The Second Story Of Echo And Narcissus
Are you listening closely?
I.
This is the story you know:
"Narcissus was a man who was so in love with himself that he fell in love with his own reflection. No one else was good enough for him. He stared into the pool, and eventually wasted away."
But that's not the whole story.
When Narcissus was born his mother, Liriope, took him to the blind seer Tiresias and asked him for a prophecy: "will he have a long life?"
Before Tiresias became a prophet he had spent seven confusing years as a woman, and made two important discoveries about women. First, that women get more pleasure from love making than men. When he told this discovery to Hera and Zeus, Hera, in a rage, struck him blind, which lead to his second discovery: not all women want to hear this.
Zeus tried to make up for his blindness by giving him the power to know the future.
So Tiresias gave Liriope his cryptic prophecy:
"He'll have a long life as long as he never knows himself."
Now what could that mean?
II.
The story you know is that Narcissus was so beautiful that everyone wanted to be with him, but he rejected them all: no, no, no, no, no, not good enough.
One rejected lover was furious and begged Nemesis, the goddess of vengeance, for retribution. "If Narcissus ever falls in love, don't let the love be returned!"
Nemesis heard the prayer and caused Narcissus to fall in love with himself: he was lead to a pool of water, and when he looked into it, he fell in love with what he saw. And what he saw wasn't real, so of course it couldn't love him back. But Narcissus sat patiently, forever, hoping that one day that beautiful person in the bottom of the pool was going to come out and love him.
You should take note of this first, easy lesson: if no one ever seems right for you, and then the one person who does seem right doesn't want you, then the problem isn't the person, the problem is you.
III.
What have you learned so far? Do you think you've understood?
You heard the story, you heard the words, but your mind unheard it and replaced it with something else. Even after I tell you this, you'll have trouble remembering it.
You think Narcissus was so in love with himself that he couldn't love anyone else. But that's not what happened, the story clearly tells it in the reverse: he never loved anyone and then he fell in love with himself. Do you see? Because he never loved anyone, he fell in love with himself. That was Narcissus's punishment.
You thought Narcissus rejected all those people because he was in love with himself, but he rejected them all before he loved himself. Loved himself? Do you think Narcissus rejected them because he thought he was better than them? Or better looking? How would he have known he was so beautiful? He didn't even recognize his own reflection! He rejected all those people because they loved him.
IV.
You thought nemesis meant enemy, you thought it meant the person who always opposes you, the one you struggle most against. A person who is something like you, but the opposite.
But all of those explanations are your lies working to hide the truth: a nemesis is the one who makes you fall in love with yourself. Without Nemesis, there'd be no story of Narcissus. Without your nemesis, you don't have a story.
V.
Some people have tried to say that the pool Narcissus stared into was magical, that it tricked him, put a spell on him, made it impossible for him to look away. But that's wishful thinking. It would be wonderful to be able to blame the pool the way a man blames a woman for tempting him. The truth is that no magic was necessary, Nemesis had only to lead Narcissus to an ordinary pool and Narcissus would punish himself.
What did Narcissus do when he saw something beautiful in that pool? He fantasized and dreamed all the different possibilities of that person, all the things that person could be to him. He didn't stay there for years because the reflection had pretty hair. He stayed because daydreaming takes a lot of time.
And, as Ovid described about someone else:
"But his great love increases with neglect; his miserable body wastes away, wakeful with sorrows; leanness shrivels up his skin, and all his lovely features melt, as if dissolved upon the wafting winds--nothing remains except--"
except what? What do you think remains? Maybe the answer is different for everyone, but I know what you hope is the answer: anything else besides nothing.
VI.
This is a strange story. You know the main character is Narcissus, yet the title is "Echo and Narcissus." Why do we think Echo is only a minor character? Who made Echo a minor character?
Echo was nymph with a beautiful voice, but she talked too much, so Hera cursed her to be able to only repeat the words someone else said first. "Oh!" I can hear you say. "That's where the word Echo comes from." Grow up! Do you think these are children's stories, like how the leopard got his spots? These aren't fairy tales, these are warnings.
Echo fell madly in love with Narcissus. She followed him, chased him, pined for him, but he wanted no part of her, rejecting her cruelly. Even after Narcissus died she longed for him, losing herself to that love, eventually wasting away into nothing but a voice.
He probably was right to reject her: what kind of a woman loves a man based entirely on how he looks? What kind of a woman still loves a man no matter how badly he treats her? Why would Narcissus want that kind of a person? She wasn't a woman with a beautiful voice; there was nothing else inside her except a voice.
But let's go back to the beginning of her story, no, the true beginning of the story, or do you think this is a dream that starts in the middle? If it was, we'd have to interpret it as a wish fulfillment and not as a warning.
At the beginning, Echo was watching him, hidden, but Narcissus sensed someone was there, and he was excited by it. "Come!" he called. "Come," she could only echo, and stayed hidden, which only made him want her more. What mystery is this? He couldn't see her but he could hear her voice, and in that unfathomable voice was incarnated all the possible loves he could imagine. It helped that this mysterious woman knew just what to say to him. She was perfect for him in every way, she was the cause of his desire.
And then she came out from hiding, and he saw her.
Was she beautiful? Undoubtedly. But the moment he saw her he wretched, "Blech-- better death than should you have all of me!"
What was so wrong with her? It wasn't just that she may have been shorter or heavier than he had imagined. What was wrong was in that instant he experienced her, she stopped being anything else.
But if Echo was no longer a projection, she was still a reflection. Echo, like all women, offered her man a peek inside his soul, all he had to do look: What kind of a man am I, that attracts this kind of woman? What kind of a man am I that attracts the kind of woman who only likes me for how I look? Despite how I treat her? What kind of a man am I that only attracts the kind of women who like me for X? Is it because there is nothing else of value inside me except X? But he was never taught to ask questions like this. In fact, he was taught never to ask questions like that. What kind of a man attracts a woman who can only echo him? There must be a name for that kind of person, and he already had it.
If he had considered this, he might have tried to change himself, or at least recognized how similar they were.
And just as Echo wasted away to her X, a voice, he wasted away to a pretty flower-- his X.
Nothing besides remained.
VII.
How is it that centuries later, Tiresias's prophecy is still not understood?
Tiresias's prophecy was: He will have a long life, if he never knows himself.
Now, what could that mean?
Oh, he was right: Narcissus did live a long life-- though not a happy one. He spent his life alone, dreaming, and gazing into a pool, waiting to die.
But Tiresisias's prophecy seems... wrong, counter to the Greek spirit, an affront to logic; shouldn't "knowing thyself" be the highest virtue?
He will have a long life, if he never knows himself.
But it's so simple, the explanation. It's so simple that no one has ever thought of it, and the reason no one has thought of it is that it is too terrible to think about.
Forget about whether the prophecy is true. Ask instead, "what would the parents have done once they heard it?"
When Laius and Jocasta were told that Oedipus would eventually destroy them, they pinned his ankles and abandoned him in the woods, ensuring that he'd someday have cause to do it. And so when Narcissus's parents heard the requirements for their child's long life... they would have done everything possible to ensure that he didn't know himself.
No one knows what Liriope and Cephisus did, but whatever they did, it worked: he didn't even recognize his own reflection. That's a man who doesn't know himself. That's a man who never had to look at himself from the outside.
How do you make a child know himself? You surround him with mirrors. "This is what everyone else sees when you do what you do. This is who everyone thinks you are."
You cause him to be tested: this is the kind of person you are, you are good at this but not that. This other person is better than you at this, but not better than you at that. These are the limits by which you are defined. Narcissus was never allowed to meet real danger, glory, struggle, honor, success, failure; only artificial versions manipulated by his parents. He was never allowed to ask, "am I a coward? Am I a fool?" To ensure his boring longevity his parents wouldn't have wanted a definite answer in either direction.
He was allowed to live in a world of speculation, of fantasy, of "someday" and "what if". He never had to hear "too bad", "too little" and "too late."
When you want a child to become something-- you first teach him how to master his impulses, how to live with frustration. But when a temptation arose Narcissus's parents either let him have it or hid it from him so he wouldn't be tempted, so they wouldn't have to tell him no. They didn't teach him how to resist temptation, how to deal with lack. And they most certainly didn't teach him how NOT to want what he couldn't have. They didn't teach him how to want.
The result was that he stopped having desires and instead desired the feeling of desire.
Nemesis had an easy job, she only had to work backwards: show him something that didn't return his love, and he'd be hooked.
Narcissus's parents were demi-gods-- didn't they know how to raise a good son, what a proper parent needs to do? Yet they listened to a charlatan anyway. They were given meaningless information by a supposed expert and abandoned all common sense, and so created a monster who brought death to at least one person and misery to all.
VIII.
I know what you're thinking. You're worldly, you're cynical, your skeptical. You don't go for all this fate crap. You're thinking whether it is true that not loving others comes before loving only yourself--it seems backwards to you. You're thinking, what does this little girl know, really? She didn't write this, after all. (Did I?)
You're thinking whether it is true that parents create the narcissism that plagues their children for the rest of their lives. Does that match your own experiences? You're trying to remember back to your own childhood.
Am I right?
Which means you haven't learned the lesson. There you go again, thinking about yourself. Your impulse wasn't to say, "am I doing this to my kids?" or "how will I act differently?" It was to wonder about your own nature.
The moral of the story of Narcissus, told as a warning for the very people who refuse to hear it as such, is that how Narcissus came to be is irrelevant. What was important was what he did, and what he did---- was nothing.
IX.
I'm being told that I should stop here, that you've had enough. But let me tell you one more thing: there's a secret to the story. Can you guess what it is?
Close your eyes.
Imagine the scene as a large painting on the wall. There's Narcissus, sitting by the pool, head tilted downwards, arm idly twirling the water, his mind lost in daydreams. Around him are the trees, the grass, the sky. Nemesis is behind him, arms crossed, watching the punishment.
Now look closely at the expression on Nemesis's face. There's something odd there. Look closely at her eyes.
She's not actually looking at Narcissus, it only looks like she's looking at Narcissus. She's actually looking-- right back at you.
That's right, the story isn't about Narcissus, it was always about you. There never was an objective distance for you to watch from.
It was all a kind of charade.
The ancients didn't tell these stories to pass the time or teach children a lesson or tell you where the word Echo came from. Do you think we took their pop culture and made it into our literature? These stories were meditations, case studies: what do you see in them?
The secret to the story of Narcissus is that the story is the pool, it is your pool. What do you see in it? It's a reflection and a projection.
But you know the old saying, when you stare into the pool, the pool stares also into you. What does the pool see when it stares into you? How does it judge you?
Look behind you. Nemesis is there. Can you guess what your punishment will be?
Open your eyes.
You've been given a second chance.
None of this is real.
----
Audio file here.
Clarifications:
1. The Carvaggio is inverted: the reflection is gazing back at Narcissus.
2. Though the girl, age 8, is reading from a script, inflections and pacing are hers. Interesting to see how she emphasized certain passages and not others.
