive overestimation; inflating the ego to disproportional dimensions – pretending to be menacing and formidable.
Proportionality indicates organic functionality, so any inflation/deflation – even if noetic – manifesting disproportional, organic relationships, can only produce dysfunctional outcomes.
An individual that can find no vice, no flaw in himself, because he has unloaded them upon another – over-estimating himself – can never improve himself, nor can he hope to successfully compensate for what he cannot improve.
Narcissism is a by-product of this purified assessment of self. A psychotic can find no flaw in himself; and so he never develops, never grows out of his psychosis – a proverbial Narcissus staring into his own reflection.
He is never accountable, never to blame. It is always some external force, will, god, that is responsible for his fate: he remains innocent, stoically enduring the flaws of others; absorbing and absolving them in his flawlessness.
The loved one becomes purified in the mind; converted to a Platonic Idea; an ideal incorporated into Christian narratives.
The modern saying “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” exemplifies this mental purification of the loved-one. Through the mind's reflective lenses, the object of love/desire is cleansed of all imperfections; reborn, in its mental baths, as divine ideology. The modern does not love another, but the idea of the other; he does not love himself, but the idea of himself.
When ideal & real come face-to-face it is the ideal that must compromise, or suffer the consequences of its insolence; otherwise disappointment is inevitable. Moderns live in a perpetual state of disappointment; always seeking the source, the cause, in other; always blaming another.
The practice, itself, is not pure in motive. An individual's inability to perceive the positive in the negative, or the negative in the positive, hides a self-serving, motive.
If the individual cannot perceive, or acknowledge a flaw in the loved one, it is due to his inability to accept the responsibilities and the implications – denial preserves by fleeing, by rejecting and refusing to see.
If he were to admit that his loved one was not the most beautiful woman, or child – unwilling to accept an external standard, such as symmetry/proportionality – he is not doing so to spare them the pain, but because he wants to spare himself the implications.
What does it say about him, if he were to admit that his wife is not the most beautiful, or if he were to admit that his child was not the smartest?

In the mind of a Modern psychotic all is either absolutely flawed or absolutely flawless. There can be no intermediate state - no movement.
He can find no virtues in the hated, and no vices in the loved.
Doomed dot fail, he will adjust his binary logic, preserving their absoluteness; the error is always caused by an external other, so the flawed can redeem itself, becoming flawless, or the flawless, falls from its pedestal, and becomes absolutely flawed.
In mathematical terms, the binary 1/0 cannot be fractured. Fractions, always imply an underlying one/nil, shifting and synthesizing, but still remaining pure and distinct.
The one's absolute perfection disturbed by the nil's absolute imperfection. The Modern mind incapable of conceptualizing the fluid, cannot make the cognitive leap from its noetic constructs to the phenomenon - it is trapped in its ideology, its ideal, unwilling and/or incapable of harmonizing it with the real.

Moderns become emboldened by social protectinos, offering them the ‘right’ to pretend to be whatever they wish, if it does not disturb the same rights for others.
Characters become caricatures: surreal, supernatural; disproportional monstrosities losing functionality, other than that of psychological support.
Proportionality is the concession made by symmetry to functionality. Caricatures are disproportional
monstrosities, that have no functional potentials: expressions of dysfunctional frustration, exaggerating itself where it feels most vulnerable.
Stan Lee's polymorphic alternate universe provides a vehicle for immature psychologies, and dysfunctional individuals to find a representative expression of how he feels internally - the SuperHero's disproportional traits representing the individual's insecurity.
Every super-power referring to a compensating dysfunctional trait.

When victimhood is your only [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] then aggression, and turmoil and warfare is a preferred condition, because only in times of conflict are there victims and aggressors.
The victim identifier has no other way to distinguish himself, from others.
Without conditions of victimization he disappears, having no other identifier.

When you've lost contact with the soil, there's no way to relate to existence, other than through proxies, and ideologies.
Unable to 'live off the land' the wanderer seeks those that can to parasitically exploit.
Their 'god' is pure ideology, because gods represent a people's relationship with the world; with the environment.
The deities of parasites are ideological, because they represent the noetic they manipulate and feed on.

Pagan deities were representation of natural forces, because pagans lived directly off the land, claiming a piece of the world for their own use.

Obscurantism represents the method employed to exploit psychologies.