3. The background music of the audio file is Hymn To Nemesis, by Mesomedes (1 AD). It is one of the only surviving pieces of music from the old days. The relevance of the music is its lyrics:
Winged goddess, Nemesis, who tilts the balance of our lives, dark-eyed goddess, daughter of Justice, who curbs with iron bit the foolish brayings of mortals, and who through hatred of man's destructive arrogance drives out black envy. Beneath your relentless and trackless wheel men's fortunes turn and twist; unseen you walk beside them, and bend low the proud man's neck. Beneath your arm you measure out his life-span, and stoop to gaze into the depths of his heart, your scales held firmly in your hand. Be benevolent to us, you who dispense justice, singed goddess Nemesis, who tilts the balance of our lives.Nemesis preceded even Zeus. Is she really the goddess of vengeance?
We sing in honor of Nemesis, immortal goddess, formidable Victory with wings outspread, joint counselor with Justice, who makes no mistakes, who punishes the arrogance of men, and bears it to the depths of Hades.
4. At the end of the audio you can here a (male) voice say, "...At least you will still look like you." This sentence does double duty. It sounds like a coda to the main theme, asking the reader to consider the implications to his own identity. But it's also the last sentence of an entirely different story, buried under the final music: The Second Story Of Medusa, which is connected to the story of Echo and Narcissus in a specific way. I'm working on a video.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
October 29, 2012 3:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Not having read it yet, thanks already for eventually putting that up for free!
Score: 11 (17 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 5:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I took some notes:
if no one ever seems right for you, and then the one person who does seem right doesn't want you, then the problem isn't the person, the problem is you.
My Nemesis is my nemesis. (I was going to have 'NOT' there but realized, no, Nemesis causes there to be a story and that's what is to be avoided)
I need to love others to love myself. I like it. But avoid being an Echo. Tricky.
You have this thing about putting grown-up words and ideas into the mouths of children. What's that about?
Whatever you do, don't do nothing.
It's hard to read with my eyes closed.
Score: 63 (75 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 5:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
thank you. i'll have to read this later. it seems the flaw that comes up repeatedly in your cosmology is something like this: 1) narcissism is bad 2) but there's no way clear way (you've yet discovered) to free ourselves and our relationships from narcissism, which is why you resort to tactics like pointless and grating sardonicism (a word??) and cheap misanthropy (e.g. "hence the rum") . . . because you have no answer yourself, and that probably upsets you. I hope this post sort of changes that.
Does anyone else know what im getting at? y'all feel me?
Score: 32 (70 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 6:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Meh. You're reaching, TLP.
I'm certainly shocked you eventually revealed that I'm a narcissist. Oh wait, everything you write is based around my being a narcissist. Seriously, you could start a post with "I was at the supermarket yesterday buying toilet paper" and it would end with AND YOU'RE A NARCISSIST! Oh look, TLP wrote something else, yawn. Either go where you're afraid to go or change the subject already, we get the message (and we also get that this is your roundabout way of aiming that message at yourself, we're not stupid.)
Score: -48 (134 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 6:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Good lord Anon, go find something else to read. And get some help.
And yes, you are a narcissist. Great job proving it.
Score: 15 (55 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 7:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Isn't it more likely you've unheard the specific things TLP said about "curing" narcissism?
It mostly rhymes with sublimate and some other things.
Score: 8 (16 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 7:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hey, what do you know, I spent the whole time wondering if I might be doing that to my kids and wondering what about my parenting might be teaching the right or wrong lessons. Guess I win! Woo hoo!
Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go not change a thing...
Score: 31 (39 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 8:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Echo, like all women, offered her man a peek inside his soul, all he had to do look"
Brilliant...think you left out a "was" though
Score: 9 (19 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 8:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Loved the audio, loved the narrator. I was surprised to hear that the pacing was all her own; it was excellently done. I hope you have more in the works besides just the video for this one!
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 10:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The audio was the best two bucks I've ever spent! Glad you put the text up though since there were parts of the audio i found inaudible.
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
October 29, 2012 10:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
'The... the other important joke, for me, is one that's usually attributed to Groucho Marx; but, I think it appears originally in Freud's "Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious," and it goes like this - I'm paraphrasing - um, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member." That's the key joke of my adult life, in terms of my relationships with women.'
Unfortunately, when we are lucky enough to have these insights, we usually pass them off as just another one of those funny things about life. It really is like trying to describe water to a fish.
Score: 33 (37 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 1:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dan, that you feel justified in labeling me a narcissist on the basis of my having a differing opinion than yours is part of the problem with this whole blog. It encourages people like you to use a diagnoses of mental illness as a catch-all term for anything or anyone they don't like. It's incredibly simplistic and generalized thinking. Well written, sure, but you are fooling yourself if you think you're going to get anything useful out of this. It's one man's punishing love letters to his own insecurity dressed up as something "useful" and "wise", but certainly appears useful to his audience of neurotic navel gazers looking for the next big thing to punish themselves for.
Don't get me wrong, TLP is an enjoyable read. But don't pretend you're reading anything more than one man's increasingly tired and repetitive masturbation about his own condition - not yours. TLP doesn't give a shit about you. I doubt he can.
Score: 38 (78 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 8:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
it seems like you have a personal agenda against the author
Score: -10 (30 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 9:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Narcissus looked in a lake which was like a mirror. He saw himself which was beautiful and was stuck there forever. Perseus looked in a polished, mirror-like shield, seeing a hideous gorgon (Medusa), which he could kill without being turned to stone.
Athena gave Perseus the mirror.... Narcissus's was his own. I won't pretend to really get it (look forward to the real thing), but is this something about seeing yourself reflected through other's eyes? Kill your false self etc? To gaze constantly at your own "self" is to be paralysed?
Score: 41 (41 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 12:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What were you thinking the first time you got to section VIII?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 12:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/
When I look in the pool, my student debt from law school is looking at me.
Score: -31 (49 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 2:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The real emphasis is on the readers response. It's not TLP's fault if your feathers get ruffled or if you pridefully find a reason to believe you are not a narcissist. Why do you respond that way? We are so consumed with ourselves that we fail to even admit, let alone conceive of another way of living. If we are nothing, but imagine ourselves to be anything but that, an imagination that we are all locked into (like Narcissis), we are in prison until we admit our nothingness. That is the solution. Our reactions/responses are always in defense/support of our self, which is imaginary, a reflection in a pool. To 'know thyself' is to first know we are nothing. To know that we are the problem. We are terrified of that, so we cling to the bank of the pond. And all of this may actually be hard to see...
Score: 29 (43 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 3:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm not even sure about narcissism being technically a medical condition. It's true of everyone, especially those who think that they aren't. Buddha was actually a narcissist to a degree -- his reaction to seeing people suffering was to sit under a tree and meditate on what suffering meant to HIM, not try to do what he could to make other people hurt less. If Buddha hadn't had that degree of narcissism he wouldn't have reacted by thinking about what other people's suffering meant to him, he would have done something about the suffering of other people.
So really I think if we're honest, we're all narcissists, we're all egotists, etc. So how is that mentally ill? It's the human condition.
Score: 17 (45 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 4:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks so much, Alone!
We have been studying Greek myths for sixth-grade English this semester, and I am sure that my pupils will be stoked to realise how much deeper these myths go than simple tales of warning.
Much appreciated!
Pelmeni
Score: 10 (16 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 4:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Utterly foolish conclusions from utterly foolish first principles. Here's how a real psychologist of the old school would have interpreted that picture:
"The black man sees his soul as such, neglecting to ask: 'Am I a snitch? Am I frontin'? Am I keeping it real?'
The white man asks 'Am I a coward?' 'Am I a fool?', unless raised in a modern environment, where the only permitted question is 'Am I being true to myself? Am I following my bliss? Am I a secret racist?'"
The modern psychiatrist blames narcissism because there's no clinical definition for 'vanity' or 'pride' or 'common moral principles.'
And thus bereft of a foundation all is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. Like Solomon before you, you have personifying ultimate Wisdom in a female avatar and paid the price of spending more and more words on a vaguer and vaguer definition, always chasing, always promising, never actually creating.
Seriously, who loudly petitions a Goddess of Balance and Rivalry but people who believe in old wives' tales, which by definition are only truly useful to the people they live with and know best? Ditch this beta tactic and review End of Watch or something with testosterone and the openness and honesty it provides.
Score: -14 (40 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 5:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"You're worldly, you're cynical, your skeptical."
That should be the subtitle of the whole site!
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 6:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
what is your favorite brand of rum anyway? after reading you for four years i decided to give it a try. fuck bacardi. i like appleton.
Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 6:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Do you think we took their pop culture and made it into our literature?"
Actually, that is exactly what we did.
Score: 12 (28 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 6:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You want what you can't have - if you are emotionally blind, it seems.
I know my parents never wanted to explain to me that we're just going to have to deal with the lack of funds in the family. It was "oh, you don't need that" or some other excuse.
So, look at yourself from the viewpoint of others, challenge yourself and know thy limits..
Could someone explain this please:
"The result was that he stopped having desires and instead desired the feeling of desire."
Why is the last paragraph so difficult to comprehend?
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 7:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP,
Your blog actually contains the most insightful and enlightening things I've ever read and thank you for that. When I analyze why people do what they do I always stop at the point where I think that they are just stupid. Like they lacked information and understanding and with juslittle effort they could be cured out of that. But you go further, you try, and often succeed, to break what appears to me to be a wall and find the real root of people's actions and thoughts and encourage to change.
When it comes to that article, I get lost in part about mastering impulses and frustration. I don't get where did the author get it from? Why would he be hooked to something that doesn't return his love? Was it just a spell?
Score: 1 (21 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 8:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I love the "grown up words and ideas" in children's voice along with the anonymity of the blog. It frees the message to a large extent from our habitual response to the ideas. For example, look at the presidential debates, we all know it is less about what is said but how it is said. If TLP had an "About Me" page that allowed us access to his/her background, education, etc. we would interpret all these ideas through our trained responses to someone with his/her background. In a way, TLP is like Echo. If he/she emerged from the woods of anonymity, we would all say "Blech."
Score: 48 (50 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 8:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I very much enjoy the posts here. So much so, that I tracked down Ovid's Metamorphoses. It turns out I have never actually read the whole story, only other people's rehashes. I don't quite get it all yet, but I know I need to. Thanks for the insight.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 9:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never said I wasn't a narccisist. I said the people here are throwing the tag around in an accusatory and foolish way, like our friend Dan up there. And they are. And so are you. In truth you have no idea who is and is not a narccisist and to what degree, so when you're talking about the human condition, really you're just speaking from your own experience, which means just about dirt.
Score: 2 (12 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 9:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If not "differing opinion" means "an agenda", sure. I think you have an agenda for him. Who cares?
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 9:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think so. I do think it's interesting though how quick to sarcasm you and other people are on this site, it sort of fits with (in my opinion) the context of TLP's main arguments and rhetorical style. It seems to lack sincerity and directness. There is no pointing to an option that simply really helps people, just tools that end up drawing out arguments in the comments section until people are more invested in proving their intellectual worth/superiority than any particular point. Do you get that sense?
I don't believe I've 'unheard' anything - the implication there seems to be that 'TLP has a complete vision of the HEALTHY modern psyche' but 'I don't want to accept it.' Rather than it being a fault in TLP's argument of just 'you don't get what TLP is saying' (which I think is more likely to be true!).
If there are specific posts that speak more to sublimation (I know little about psychology and Freud and Lacan etc.) as a route out of narcissism or the 'other things' you speak of, please help me, and please be as direct as possible so I can understand you. Thank you.
Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 9:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What was your first thought when you got to section VIII?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 30, 2012 9:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's with the bickering?
I have a better idea, instead of accusing each other of being narcissists and TLP of being a bad writer and his readers of being stupid, why not just discuss a more positively constructed take on events and everyone talks about it?
Except, I guess thinking that your opinion matters is kind of narcissistic...hm. Nevermind, carry on.
Score: 19 (21 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 12:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Wonderful piece! I liked that part about Echo. It is always important for a woman to be an individual and not just an echo of the man she is with.
I never knew that about Narcissus: he lived a long life because he never knew himself. I guess any real relationship does cause us to know ourselves better. People we love call us out, they give us an objective view of who we are, and it allows us to explore ourselves from a perspective that doesn't just exist in our own heads. I will remember this for my relationships.
Score: 18 (24 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 12:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The most narrcistic thing is see here is your faith in your ability to diagnose people, particularly those that have a different outlook than you.
Score: -1 (11 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 12:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See, there's the problem. You had a perfectly good suggestion there but the fear of being labeled a narcissist shut you up.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 2:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Stunning, just stunning. Beautiful work, TLP.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 6:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Something I noticed (after reading this about 6 times over the last 24 hours): one of the major themes is safety. The parents want him to have a long life, a safe life. He gets that, alright - there's safety in what he does. No threats, to the ego or anything else. No risk of rejection, of not living up to possibilities. But it sure as hell ain't a good life. Safety = easy = no change = not good. It's a good point and it bears being made over and over again (it needs repeating, for as long as our instincts against change repeat themselves, which might be forever).
Score: 51 (55 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 9:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"See, there's the problem. You had a perfectly good suggestion there but the fear of being labeled a narcissist shut you up."
That sounds like something a narcissist would say. ;)
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 10:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I am Narcissus. My parents were like his. I also rejected everyone who ever loved me and still do. My attitude was that how could anyone love me when I hated myself. I have only caused misery to my family and everyone, woman or man, who tries to “get to know” me. Having lived forty years longer than I predicted, accomplishing nothing, I live alone with no friends, and still waiting to die.
Score: 11 (23 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sasha does a good a job as any in explaining the repetitive theme of this blog.
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 11:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Wrong, Anon: TLP says the treating of narcissism is not impossible ("anybody can change") but one key trait of the pathology is its propensity for self-preservation. It deliberately outmaneuvers any attempt to cure it. But here are just some of the things TLP said will help:
Since narcissism is essentially playing a role in your own movie, you can consciously try to play a supporting role in someone else's. Switch from "action hero" to "supportive husband."
Since odds are the identity you've chosen (and yes, you chose it) sucks, try doing the opposite of your first impulse ("Constanza it").
Both utilize this underlying principle: fake it. Your "authenticity" is fake anyway, just an older fake. So pretend to be a better person until that becomes "authentic."
Doesn't sound like much fun? That's the point.
Score: 47 (51 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 12:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To elaborate, your impulse to go against this is irrelevant. This isn't something we do for ourselves, it's something we do for everyone else.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 1:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This story made me feel uncomfortable. But why? Why do I feel uncomfortable. I already know I'm not Special. I'm not entitled. I know my mother's love was a lie. Wasn't it? Is it sane to want it to be?
Does love have to be a lie? I know everything I perceive is a lie. Everything I've ever seen was a distortion of perception. Can Reality ever be seen? Is it too traumatic?
I know my "free will" was snapped as casually as any traumatised child who represses what they cannot process without agony. I am not important. I know this. I was comfortable with knowing this. It was liberating initially, but why am I still afraid?
Why am I still blaming everyone and everything else when I know it's my terror of change that is to blame? What is the source of my irrational fears? I was a narcissist then I was not then I was but simply more aware. The water is getting warmer. I know I should hop out. Why am I as suicidal as a frog who doesn't want to die, but cannot seem to save itself?
Why does Echo terrify me? Her needy. Her disappointment. Her hollow shell, a pretty nothing. Okay she is a reflection of me, but I knew that already. Why does she make me angry and uncomfortable?
Does any of this even make sense? Does sense? I need help. Why do I need? Period. What are my illogical fears hiding? More terrifying fears, I suspect. Bah. I don't have a clue. I need Truth but the rat bastards won't give me any. I'm the worst of the lying rats. I can give Truth to others but not to me. Is that the Truth?
That there isn't any?
Score: 15 (27 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 1:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My FIRST thought was "No goddammit, I don't consider myself 'worldly and cynical' and kind of despise those two traits. I much prefer humility and sincerity. I'm skeptical to some extent, because I think that skepticism is important when examining ideas."
Other thoughts:
I'm a little confused and would like to read it again, and think, though he's insightful, TLP really needs an editor.
I'm scared that i might be even more narcissistic than I think I am, and that there's no way out of narcissism.
i did think mainly of my childhood, but I can't remember much of it. Being 21, I thought of the things I might be able to do to (in particular) learn how to "not want what I can't have," because there's a lot that I can't have.
I felt shame (yes, I know, go ahead) when I "failed TLP's test" by thinking about my childhood.
I hope this is helpful and can lead to something constructive.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 1:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no YOURE A NARCISSISTST
Score: 6 (12 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 2:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You weren't replying to me, but since we're all narcissists, you might as well be. What if I'm 21? I'm not married. What's your suggestion? Have an identity that's dependent on someone else, a relational one? I.e. like a supportive son, instead of "supportive husband?"
I think TLP is a good writer. Extremely insightful. But to me, his thought seems to create a weird, infinite-regressiony kind of system where there can be no such thing as a non-narcissistic act. everyone is a narcissist a priori. so everything a person does is an expression of his narcissism, there's no possibility of non-narcissistic acts. With every action I ask myself "Is this action just another narcissistic defense mechanism?" "Is that question itself just another narcissistic defense mechanism?" and on and on, ad infinitum. Are my attempts to deceive myself themselves deception? There's no escape from it, no way out.
So how can I fake my way to being a better person if my every action is at risk of being co-opted by my narcissistic ego? Trial and error? Mindfulness? And if we're narcissists a priori, aren't our conceptions of "better" or "good people" going to be flawed and self-serving to begin with?
I feel like there is so much insight into the problem, but very little into potential solutions. I say all of this with humility and sincerity, I hope you can believe that. I feel there's just way too much cynicism here.
Score: 20 (22 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 4:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't fake your way into being/becoming a better anything. The phrasing of the question suggests the focus is still you.
You act for others, faking maybe the zeal or the enthusiasm but you must stay present in their moment. Not wander off into daydream mode within your mind while with them. What does your mom need, what does your best friend need right now, this very minute? Go and do that for them. Then repeat. In the end THEY will be better off. And maybe after a while you'll forget to ask how you are doing.
Think of TLP as the ever vigilant street sweeper. Nothing glorious about it but still an essential task in the city. The repetitiveness may yet catch someone in their moment of littering and open them up to a better way of behaving.
FWIW, I counted 14 I, me, myself in your short post. What you think, what you feel and what confounds you. Maybe being only 21 you can behave better with your years than some of us older did. How will you know? You won't but others will. Take the leap.
Score: 24 (26 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 6:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm sorry. I hope things improve.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 6:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you, that's actually helpful. What I get from it is this; not to be so self-focused, basically. And that I can achieve that by ceding the importance of my identity - my preconceptions and ideas about myself - to external things (actors, causes, whatever(?)). To surrender my ego. That's scary because, while I hate myself, I'm also deeply in love with myself. This is not exactly a clear plan for life, but I will find ways to implement it.
I still feel that there's something ultimately flawed with TLP's vision of people/the world, but I don't think it matters what my objections are, they won't change anyone's mind and they don't need to. My criticisms may/may not be valid, but publicly criticizing him won't help me not be a miserable human being.
FWIW, I counted 15. Part of it is my mother always told me to - when criticizing or presenting ideas that people might react strongly to - start with "I feel" or "I think." Also, I'm a narcissist
Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Since narcissism is essentially playing a role in your own movie, you can consciously try to play a supporting role in someone else's. Switch from "action hero" to "supportive husband.""
That's not what I got from alone. First of all narcissism wasn't described as "essentially playing A role in your own movie, it was described as believing to play the main role in your own movie". Second thing, the moral was that action should become before identity, that narcissism is picking an identity and placing it before action, so essentially being an actual "action hero" would kick all sort of ass if you actually behave as an action hero.
Also: you are a woman right?
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 8:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I paid to download this in the summer, and never listened to it until today... for fear of hearing Alone's voice. Knowing for sure what he or she sounded like.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
October 31, 2012 10:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"If it saves just one life then its worth doing."
The conservative argument always prevails.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 3:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I know my mother's love was a lie" -- this is a belief common to virtually every narcissist ever.
Score: 9 (19 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 10:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
wonderful stuff .. I have just randomly read TLP for nearly three hours .. wow. thanks & greetings, from Australia..rendered a tad speechless. namaste ..
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 11:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
@Anon 7:32 - Nope, a man... a young one, too, and a malignant narcissist like most of the rest.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 1:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
For those of you who didn't pay the $2 for the audio recording, it's well worth hearing -- a completely different experience than reading.
narcissus Thespiae: an excellent and helpful comment. Alone highlights (in this and other essays) the collateral damage that narcissism has on people in the narcissist's life. The idea is to play a different role in the "movie" -- be the supportive friend instead of the angst ridden lead in that romantic comedy. Change the role -- change yourself (and hopefully limit the damage).
"Fake it 'till you make it" is an admonition for the narcissist (or any person) to act differently (no matter how "inauthentic") to be different.
ACTION not introspection. Taking different actions ultimately creates a different individual. Understanding motivation or rationale for behavior is a bonus -- the real question is what are you going to do differently? What action will you take?
Koerner: If you haven't read them all of Alone's essays, go to the beginning of the archive and start. Read all of them -- and then read them again (maybe one read on the ones on pharmaceuticals is enough).
Here's a small bit from one that I particularly like ("Can Narcissism be Cured?" 1/26/09 )
....You are so unsure of your own identity that you don't know if you are supposed to be feeling, what you are supposed to be feeling, when you are supposed to be feeling. This is the same trouble actors have when rehearsing a character. They want to get it just perfect-- would Tom feel this? What's his motivation? And similarly you ask: would I-- the person I am pretending to be-- feel this?