Farming
When humans farm animals, what are they doing?
They are manipulating the organism, using an understanding of its behaviour, its psychology.
Humans exploit animals, by making them proxies between themselves and the environment.

Farming is an example of commensalist and/or mutualist symbiosis.
Hunting would be an example of parasitism. We can imagine a form of parasitism which is not as brutal, nor as quick- gradually draining the host of its life essence. The Vampire metaphor, being an example of the latter.

Now, what form would farming humans take, if we keep in mind how humans farm other species?
How would a symbiont exploit human nature, and what form would this manipulation and exploitation take?
Does not a farmer try to keep his herd of cattle warm, and comfortable; does he not provide shelter and food for them? Does not a farmer of cattle, and/or sheep, not use his understanding of bovine behavioural patterns - the organisms psychology - to  harvest the biggest yields?
Does his care not end with the animals production, and does he not slaughter calves and lambs, without a second thought?

Given the importance of semiotics, in the human psyche, we can understand why the Abrahamic god was described as the 'word'
What method, other than linguistic, would be most effective, in the husbandry of humans, and the harvesting of manimals and sheeple?

It's as sure as sure can be, that a coward and a hypocrite can only be what it is, and nothing more.
It may be harsh and cruel to say, but if there is any meaning to patterns, and any truth to their consistency, then a coward and a hypocrite will ever only be a coward and a hypocrite.
That's all he has been, ever since he came to be, all he is, and all he will ever be.

The world, whether you define it as 'all' or as 'mankind' cannot be changed, and only a fool would try.
Gold will be gold, coal will be coal, and garbage will always be garbage, though some may find a recycled use for it.

A coward and a hypocrite cannot imagine admitting anything unless something can be done about it; he cannot understand why anyone would speak of what is 'negative' if not to change it.
He assumes that by revealing the world, as it is, that this revelation, if it is in any way unfaltering, or detrimental to his well-being, should only be mentioned if something can be done about it.

His stunted psyche presumes that others want to change the world, because he desperately wants to change the world, and, if he cannot, he wants to bring it down.

But the healthy man only speculates and perceives, not to change the world, but to change himself, in relation to the world.
His quest is personal, and that's why he cannot afford to lie, to self-deceive, because nobody will suffer the costs but him.

The coward and the hypocrite, the miser, has no such qualms. To him deceit is part of coping with the world he cannot change, and cannot accept.
He self-deceives, by attempting to deceive others.
His success measured by how well he accomplishes this goal; his reward, that he will be reassured, and supported by hearing his lies echoed back to him...as if from a divine voice, a mysterious consciousness.

Quote :

A coward and a hypocrite cannot imagine admitting anything unless something can be done about it; he cannot understand why anyone would speak of what is 'negative' if not to change it.
He assumes that by revealing the world, as it is, that this revelation, if it is in any way unfaltering, or detrimental to his well-being, should only be mentioned if something can be done about it.

Perhaps I am both (at times). When it comes to what's precious to me, I do not speak of it. When it comes to plans, states of affairs or predictions, I do not speak them, lest the other change course thereby. Maybe it is I am careful about what I reveal, because the consequences of that revelation could mean a worse situation. There is an aspect of, if I speak something, I generally end up believing that by having done so I have already performed it - or it has become inevitable - some narcissist hold-over behavior.

The paranoid schizophrenic thinks that the FBI can read its mind, the CIA can track its every move - and the only thing stopping them from openly acting on it is that by doing so they'd reveal to everyone they could do it. It's a sort of symptom of Abrahamism, where 'God sees into your soul and knows you'; whereas old Pagan gods, Zeus, could be deceived.

Overestimating self is an indirect reaction to the stranger. The ego inflates, absorbing self & other into itself. What is unknown triggers an overestimation – potential error leaning on the side of caution – at the same time underestimating the unknown other – attempting a convenient re-balancing.
Other becomes a reflection of self leading to the conclusion that all is subjective.
If no repercussions are experienced the ego remains inflated – engorged, to the point of bursting.
What is other and what is self becomes vague, a thin translucent membrane separating them.
Ego has stretched itself thin, in its attempt to appear menacingly and awe-inspiring – becoming a fragile plastic balloon – floating on fluctuating streams; numbing itself to endure all contact with otherness.
Each interaction risks disillusionment: bubble bursting.
Seeking protection among the similar is the only conceivable option – bubbles congregating into foam.