V.
Narcissism is imitating by being. It is method acting all the time.
VI.
The....problem was the absence of adults, real adults who took seriously their responsibility to the next generation, who lead not by words, but by behavior. Who, even if miserable or unfulfilled or unconnected had the decency to fake it for the next generation, for the people they touched. Who didn't cheat on their wives not just because they loved them, not just because it was ethically wrong, but because what kind of an example would that be to their daughters?
I know, everyone will disagree. Everyone, except daughters under 20.
There's so much more in the essays -- they are well worth your time.
Score: 25 (29 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 1:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think what you say is inappropriate and uncalled for. Also not true.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 1:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's a question of degree of impairment and how much suffering it brings to others and the individual.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 2:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not at all sure he is speaking from experience. (Which is gold, by the way, and would count for a lot). His professing a view that is not uncommon among New Agers and alternative thinkers of a certain ilk. I suppose reducing someone to 'nothing' would also in a sense be the realm of cults and the like.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 2:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's really confusing when you have people identifying themselves as "anonymous" responding to other people IDing themselves as "anonymous."
Score: 17 (19 votes cast)
November 1, 2012 2:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anon 3:37: "I'm not even sure about narcissism being technically a medical condition. It's true of everyone, especially those who think that they aren't. Buddha was actually a narcissist to a degree -- his reaction to seeing people suffering was to sit under a tree and meditate on what suffering meant to HIM, not try to do what he could to make other people hurt less. If Buddha hadn't had that degree of narcissism he wouldn't have reacted by thinking about what other people's suffering meant to him, he would have done something about the suffering of other people.
So really I think if we're honest, we're all narcissists, we're all egotists, etc. So how is that mentally ill? It's the human condition."
Nah, Buddha had it right: how would he, not being one of the people experiencing said suffering, be able to truly sympathize? To think he could is narcissistic. To think that he alone had any special power, knowledge, ability, or possessions to help them is narcissistic (as is your assumption that he- i.e. you- did). It would be fairly heartless not to try, but do you think a guy smart enough to found a world religion didn't have a grip on this at the time?
I'm willing to grant that a certain amount of self-interest and lack of empathy is intractable, but modern narcissism is more about the amount and moreover the effects. Consider this:
TLP: "Our birth rate is 2.1; France 1.7; Spain 1.3; Russia 1.3. In two generations, there will be 1/2 as many Spaniards, excluding immigration. We can't even get it up long enough to procreate. That's not porn's fault. It doesn't help, sure, having the internet's tubes tied isn't going to fix that problem. Men are becoming less interested in establishing meaningful relationships with other people as an ultimate goal than in inventing identities for themselves."
It wasn't always so. I can't say why it is now, but as TLP will tell you, the origin story of a narcissist is irrelevant.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 2:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
TLP: "Our birth rate is 2.1; France 1.7; Spain 1.3; Russia 1.3. In two generations, there will be 1/2 as many Spaniards, excluding immigration. We can't even get it up long enough to procreate. That's not porn's fault. It doesn't help, sure, having the internet's tubes tied isn't going to fix that problem. Men are becoming less interested in establishing meaningful relationships with other people as an ultimate goal than in inventing identities for themselves."It wasn't always so. I can't say why it is now, but as TLP will tell you, the origin story of a narcissist is irrelevant.
Perhaps. I have a theory that explains the origin story of a few billion narcissists, though. That's gotta be relevant right?
There is so much wrong with the analysis above, I'm unwilling to accept that Alone actually wrote that. Where are you quoting it from? It's not from the post above.
I'm having trouble believing Alone wrote all that. It doesn't seem to make much sense? Are we to accept Alone believes "procreation" is the defining characteristic of a "meaningful relationship"? Does Alone not believe gay men are capable of establishing meaningful relationships? Are we to accept Alone believes there is some "problem" with declining birth rates when the population of the world is still burgeoning (courtesy of the Yahweh war formula for mustering armies)? Why would Alone imagine it could possibly matter whether Spain is retained for the Spanish? Aren't humans human (if not remotely humane)?
If I don't get around to this thread again, my theory is basically that the market for the product in demand (which has been subject to price-manipulation with women and the Church acting in tandem as something of a coercive monopoly for thousands of years now), has only this century been flung wide open. Women selling their 'beauty' and 'favours' (and I'm not talking about prostitutes who are upfront, but whores who deceive and play creepy games with idiotic men) are now forced to compete with superior products like porn, lifelike sex dolls, Asian kawaii "pretties", prostitution etc. Gone are the days when an agent working for the corporation can taunt a crowd to be the first one to stone the competition to death (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) before telling her to "Go, and [compete] no more." Women have to compete now and the market says their package deal is not competitive. What's the problem? They've been lying non-stop, smearing the world with their cosmetic deceit and obsession with polite lies for thousands of years now. Lots of men are saying porn is a better product than awkward deceit & manipulative games, for life. Who knew!
There is a huge problem of course; the value of women who lie is being rapidly traded down to zero (where they'll continue to be over-valued). But men not being interested in bankrolling established, meaningless, life-long hosting relationships for deceit-obsessed, face-painted leeches is not the problem. The problem is that women need to start being real and stop trying to trade [doing what they want to do] for [a lifelong contract, security, promises, guarantees, etc]; all on the transparent pretext that they desire children of Their Own to mother in a world where human children are dying at a rate of 30,000 under the age of 5 every single day. I don't know how bad the narcissist problem is with men, but it's their mothers who raised them to feel 'special' and 'entitled' and traumatised them for life with the sociopathic lie that is love. It's an issue of selective empathy and only being able to care for Their Own...property. That's sociopath behavior, as I understand it.
But men under-valuing women isn't the issue in the 21st century. Barriers to trade have been lifted. Rotten 'luck' for girls who don't want to contribute.
This is merely a 5000-year overdue market correction.
Score: -3 (41 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 5:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
why are you having so much trouble believing it?
just google a few phrases from the relevant text in quotation marks and you could've found the quoted article in like 5 seconds.
here's a link since you're apparently having so much trouble believing Alone would say something that is consistent with pretty much everything else that he says on this blog.
thelastpsychiatrist[dot]com/2007/04/a_quick_word_on_porns_effect_o[dot]html
also, the obvious anti-female-ism that comes through in your writing is just oozing with narcissism. sorry, but it's true. and narcissistic men usually have issues with hating females for their female-ness -- because they believe (whether they have any good reason for this belief) that their mother's love was "a lie", as you've said in multiple previous posts, -- and this belief tends to make them hate women generally. and to accuse all women of being "deceit-obsessed, face-painted leeches" (which sounds exactly like narcissistic projection).
Score: 11 (27 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 5:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"We are so consumed with ourselves that we fail to even admit, let alone conceive of another way of living. If we are nothing, but imagine ourselves to be anything but that, an imagination that we are all locked into (like Narcissis), we are in prison until we admit our nothingness. That is the solution. Our reactions/responses are always in defense/support of our self, which is imaginary, a reflection in a pool. To 'know thyself' is to first know we are nothing. To know that we are the problem. We are terrified of that, so we cling to the bank of the pond. And all of this may actually be hard to see..."
Mano.... I can't believe that post had actual down votes.... that's brilliant! I can relate to that, I've been trying to make a change in my life and failed a few times, being so concerned with evaluating my progress and dealing with the disapointment that it distracted me from actually making the change. Less focus on why and more focus on doing would be eminently sensible.
You are nothing but your actions, change can happen at a moments notice. It's a choice either way.
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 6:18 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Okay one thing I've never understood is this whole idea that Narcissus rejected people because they loved him. I think I get it now: because his parents raised him to never see his own limits or himself, he never experienced love or hate, but was of blind to them. To experience or fully acknowledge their love would have been to know himself, because people love for a reason; that would be paiful or changing.
Another point about nemesis & narcissus, perseus and medusa... perseus looked in someone elses mirror to slay medusa, who was behind him. TLP describes nemesis as behind narcissus, YOUR nemesis, and she's looking at us. Medusa, nemesis, narcissus, us; they're all the one thing: ourselves. By looking at ourselves we stagnate. Just as medusa turns you to stone if you look at her face directly, we're our own nemesis when we mentally masturbate on our own value, worth, experiences, goals, whatever. We're trying to BE something, to prop up our value, when really we're nothing. Remember when TLP challenged us to describe ourselves without using the word "am"? You can't say anything but behaviors.
We're all dead the instant we first breathe. All we leave are our actions like ripples in a pond, and if we stopped looking so damn hard at ourselves whatever remained (behaviour) would be who we are. Other than that... nothing...
Score: 12 (12 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 6:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am prevented from that sort of extravagant effort but only because my phone is either too smart for me or too stupid to be falsely marketed otherwise. Also you can Google html tags so when it comes to making a decision there, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be the one to chase up what you haven't referenced and quoted lazily.
I don't hate women. I hate lies and deceit. Lie to me and I will hate your action. Lie to me endlessly and I will feel no emotion. This is my entire argument; sociopaths (not an emotive word, I was one once) are breeding kids of Their Own to emotionally molest. Everyone grows up perceiving lies and acting insanely Self-defeating. I'm one of the poster children for why mothers shouldn't be raising children with emotional poison.
But if you want to see the truth, confront or inform them that love makes their child dependant rather than independent. Watch them ignore you. Press the issue.
Watch them attack you. Men 5000 years ago are to blame. Since then, not one of us is innocent. We all bought the lie. We wanted to be Special just for existing. We're almost as Guilty.
But I made a great argument there about the market for what leeching women have been lying about and hoarding for thousands of years. It's worth addressing. And if Alone butchered that analysis...Alone will always be god, but he clearly skates clear of the big issues (religion, cosmetics, emotional marinating children, Desoxyn, the world's obsession with deceit etc). He would have his reasons but I just hope failure to perceive the horror of religion's game plan isn't to blame. Everyone needs to know something of the darkness of religion. He needs to read their evil books and with his mind he'll see their brilliant (insane) game. He will see what they've done...to a world that was at Peace.
Score: -2 (26 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 7:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's unfair to quote a 5 year old article but if Alone still believes _that_ analysis has validity...he's missed the forest of leeching for the victimized and disinterested trees. Many women invest their entire lives in what amounts to brazen fraud conducted and perfected to "catch" a guy who is then trapped with no idea how cruelly he's been setup.
Guys lose interest. And women, who hated sex remember (they're not that type of girl), suddenly give the con away. It boils down to this; what are they bringing to the party?
Emotional poison, lies, some shitty repetitive sex (I'll be more romantic when those who believe in the lie that is exclusivity eat the same meal for the rest of their lives), surrogate services, shitty cooking...It doesn't matter that I'm grossly making crude generalizations. I'm right.
And the market agrees with me. Alone missed it. Porn is a better product. If girls want to compete maybe they should get real? Virtual honesty v Virtual Deceit? This is economics. No need for hysterics or water works or expressed feelings. Awwh.
Score: -8 (30 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 7:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
actually, no, it's your attitude being shared widely (without it resembling anything close to truth) that is why porn is a so-called "better product".
you believe all of what you just said about women (that they're emotional, lying, manipulative sociopaths) and yet you don't think that you hate them? that's delusional. you cannot have it both ways.
and saying you're 'victimized and disinterested' again sounds like narcissism -- narcissists love to play the victim.
the problem isn't women, the problem is you.
Score: 16 (34 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 8:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Tiresias prophecy about the longevity of Narcissus life didn't make any sense at all before I read Alones interpretation. What is the story about? He says the story is the pool, which is to say that I should see an image of myself upon watching uhm reading it.
Narcissus was attracted to Echo as long as he merely heard her voice repeated some of his words. According to the versions I've read he reject her, not because he sees her, but when she threw herself upon him. Too intimate I guess. He want to be desired I think, at least he repeatedly manage to find himself in romantic" dramas.
Does anyone find a good reason to emphasize that Narcissus fall in love with not himself, but his image?
What I don't understand at all is Alone' reasoning for saying that he reject them because they love him.
Not to mention section VIII. What comes first I don't know, but it seems reasonable that not loving others is first and parents is in case does not have exclusive rights in creation of narcissism. And to pick on details he didn't do anything useful, neither to himself or others. But sure he kept himself busy.
I'll comment more. Perhaps I'm overthinking it but it feels like something is flying right over my head.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 12:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny: "sociopaths (not an emotive word, I was one once)"
Are one.
Score: 11 (23 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 1:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I stand by my Buddha comment. My point is the reaction. He sees a man starving to death. If you know Buddha's background, you know that he's a prince, he could have had given the guy a house and food and whatever else. In the story though, that never happens, instead he goes and tries out all kinds of religious experiences and eventually meditates under the bodhi tree -- because he's trying to make that man's miserable life and his fairly comfortable life OK. That reaction is narcissism -- the important part of the story is HIM. He feels bad about that other guy, but he doesn't DO anything about the actual cause, he instead goes on a personal navel gazing quest. Nothing wrong with doing any of that, but it is putting yourself at the center of the show. The event isn't about how some people suffer, it's about Buddha trying to find out why people suffer. The starving begger is a prop in the movie, and actually rather fittingly history has long since forgotten his name. Read it again.
My contention is that a not that narcissistic person would have fished out some pocket change to feed the begger, or would have found a way to help beggers in general. that's one thing about most "religions" out there, it's not about making things better here and now, it's about salving your feelings by asking why life sucks now. It doesn't ask how you stop being the problem or even how you can start being the solution, but gives you rituals and commandments that allow you to have the appearance of piety without the main thrust of "not being a jerk".
Narcissism is natural to humans, it's a struggle to deal with, but what I think makes it worse is when it gets wrapped up in pious language that allows you to pretend to be the solution when you don't actually solve anything. It's a way to feel good about yourself whether or not it's real, whether or not you really do things to please God, or whether its about playing nice so God will bless you.
Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 1:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
also, fwiw, I was not the one who posted the quotation. funny that you think that person was being "lazy" for not providing a link to content that is on this same website and can easily be tracked down within a matter of seconds if necessary. it's pointless name-calling. and do you provide endnotes on all of your posts?
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 4:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm saying women lie all the time. Non-stop, even when they imagine they're telling the truth (which they rarely imagine). They're only fractionally worse than men, in that respect.
You are saying women don't lie. You are saying women are freed by the requirement to cover their natural faces with chemicals. You are not in a capacity to be discussing anything; unemotionally or otherwise.
This is not my opinion. Your mother did a real job on you. You should fix that problem you have with Truth.
Score: -5 (29 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 6:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women are 50% of the population. If you can't relate to 50% of the population and think those 3 billion people and not only can be accurately generalized but are also identically pathological... the problem isn't women, or Anon's mom, or makeup... wait for it... wait for it... the problem is you.
Score: 14 (30 votes cast)
November 2, 2012 6:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
your claims about women are absurd, prima facie. the notion that you could generalize half the species is a logical absurdity. so much for your beloved logic. your claims about women are a practically textbook example of splitting and projection.
Score: 10 (24 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 2:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, I had a longer post, but apparently this website has issues.
"Men are becoming less interested in establishing meaningful relationships with other people as an ultimate goal than in inventing identities for themselves"
As we have seen in the America, with Obama declaring the "War on Women," America still clings to the idea of the "domestic goddess." However, it has grown into the idea that women are not just the source of domestic peace and tranquility, but the fount of human morality.
Now, in 2012, we externalize all blame onto others - men. The quote above is excellent because it shifts the blame of social decay onto men. TLP assumes that men are becoming more narcissistic in spite of women. I would argue men are becoming more narcissistic because of themselves AND women.
An easy example would be an average male at a high school. He isn't handsome, monied or talented at all. Just average. The girls swoon over the football players, the handsome, the misunderstood guitar players. He slips into a world of video games, etc. Point is - women's out-sized understanding of their sexual value to men, plus his out-sized understanding of his sexual value to women are a hell of a combination. Female hypergamy controlling means he loses out most the time.
However, if he was honest with himself, he could find happiness with a woman. People are right to say that men need to look within themselves to solve their issues. Most men in America are weak, passive aggressive and duplicitous and they wonder why their lives are unfulfilled. Their expectations far exceed their reality. They shoot themselves in the foot and wonder why they can't feel their toes. However. . .
If men do get a level of self-awareness, though, then, women need too, as well.
Well, good luck with that. Many women I know have absolutely no ability to understand what anybody else wants or needs. I know a single mother who, over the course of years, refuses to "settle," even though she harbors serious anti-social issues (aggression). She accumulates new "loves," whom she spits out a couple months later because they "can't handle her." She has two sons. Apparently she parents them when she isn't drunk or having sex with her new "bad boy." But, never, EVER, question her commitment to her sons. "You just don't understand my (by that she means her & her son's) life."
Her escapades have dwindled over the years. At first there was some serious man-blaming, but now she seems resigned to settle into a world into which she makes "her" sons into the men she would never date, much less have sex with.
That is an extreme example (for where I grew up it isn't, but I assume the readers here are middle class+), however I see it play out in other ways in my recent life. Women hide behind the feminist banner to fight for themselves, while using other women as a shield.
"The firm needs more senior female partners" - knowing full well she wants that position and she will squeeze other women out. Blah, blah, blah - political correctness...who cares anymore? I have seen far more women down each other than men take out women. Maybe men are biologically programmed to compete with each other, and women the same.............
Does it matter? Bringing it full circle, both men and women have crosses to bear in modern, narcissistic society. TLP, and those who comment here, really need to consider women's role in shaping narcissistic society - as agents.
Score: 15 (31 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 6:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable and let me say your post is touching. I don't know about questions of fear but I believe that strength in unity is real and not wishful thinking as some would argue. Echo is terrifying because she want Narcissus, which is a character with nothing close to a say a mission. Why would she need him? me me me
You can't hop out of the water because you've gotten used to it. You should be afraid of change because you don't want to be without a say in how it's gonna be.
Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 12:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny
So, in all honesty you present yourself as a liar and describe porn as a superior product. Sure it's a popular product, but you yourself seem to place higher value on emotional and intellectual intimacy. But you were talking about "the marked place" more than yourself I assume. You're not believable, suggesting love as a lie and questioning Truth. And Jonny, you have my attention but what's up with framing your topics in terms of gender? It almost appear like you're arguing women to be morally inferior to men.
Fear. What I'm about to share is not you, it is obvious, but perhaps it can help. One or more major problems in my life would probably never exist if I had just one stable and intimate relationship. Being seen cause you to act differently and expressing yourself affect your mind, just to mention something. Sounds easy but guess there are reasons for why so many of us never experience these relationships.
To those claiming one cannot do valid generalizations about 3 billion people; isn't that partly what all intellectuals (natural science excluded) strive for? Not just gender-wise but to describe things applicable to all men making the figure 6 billion. All six billion people lie just to start off with an easy one.
Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 1:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"to ascribe things applicable to all men making the figure 6 billion"
I lol'd. so there are only 1 billion women now? what, are you living in the 50s or something? whoops, I think your sexism is showing.
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 3:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sometimes it would be beneficial to use a more varied language when speaking of "love". It's often used synonymous with desire or longing for satisfaction. Love is more meaningful used in the sense as love as selfless and not self-seeking.
You thought Narcissus rejected all those people because he was in love with himself, but he rejected them all before he loved himself. Loved himself? Do you think Narcissus rejected them because he thought he was better than them? Or better looking? How would he have known he was so beautiful? He didn't even recognize his own reflection! He rejected all those people because they loved him.
He rejected them because they loved him?! Anyone here feel obliged to enlighten us?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 3:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the stress is on because...
He rejected them [precisely] *because* they loved him.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 3:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, and the experiential vacancy that an obsession with safety creates, a turning away from life and living. The biblical pithy is apt in this case: "I have put before you life and death. Choose life."
It seems to me that the significance that Narcissus fell in love with an image - regardless of it being his own - is often overlooked. It is a retreat into fantasy that is is the hazard, in this case(as we are reminded by the author) that is not merely enabled but created by the parents who themselves fear life and living.
Getting to the issue of desire - Narcissus desires to desire because his own life energy - his desire and all the hazards attendant to it, have been so utterly blunted. In this respect, he is cut off from his own deeper nature which is of course a part of nature. The goal is the restoration of integrity - the primary relationship with the world he was born into but alienated from by his parents fear of life and anxious desire to protect him fromits vicissitudes.
Final note: love is a way into our deeper nature and real self. But self love can be reconsidered as self regard, which makes the difficult passage of making oneself open to love possible. In other words, we all need to go easy on ourselves. Particularly if we have learned to fear connection, as opposed to taking it or experiencing it as a "natural" given. For some, the image feels mre "real" because they have not felt genuine connection early in life and so must forge this necessarily foreign experience for themselves, which feels (legitimately, I beleive) rife with danger. Love does not come naturally to those who have never known it. And by that I don't mean simply the feeling of it, but actually being able tocare for- and take care of - the other.
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 4:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This speaks to my belief that we are trapped in an image culture, a culture that values image and appearance and actively loathes the complexity (and sometimes the pain and struggle) of "real" life. Like Narcissus, we are conditioned to live this fantasy life of arrested development, seduced by the image and all it promises, and distracted from life. This isn't at all gender specific. And I'm certain we've all experienced the cultural demand nd that we better approximate an image, be it - instead of our more difficult and complicated selves.
Score: 13 (13 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 5:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's precisely the *because* part which I find confusing. Ovid write that he's proud, so I'd agree that it is the fear of connection which cause him to reject them. Also, for some reason I find Narcissus age (16) relevant for his fear, dunno.
If we are trapped in a image culture, it was one significant culture at Ovids time which seemed aware - in the jewish society it was prohibited to make images of their god.