Fear: Fire in the Soul’s Foundry
In moments of shared fear men, who have never met and have little in common, are bonded as brothers; in those moments of shared stress women and men are bonded as couples – if their union is not scattered asunder – finding, in each other, a support they cannot live without from then-on and until their end.
When death is faced and fear shared, trust is created – spiritual melting merging in the soul’s smelt, different elements.
This explains why relationships are so dull and shallow, in are Modern age; turning to dust at the first sign of turmoil.
Can sand withstand a storm when it has not been forged by heat into a focusing glass?

Adrenaline junkies find in terror a moment of profound lucidity; a sense of being totally and completely alive, and present.
In this time of sheltering & ennui, the emotion of fear, and its effects are missed.
Many are obsessed with horror and art displaying the terrifying.
Controlled environments are set-up for the experiencing of fear; artificial environments, within which the mind can experience this most primal of all emotions while still maintaining a protective distance from their after-effects.

Satyr wrote:

Hunting would be an example of parasitism.

Hunting is predation, not parasitism. Vampirism (cannibalism) is also predation.

AutSider wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Hunting would be an example of parasitism.

Hunting is predation, not parasitism. Vampirism (cannibalism) is also predation.

If you consider life on earth a whole, then a hunter exploits the preys energy collections.
The difference is that a hunter does not integrate himself into the prey's social group, pretending to be one of them, nor does he adopt the prey's behaviour.

The hunter distinguishes self from other.
A parasite hides and pretends to be part of the host, as it slowly drains it and exploits it - it uses more feminine methods:
indirect, insidious, hypocritical, pretentious.

The subtle difference is one of nobility.
Small differences create huge divergences.
A chimp differs from human in 4% of its DNA....and a Negro differs from a European a fraction of that.
The outcome is strikingly obvious and clear.

I am not ashamed of any similarities, because it is the differences that distinguish and identify.
I, for one, do not need separation, from that which I do not want to identify with....because all is a matter of degree.

Hunting parasitism are both methods of survival, by exploiting another organism.
What form this exploitation takes is determined by the method...and this makes all the difference.

I agree with the idea behind the posts, it's just that some of these terms have more specific meanings.

Satyr wrote:

If you consider life on earth a whole, then a hunter exploits the preys energy collections.

It's true that all life depends on energy, but according to this wording even a herbivore is a hunter since it exploits the plant's energy collections, and the plant is a hunter since it exploits the sun's energy collections.

I don't like to nitpick about grammar as that is usually irrelevant, but using wrong terminology can often get in the way of good communication.

Yes...and by starting from a common foundation we can't advance towards a distinguishing outcome.

Herbivores harvest solar energies directly from the earth; carnivores exploit herbivores...parasites exploit both.
The method makes all the difference.
They see us as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and themselves as the farmers exploiting us. They do not soil their hands by toiling the fields or lesser organisms...they farm higher organisms. They farm more sophisticated animals....and their methods and tools reflect this type of husbandry.
You do not farm pigs, cattle by using language...but you do farm humans.
To exploit humans, like humans exploit other organisms, you adopt different farming tools and methods.
You don't hunt humans, unless you develop the physical.....if you want to farm, you adopt a farmer's attitude.

If we do not understand how they see us, we can never defeat them.

Hunter fear to confront a bull directly....hunting lions is dangerous, unless you want to accept the risks.
The parasite fears us in the same way...so it has developed a farmer's psychology and adopted farming methods, applied to humans.
How do we farm cattle....we make them comfortable, we keep them contained and controlled, we breed them for high production yields.
How would we farm human cattle - manimals?
using fences and prods?
Not very effective.  
We would imprison their minds in fencing.
How would we breed them?

The reasoning follows...from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...from the physical to the psychological....from the real to the ideal...from phenomena to noumena.

The parasite does not feel ashamed of farming humans....just as we do not feel ashamed of farming other species.
Usury is how they farm....and they feel no shame charging interest on loans, because they do not feel akin to us....but above us. They only pretend to be like us.
Would we wear deer-skins to pretend to be a deer, in order to kill one?
Would we feel ashamed of this trickery?
This is why they feel no shame corrupting our families, our culture, while wearing our uniforms and adopting our names and cultural practices.