How about this one? Can anyone turn on the light?
Nemesis preceded even Zeus. Is she really the goddess of vengeance?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 9:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
4. At the end of the audio you can here a (male) voice say, "...At least you will still look like you.
You might want to change the "here" to a "hear"
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
November 3, 2012 11:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is some incredibly brilliant and intriguing posts I wish to discuss and query; but I'm prevented from thinking by the maniacal screaming insanity that overwhelms my capacity to ignore it. The fact that it is so casually overlooked by others is either comforting or terrifying and I'm leaning towards terrifying.
Empathy is misunderstood by many; none more so or more dangerously so than I have misunderstood it, historically-speaking. It is possible I am failing to respond to it in an intelligent way but I was not coded to be immune to the tortured suffering of beasts that cannot be permitted to suffer like this. It's just not decent. It's not humane.
Why does Alone permit screaming under the shared anonymous alias Anonymous? If you imagine their motives for choosing to share an anonymous alias are related to anonymity, I'm afraid you are a butcher and you would be hacking away at logic. Their motives are far more transparent than they imagine.
For example, instead of Anonymous, they could post as...4utugjlagaghfahg (I just smashed my keyboard in what was supposed to be a random manner but you get the point I'm sure). Jonny is my real name but they could post as Jonny and retain anonymity. I guarantee you that if someone posted as Jonny I would rapidly choose another name to avoid confusion. But we have Anonymous screaming at Anonymous, in reply to Anonymous who disagrees without having the capacity or the sanity to make a logical case for why he or she or it feels that way about the similar failure of Anonymous to present a logical argument.
This is not about anonymity.
This is about their darker, malicious, impossibly transparent motive to scream rather than communicate. They don't want to get better, they just want the buzz of conflict. They don't want mutual advantage and they sure as hell don't want peace or serenity; they want to drag everyone else down to the gutter of their misery. They're endlessly disturbing the peace and I'm alarmed that no one else is disturbed.
And I'm pretty sure you should be alarmed as well; especially if you were not disturbed by their inane screaming. It has implications that involve empathy (perhaps blocked, perhaps absent, perhaps managed more intelligently; I wouldn't really know but I cannot think whilst they scream their miserable, toxic pain). My humane instincts are conflicted because I do not care for suffering but I certainly don't care for it to be brought to me.
They love it. Or they imagine they do. I know why. I've effectively made the irrefutable logical case for why they just want to fight and derail and cause conflict; it makes them feel at peace but they don't really think in such complex terms. They mostly feel their insanity. They're in pain, they have a corrupted sense of Self, and they're screaming psychotically as a result.
They're victims much like the victims who jumped the fence and started creating victims by giving their needy a life of Their Own. You can play the Blame Game back thousands of years if that's your thing, but when I make an argument that "face-painted, deceit-obsessed" women shouldn't be permitted to be so transparent about their 'undisclosed' motive for having children of Their Own in a world where human children die at a rate of over 30,000 under the age of five every single day...
...it's what you call a damn good argument. To refute it, you need to make some logical points that address the damn good issues raised. I cannot imagine what those points would sound like but I'm not so insane that I imagine I perceive Reality or Know All of Knowledge already - let alone so batshit insane I could imagine I Know Best. Sound familiar? Or is that too close to home.
It's too close to home for this screaming banshee.
November 2, 2012 6:45 PM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: |
your claims about women are absurd, prima facie. the notion that you could generalize half the species is a logical absurdity. so much for your beloved logic. your claims about women are a practically textbook example of splitting and projection.
Screaming insanity. It is not absurd to point out that women are exploited by each other. I have never once heard of man say something like, "Oh honey, you look absolutely exhausted. Are you getting enough sleep?"
And everyone flinches because it's about motive. That's Christian Compassion right there. It doesn't fool a fucking soul except for a toddler who basks in the warm glow of attention and coddling, toxic emotional security.
But it's not real. It's not sane. It is transparent 'concern' that serves literally no purpose beyond the malicious emotional manipulation that is vicious passive-aggressive cutting under the guise of sweet, tender caring.
Transparent. Always. Sympathy never restricted the flow of blood to a punctured artery. Sympathy never set a fractured tibia. Sympathy never contributed to the recovery of a victim of physical trauma. But you know what that filthy shit does? I never know how much you're pretending to be unaware of v how much you're simply oblivious to; because everyone is lying all the time.
That filthy emotional poison can make a victim of childhood trauma feel the pain that stopped existing for 60 years after it - you know - stopped hurting. That's because it's all imagined by malicious creeps and used to tear down the perceived competition and turn those they love into their controllable, miserable, dependent slaves.
I say women wear chemicals on their face and are obsessed with deceit. In other news, grass is green. These are irrefutable tenets and the exceptions would be so infinitesimally negligible, they would be wholeheartedly agreeing with me. This screaming banshee says I haven't made a prima facie case for the above. Just her opinion. Her opinion that irrefutable facts that she cannot refute aren't true. Jesus fucking Christ.
That's batshit insane screaming. It's my mother. It's everywhere. Unserviceable, tortured minds. Broken and snapped and screaming. Why do you all permit it? This is a question laced with valid accusation; do you need to call your attorneys?
This screaming banshee says I cannot generalise half the species. What? I can do one better. Everyone lies. Only tiny, uncorrupted humans are sane. I am obsessed with Truth to the point where...it's not important. My life is routinely placed in danger that isn't as dangerous because I use a lot of sleazy old tricks to wriggle out of danger but if I only told Truth, I'd be MURDERED by the emotionally insane. This moron thinks I cannot generalise half the species and this passes for logic in a world where every girl I've ever met or heard of puts chemicals on their face if they're not wearing a burqa? Everyone lies, you batshit insane banshee.
Are you going to tell me I cannot generalise the entire species? I've just done it. And what's more, I'm so right it's horrifying.
Textbook this and unjustified opinion that and a 'triumphant' "so there" somewhere in there?
SHUT THIS DEMENTED SCREAMING DOWN or explain why you cannot feel empathy for the tortured victims of emotional rape and viciously abused combative victims of childhood trauma. You know, Please? Or whatever dumb shit mothers use to confuse children into imagining acting in their own bets interests would be doing her a huge favour. Vomit.
Score: -7 (23 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 12:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I say women wear chemicals on their face and are obsessed with deceit. In other news, grass is green. These are irrefutable tenets and the exceptions would be so infinitesimally negligible, they would be wholeheartedly agreeing with me."
This is opinion, not fact. You're apparently incapable of distinguishing the two.
"This screaming banshee says I haven't made a prima facie case for the above. Just her opinion. Her opinion that irrefutable facts that she cannot refute aren't true. Jesus fucking Christ."
umm, I'm a guy...
"This screaming banshee says I cannot generalise half the species. What? I can do one better. Everyone lies. Only tiny, uncorrupted humans are sane."
Narcissists tend to be paranoid. Saying that everyone on the planet is a liar is not only extremely paranoid, it is more projection, and splitting (black and white thinking). These are primitive, immature defense mechanisms. Part of you knows you're a liar, but you're in denial about it, so you project your negativity onto others. This is typical of narcissists.
Wearing makeup is not lying. If you think it is, you're the crazy one, not me.
Also, I have to laugh at this: 'SHUT THIS SCREAMING DOWN' -- do you have no sense of irony whatsoever? (all-caps is the text equivalent of screaming, in case that wasn't obvious enough.) I almost think you're trolling, with how ridiculous this is.
"explain why you cannot feel empathy for the tortured victims of emotional rape and viciously abused combative victims of childhood trauma."
This has nothing to do with not feeling empathy. This has everything to do with calling you out on your ridiculous bullshit. Stop playing the victim and get over yourself.
Score: 16 (26 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 12:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
also,
"it makes them feel at peace but they don't really think in such complex terms. They mostly feel their insanity. They're in pain, they have a corrupted sense of Self, and they're screaming psychotically as a result."
well, this is more projection and ridiculous paranoia from you. stop describing yourself using 'They', it sounds weird.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 4:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Your impulse wasn't to say, "am I doing this to my kids?" or "how will I act differently?"
----
Actually, it was.
Off topic: Is everyone on the Autism Spectrum?
http://nymag.com/news/features/autism-spectrum-2012-11/
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 12:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't think he's projecting, and I guess makeup can be a sort of lie ... but no more so than any thousands of other status symbols that we parade in front of each other every second of our lives. Hipsterism exists everywhere. Every guy who wears fashionable clothes, every teen who pretends to like Justin Bieber, every nerd who pretends that he hates school, every choice of clothing or demographic identification is a lie. I'm lying when I pretend I care about sports. If you've ever thought about it, the only time you aren't lying in one way or another is when you put your name at the top of the paper. Congrats, you figured it out, except that you're fronting just as much as everyone else. You front as a truth teller, the mad prophet mad at the world because you see the Truth (TM). It's a front for your rage against people who never gave you the props you "deserve" when you never bothered to ask who they are. Who are we? Do you even know? Could you be bothered to ask why we dress how we do, act like we do, who we hang out with? You don't care, because it's every bit as much a lie as us lying with status symbols -- everyone is supposed to accept that you are Truthteller Jonny, while at the same time, your lack of interest in why people are lying shows me it's a front. Like Alex Jones who holds himself out as an expert on how the shadow government works, while at the same time not knowing how Congress really works and how a bill comes out of commitee, nor who is Speaker of the House. And he never bothers to find out, because knowing how and why might make his pat answers more complex.
If you're so authentic, fine, but I'd be willing to put down $50 that you couldn't name 6 co-worker's kids, or what sports the kids play. So much empathy, but can't be bothered to find out simple facts about other people. Nothing that doesn't directly impact your life. At least the "psychomothers" manage to find out whether junior likes art or football or animals. And when those "lying women" get together, they can manage to find out what the other woman likes. In fact, not only do the women find out about the other person, they can usually find a reason to celebrate their birthdays or congratulate the other person who's just gotten her son a full ride to college.
We're not perfect, to be honest, we're apes with delusions of civilization. Just don't kid yourself that you're one iota different from the women who "lie with makeup" you're lying with your clothes and your car and your fronting on the internet. No one has ever seen the real human.
Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 2:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's a parable about psychiatry, right? It will have a long life, if it never knows himself.
Now it knows itself, and it's dwindling to a prescription pad.
Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 2:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The point about makeup - which you extend - is quite straightforward and I agree with you. Someone on this forum quoted C.S Lewis "till we have faces", which is yet another way of expressing that thought.
It's meaningful to distinguish between telling the truth and being honest, in which the difference lies in motive. One can be sincere but mistaken. In the contrary case everything being said might be true but still be misleading, that is being dishonest.
We have a strong intuition in these matters which is not easily analyzed intellectually. The answer to Pontius Pilate's question "What is truth" is not an easy one in terms of language, but most people nevertheless seem comfortable with the term.
Be an ape if you wish but don't involve the rest of us :) And yes, I am a liar. Wish I managed to be completely honest. It's easier if there is less to hide, obviously.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 5:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is very interesting, i liked reading that, thanks for posting :)
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 5:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If you'd like to know how I feel, I could tell you - or perhaps even better. Feel different things, but mainly curiosity.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 8:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There's too much thinking going on here.
P.S. does anybody have any thoughts about how Tractatus-era Wittgenstein ties into TLP's thought (read the subtitle of the blog, I actually didn't notice it until now).
P.P.S. TLP = The Last Psychiatrist = Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus. Obvious conspiracy.
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 9:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't hate women. I hate lies and deceit. Lie to me and I will hate your action. Lie to me endlessly and I will feel no emotion. This is my entire argument
This man speaks the truth, so of course he will be shouted down.
Score: 4 (24 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 9:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Now, my understanding of Wittgenstein is rusty but thats cool as peoples interpretations of him diverge anyway ;)
Early Wittgenstein was I'd guess influenced by the contemporary strive to build a basis for mathematics. Just consider that Wittgenstein use an axiomatic style for Tractatus. It's not exactly poetry. I don't know that book well at all, but he argued for a correspondence between language and the world by putting forth proposition and utilize logic.
TLP is less axiomatic and more poetic, but he seem quite fond of and confident in analyzing language and choice of words as tools for acquiring insight about individuals inner lives and motives.
My favorite example:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/07/the_atlantic_recommends_abando.html
I'd say that TLP's practice in that analyzing choice of words reveal important information is a parallel to early Wittgenstein.
Just my 2 cent. Anyone?
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 9:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's okay that women lie as long as they make food and change diapers. I don't listen too much of what they say anyway.
Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 9:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP's had a long career of great blog posts. Anything late-2010 early-2011 is cool as fuck. He probably reached a peak at "How Seroquel XR really works"; the "Shame" posts were the jump-the-shark point.
But hey, who are we to demand that he remain his 2008-2011 self? People change, and maybe he's getting to some funneling down, some mature realization while we miss the whirlwind of social commentary and pharmacokinetics that was golden era TLP.
It was a great run, Alone. Thanks.
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That was a failed attempt on something.
In truth the one thing I enjoy most with women are long conversations.
Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In love with an unmoved infinity, perhaps. Or with cold masculinity, which has no female charm.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's weird. People who love you don't "call you out". I've had a very deep relationship spanning more than a decade and we're never called each other out. That's because we're not sinners.
Score: 4 (12 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You have to find what you need inside of yourself, not from the outside. Nobody has to restrict themselves to settling for less than they can have, but you are looking for it in the wrong places.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jumped the shark? the posts on shame have been some of his best. the seroquel post and others like it are fun, but there isn't really much there.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
SHUT THIS DEMENTED SCREAMING DOWN or explain why you cannot feel empathy for the tortured victims of emotional rape and viciously abused combative victims of childhood trauma.
Right, Jonny. But isn't that description relevant to everybody- as you appear to have said- everybody *is*, more or less, one of those victims?
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As we have seen in the America, with Obama declaring the "War on Women," America still clings to the idea of the "domestic goddess." However, it has grown into the idea that women are not just the source of domestic peace and tranquility, but the fount of human morality.
This has always been so> I think the difference now might be that women are defining themselves increasingly by the standards men have always used to define themselves (as men), in place of or in addition to the more traditional values of the "fairer sex."
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 10:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Echo is terrifying
Really, Echo is "terrifying?!"
She sounds like a fluff ball to me.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
November 4, 2012 11:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think USA men should in fact unleash their War on Women, because what they will then get are five to eight hungry mouths to feed, no particular intimacy or sex (wife is too tired) and an early grave.
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 8:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is a brilliant post and I couldn't agree more. But why are you commenting using a shared username? I'm compelled to ignore the screaming insanity posted by those who do not wish to post anonymously; or they would use a unique anonymous alias.
Their refusal to answer direct questions, their re-wording what you say into a filthy misrepresentation (which they then attribute to you), their combative attacking the messenger when they don't like the message, their ludicrous obsession with expressing their feelings without making an argument, their non-stop use of the word "narcissist" without any rationalization; the screaming of these Toddlers drives me insane.
You should use a unique alias. You've posted the best comment in this thread. I wouldn't like to miss your input in the future but I'm blocking out the screaming of the combative shared Anonymous comments from here on.
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 9:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It is a retreat into fantasy that is is the hazard, in this case(as we are reminded by the author) that is not merely enabled but created by the parents who themselves fear life and living.
Exactly. The emotional degradation passed along to the child by the parent who Knows Best.
But they don't know how to convince a child to act in their best interests (whose interests?) so they snap the free will of the child for a decade or two. This imprints the child with Their Own corrupted image resplendent with fear of everything but fear itself, unfathomable insanity, deceit, shame and emotional confusion.
They don't know how not to use violence or coercive threats to 'persuade'.
They don't know how to answer questions like "What benefits are derived from drenching an impressionable child in all this emotional marinade?"
They don't know how to raise a child without resorting to endless nauseating emotional manipulation. "Do it for Mommy, Sweetie." What the? Why wouldn't Sweetie do it for his or her Self?
They don't know how to raise a child without corrupting the child's perception of his or her best interests (learning, questioning, thinking, eating greens, etc) via association with negative stimuli (Sticks) or incentives (Carrots).
They don't know how to live happily without having children of Their Own.
They don't know how to answer an inquisitive child's questions about the world.
They don't know how to explain things which aren't remotely traumatic to an undamaged child without manufacturing trauma.
They don't know how to say "I don't know."
They don't know the importance of Self-determination, individual choice and taking ownership of consequences.
They don't know how to act in their own best interests.
They don't know anything, really; very, very little of what parents know can actually be rationalised or justified.
We live in Fantasy as a result of our parents incapacity to answer the question of motive for why they felt compelled to have children of Their Own. They live in Fantasy. They raise children to 'cope' with the inevitable Reality with a decade or more of Fantasy; putrid Disney lies and feel-good deceit, fairy tales and make-believe. That's not how you prepare a child for Reality unless you want the child to face-plant into trauma.
Mothers are obviously more important, so their lying and emotional degradation is more damaging. As to their motive, until they stop lying the best I can surmise is that they want a little human pet who pleases them. Mothers wants little dependents; little junkies addicted to Their emotional validation. So they lie. They love. That's all they really know.
Every emotional cutter who imagines they could want to live in Fantasy has a mother that Knows Best.
/logic
Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 10:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
November 1, 2012 3:18 AM | Posted, in reply to jonny's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
"I know my mother's love was a lie" -- this is a belief common to virtually every narcissist ever.
I was born into the Children of God - that's a fundamentalist Christian, anti-Semitic, Apocalyptic, sex cult. It was created by a pedophile for pedophiles but it is full of needy 'decent' humans who wanted to believe in a lie (that they're Special; they're closer to God than you, but in Reality they're closer to Numbers ch 31 than anybody except maybe Joseph Fritzl). I wasn't Elisabeth Fritzl; that was every child that wanted to be Special. I wanted to be Special until I saw what happened to them (well, I heard - eyes can be averted, eyelids can close but our 'Intelligent' Designer left ears exposed). From that point, I just wanted to be normal. That required survival.
My childhood was a bit like Mrs Fritzl's marriage. Except she had options and I didn't until I was old enough to escape.
My mother is a very sick & twisted human being who is more of a narcissist than a sociopath because she is nearly incapable of feeling empathy. She breeds children to serve her perceived interests; i.e. she breeds children to please. She's bred 12 of Her Own and in her mind, her children are literally extensions of her. We were her best foot, so to speak; and we were put forward routinely. My mother's love was a lie that wasn't a lie. She loves her children more than life itself; they're all she has because she has no sense of Self. She's the most needy horror show imaginable.
And all my siblings are dead.
You would think they're alive, but you're dead. Children don't die when you kill them. They grow up into dead humans who stop thinking for themselves. They just feel their way through needy lives of survival. The mindless zombies of the world imagine that expressing a feeling without making an argument (as you have just done) is valid and sane.
Don't express your demented feelings without making a logical argument for the validity of why you feel that way. It's the calling card of the batshit insane.
Score: 4 (12 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 10:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yo Jonny, why don't you visit this guy for a bit? I'm sure you two will get on splendidly, and he seems quite adept at banishing banshees from his domain. Then you wouldn't have to suffer so much pain from the brutal assaults of all the horrible commenters here.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 10:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The mindless zombies of the world imagine that expressing a feeling without making an argument (as you have just done) is valid and sane.
Don't express your demented feelings without making a logical argument for the validity of why you feel that way. It's the calling card of the batshit insane.
***
Love the use of the term batshit, but you're missing something crucial.The people you speak of- and i'm feeling you on that- always have ideology, always. It may be lame, but they always think they can explain their emotions. And, generally, that their emotions are good and more importantly right. They're not expressing pure emotion for it's own sake, it has 'thinking' attached.
I would say these people, hypothetical though they may be, do seem to lack a sense of humor and some individuation. But frankly, a little emotion for it's own sake might actually do some *good.*
My concern about you is what I think may be an inability to look at anyone without feeling superior to them or thinking yourself superior and also, more importantly, what looks like an inability to have a dialectic between your feelings and your thoughts. If you assiduously disregard all your feelings,' sometimes you fall prey to them all the more.
You have to dance with them that brought you. If your feelings are roughly analogous to your life force, and they basically are, (it's true of everybody), then you have to interact with them. Probably more so than your thoughts.
Putting thoughts first is very American but really what it means, and you are basically right about this, is justifyin
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 10:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
oh well. I got cut off- my computer is horrible. But i said enough, good luck.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 1:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So how can I fake my way to being a better person if my every action is at risk of being co-opted by my narcissistic ego? Trial and error? Mindfulness? And if we're narcissists a priori, aren't our conceptions of "better" or "good people" going to be flawed and self-serving to begin with?
I feel like there is so much insight into the problem, but very little into potential solutions. I say all of this with humility and sincerity, I hope you can believe that. I feel there's just way too much cynicism here.
Your humility and sincerity are readily apparent to anyone who isn't damaged to the point of being malicious. Your concerns re: Alone's incapacity to have answers are valid (even though I didn't agree, initially). But I'm certain now that you were correct the first time; Alone doesn't have answers because for all his brilliance and insight, he's still telling people to live a lie (I understand the premise is that they're already living a lie but that's nonsense; they're living as the victim of their parents who lied non-stop in denial about their needy).
Narcissists, for all their infuriating faults, are fundamentally honest. They scream "ME ME ME". It's not a great argument but at least it's honest. Alone is advising narcissists to fake being sociopaths (until they make it where it is ostensibly "being humane"). That's not going to happen. It's not possible to create happiness by lying to those you (don't) care about.