Mother will soften reality for her children; she will boost its ego and flatter him, trying to protect it from the world's harshness, until it matures enough to be able to endure it.
A father will tell his children the brutal truth because he wants to prepare them for its vulgarity and its indifference.

Only the charlatan will flatter, tell them what they want to believe is true, because the charlatan does not care for their welfare, but only cares about his own, and his own children.
Any time you come across someone who is calling you 'friend', telling you want you want to hear, giving you hope using obscure theoretical constructs, and constantly flattering you, with praise....be sure you are I the presence of a duplicitous parasite.

The absent absolute is the most difficult concept to wrap their mid around, not only because it is how the mind works, but, more importantly, because they cannot psychologically accept, such an absence.
So, they turn the absence of an absolute into an absolute: from positive to negative.

Most mediocre minds do not require a metaphysical foundation for their subjective interpretations.
They can believe in metaphysics that contradict their understanding and experiences with the physical world, and their ideologies, projected into the future, do not have to align with either the physics or their metaphysics.
This is compartmentalization and what Orwell called newspeak....the schizophrenia of holding two contrary beliefs simultaneously, and not suffering any intellectual dissonance.
Most 'alphas' know what works and they do not need any metaphysical grounding. They don't know why it works, but only that it does.
Like animals....
An animal does not need metaphysics, it lives entirely in the physical world.
A dog does not know nor care about anything beyond its perceptual-event-horizon.
Same goes for manimals.

Moderns have little to no intellectual integrity....they are either cowards, hypocrites, or retards.
Each category has its own reasons, and methods.
Only a few, rare, types need metaphysics to be in harmony with physics, and then their ideologies to align with both. We call such minds 'philosophers'.
most think they are philosophers, or that they are 'friends to wisdom' but all they are are desperate degenerates, looking for excuses, or escapes.
Manipulating words to accommodate what they've already decide is 'true' does not cause shame in them.
They can lie to themselves and so lying to others is a piece of cake.
they do not seek excellence, admiring the ariston, even if it is not them...but they are looking for ways to compensate for what their intuitively feel is lacking in them.
You can see this in the way they approach the world, through language....through words, or any art-form.

In their attempt to escape and compensate they expose who and what they are; they reveal their motives to those who have eyes to see. For the rest, it does not register.
They always gather an entourage of individuals who suffer from the same psychosis, using one-another as reflective mirrors, rather than a world that remains indifferent to their needs.
They surround themselves with the like-minded, using each other as validations of their shared delusions and linguistic lies.
It's always been this way, and it will, forever, be.
There's no use in reasoning with someone who uses reason to self-medicate, self-flatter, self-agrandize.
He can't even begin to consider the alternative.. For him it is a matter of survival and sanity...he needs the lie to remain alive.

Survival above all other motives...survival at all costs.
You can't reason with a Christian...for him his god is what he needs to cope with a world he finds unbearable; he hates himself so much that he hides his self-hated i expression of universal love, trying to love himself via others.
Abrahamism is based no the most arrogant presuppositions....because it caters to the feeble and desperate, and those who despise who they are, and the world that made them possible.
This 'all deserve love' is a cry for help, trying to convince itself that he, or she deserves love.

First comes the act,, not the word.
Do not listen to what people say, watch what they do, and then interpret what they've said in relation to what they've done, chosen, how they behave.

For example, those professing equality for all, are really trying to prove to themselves that they are, at the very least, as good as anybody else, because they do not believe it themselves.
This is why they are so passionate about it, or why they become enraged at the slightest mention of the simple fact that life is unjust, and living organisms are unequal....otherwise there would be no natural selection.

Beneath a cowards self-deceit there's a desperation, trying to deceive the world, and find refuge in the lie.
Beneath the self-aggrandizing arrogance of a narcissist, there's a deep intuitive knowledge of its own feebleness, overcompensating to protect itself from what it fears is true.
Beneath the declarative, presuming absolute order, there's a cry for a ordering father-figure, a paternal force to give a cowering boyish psyche a sense of belonging...a boy or girl that tells itself it has outgrown Abrahamism, that it is over Christianity, but openly, and indirectly, declaring itself unable to cope with existence without its certainty.
It changes the language to hide its need...its retardation, its stunting, unable to overcome its childish needs.