Playing a role? Pretending to care? Pretending to be interested when you're not? Pretending to feel how you don't feel? Someone explain why this is not How to Behave like a Sociopath 102? 101 is Being Polite, i.e. deceit for the sake of not offending the emotionally insane with your honesty. Why would you have a problem with offending the emotionally insane with Truth, if you were not looking to take advantage of their insanity?
Alone's advice to "fake it till you make it" isn't going to make a narcissist ever feel humane. You'll just become a sociopath who is making the same argument as the narcissist. It will merely sound like "YOU YOU YOU". It will still be "ME ME ME" until you value others enough to tell them the truth. Alone's 'solution' for narcissists would work in a humane world but in this world of valueless manipulative creeps? You'll become a sociopath.
I don't have a good workaround (but I know The Answer is going to be universal Truth for the sake of Selfish mutual advantage; lifting and pushing others up Selfishly rather than cutting and dragging them down to create the illusion of superiority). It's all about perception and I'm not talking mind games, tricks or charades but the exact opposite; cold, brutal, humane pursuit of Selfish best interests.
I'm willing to bet my life on the fact that you cannot fake caring about valueless liars in the hope you start valuing them. They need to get some value. If you play at being a Sociopath people will just get hurt because your caring will be a lie.
What I've been thinking lately is that people like you are not narcissistic at all. I suspect you're unhappy because you're the victim of manipulative creeps. Have you considered the possibility that your sub-conscious low valuation others (and / or your Self) might be quite accurate? You're clearly looking for Truth. This seems apparent to me. You clearly have value. If I felt such a demented Self-defeating emotion as envy, I'd be green with envy at your communication skills. But only those with a corrupted Self feel such demented religious emotions.
I suspect you're conflicted and unhappy because this is a world of misery created by parents who lie to their children. The problem for you (and I) appears to be "How to find happiness in a world of avarice, denial, deception and misery?"
Of course the filthy liars will tell you that your unhappiness (the product of their deceit) is all your fault. Why can't you just be happy whilst they rape you? "It's you, it's all you, it's always you".
Nonsense. That's utter stupidity. It was me, it was all me, it will always be me for as long as I am lying to my Self about my needy (I was trying to live in Fantasy chasing fairy tales that don't exist; i.e. Exclusive Love). But I have no longer have motive to desire such moronic exploitation. So I am Selfishly frank, open, honest and transparent but almost everyone is lying non-stop (it's pathetic how transparent the lies are now that I no longer need to believe). This is not a problem that has a solution at my end. Alone's logic is full of holes.
People are so terrible at lying, it's ridiculous. It usually sounds like this:
"It's nothing. Never mind."
"Don't be rude. It's impolite to ask about such things."
"Can we drop this already. I don't want to talk about it."
Liars never want to talk about their deceit. But "no comment" doesn't actually fool anyone who doesn't want to believe in a lie.
I don't think you are a narcissist, Koerner. I used to be, I was miserably conflicted. I had to become a narcissist or I'd never have survived growing up in a world of non-stop emotional manipulation. I imagine I was just like every child, in that sense. I cannot see how I could be a narcissist now because I perceive the value of others accurately. Children have near unlimited potential for value (until they are corrupted and worthless). I suffer from debilitating empathy as this is an empathy-bankrupt world of creeps who only care for Their Own. How can Selective Empathy be felt by a human? I'm pretty certain that's exactly how feel; they only care about those they can Use or Control.
I'd die in a second if I thought my death could serve the best interests of Humanity, if only on Selfish principle. The Answer is Truth; it always will be. Selfishly buying into the optimal reality that would be Utopia; the polar opposite of this miserable, devalued world. Our value is reduced by deceit. We'd be in the stratosphere if everyone Selfishly told the truth all the time.
I'm not a narcissist. When others suffer to please me, I'm horrified. I literally yell at them to stop making me suffer with their suffering to please, but they burst into tears; they're just emotionally-abused victims of creeps who want to make me happy. They've mistaken me for their parents, I presume. But suffering to please doesn't really 'work' for me. Only narcissists and sociopaths want others to suffer to give them pleasure. I cannot have fun unless everyone is having fun.
Yes, that makes fun very elusive but this is the reality of being humane in this inhumane world. Knowing what I know of the horrors inflicted by this needy world...it's very hard to be Happy. I doubt my Self as a result but that's healthy. In a world of deceit, it seems the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of anything.
It's not my problem that sociopaths make Happiness nearly impossible. I'm no longer needy. I need nothing but Truth because I've always wanted to contribute and be Self-reliant. I was exploited mercilessly by filthy creeps who asserted their misery was my problem. Family & friends who lied to me non-stop (for my sake). I'm unhappy only because billions of innocents (who are in my Selfish best interests to protect from predators) are being destroyed by parents who "mean well". I'm not sure they do mean well; I believe they're (insanely) in denial about their need to create misery. I believe they're stupid enough to imagine they're acting selfishly making slaves of Their Own.
Of course they tell me I'm being emo when I ask them to kindly stop destroying my Selfish best interests decades before they'll (no longer) be interesting. I'm not emotional. I'm Selfishly furious. I believe this is the Answer for narcissists; adjusting corrupted perception to correctly appraise one's Self-interests. We have 7 billion human options for happiness or misery. Alone's prescribed 'solution' for unhappiness is not remotely logical or sane or humane. And it begs the question of why he would advise embracing a lie at the expense of a suffering Humanity?
I hope Alone isn't playing a religious game; one of the oldest in the Book. Religion creates misery with their lies and then tells you that you are unhappy because "it's you, all you, always you".
Nonsense. When you're lying to your Self; then sure. If you're no longer in denial and creating misery then it's them, all them, always them. They usually sound like this:
"Why can't we all just get along?"
Because they're lying. That's why.
I don't think you're a narcissist, Kroener. I don't see how you could be? I haven't perceived anything but transparent genuine humility and valid concerns communicated far more competently than I can manage, no matter how hard I try. Alone is a brilliant communicator but clearly a narcissist; but potentially a decent one (perhaps he's trying to take his own medicine?). It'll be a question of motive, as always.
Score: 2 (18 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 2:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"I cannot see how I could be a narcissist now because I perceive the value of others accurately."
Narcissists are obsessed with viewing others in terms of their supposed "value". Seeing others in terms of inferiority, superiority, etc., in some kind of ranking system, is a hallmark of the narcissistic outlook.
Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 2:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yo Jonny, why don't you visit this guy for a bit?
Thank you.
I posted a comment on the page you linked to. The only thing I read that wasn't immediately identifiable as correct was his hatred of humans. He may be right; but if he is, I'm kicking along. I am entirely Self-reliant but I see no point in living as an island. I wouldn't be able to insulate my Self from the cannibalistic misery without completely jettisoning empathy. This species almost cannot reduce itself any lower.
Where we are now simply has to be as low as it gets. The logic has to be changed back to logical very, very soon or we're all going up in mushroom clouds when the fresh water and other non-renewable resources run out.
I was linked to this article by a puerile commenter on TheLastPsychiatrist's blog where I've been ranting against the moronic lying to children by mothers who Know Best. No doubt he imagined he was being especially sardonic.I've read this page and the comments; you're clearly way ahead of me. You're literally saying exactly what I've been trying to say (albeit a great deal more intelligently and competently than I can manage).
This filthy vermin species has been reduced so low by Self-defeating deceit, it's beyond horrifying. I don't think humans are utterly worthless; our sub-beastly species is worth so, so much less than that. No species I can think of is as inhumane as 'Humanity'. Leeches, perhaps; but leeches don't feed on their own.
I intend on reading a great deal more because I don't hate humans [yet]; but I am gravely concerned that this might only be due to my conditioned wanting to believe (in sanity).
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 4:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Any time. I'm just a buddy trying to help his buddies out. To be honest, the first time I read the guy I had already been exposed to your peculiar brand of wisdom, and I thought that he was you. But he is a better writer with a broader range of things that annoy him. Take heart, though, for the child is the father of the man.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 4:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Narcissists, for all their infuriating faults, are fundamentally honest. They scream "ME ME ME". It's not a great argument but at least it's honest.
***
I love this. It points people toward humor. But it's wrong. Plenty of narcissists, maybe the worst ones, try to act like it's all about the good of humankind or Jesus or Gandhi.
I feel really bad for people who write in feeling bad because they think they're hopeless narcissistic scum. Life itself has a way of straightening people the fuck out, just simple experience and dealing with other people. In a way, "me me me" might be healthy for a narcissist simply because it has the assumption of humor but also that there is a fun or authentic, not empty and void, "me" to be involved with.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 6:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, I think personally, the best way to get over narcissism is to start to find out about other people. One pattern that sticks about narcissism in my mind is that a narcissist is the guy who in essence sees the other people around him as glorified props. Or being rather a Skyrim fan, NPCs. They exist only in the time you are around them, they only do things or have experiences that somehow relate to something about you. For example, the insulting idea of "my [minority] friend/cousin" -- who you refer to this way as it's a way to say "I'm not anti-[minority]" which also means that this human is not much more than a collection of "statuses" gay, black, blue-collar, business owner. In other words the NPC who you hang around with in order to add the non-bigot status to your ego.
That's why I think (and yes at first it's probably somewhat fake), the essential cure of narcissism is not "do good stuff" which once again would feed a status, much like it does in RPG games where you do the good guy stuff because you're playing a good guy, which means that it's stroking the narcissistic bits of the personality. I'm the kind of person who does X is the same kind of status thing. I'm the kind of guy who buys dinner for his wife at a big fancy Italian place is the narcissism in a different guise. Especially if you're doing it to not be a narcissist.
By making and taking time to get to know people as real people, as more than simply John the janitor, or Henry the Catholic or Tom the gamer dude or Donald the joker, you cannot remain a narcissist. Because it means that those people don't keep the NPC status, they have lives that go on when you are not around. They have birthdays and their kids have trouble in school and their rent is late and so on. None of which has a thing to do with you. And the misunderstanding of narcissism is precisely that -- if you cannot percieve a universe that exists when you aren't watching, that's narcissism to a large degree. If your co-workers simply stop existing in your mind after the work-day ends, they're props, not people. If you can't name a single thing that your friends like to do when you aren't around, they're props. The only way a prop stops being a prop is when it has a secret life of its own when you aren't around.
I've said so before with Buddha, he never saw the begger as human, thus when the begger came out, the reaction was not of a man seeing another man in pain, it was a man in pain because this begger showed Buddha that the universe was full of pain. There was no relationship, there was an NPC as it were, a person who in that story existed only in the sense of being a symbol, not a guy who had kids or got injured or was thrown out of work. The begger has no background, and no life past meeting Buddha and giving him a crisis to meditate on. Yes buddha got enlightened, but at the same time, he was still not seeing the whole picture. The whole picture was that this begger had a past and a future, in fact a whole life, and none of it had a thing to do with Buddha. He had a name, he had a mother. Yet for the BUddha, he existed only to cause Buddha to see suffering.
That's where I think the cure to narcissism lies, not with purposefully trying to act like a non-narcissist, but in rediscovering that people all have unique lives which while they intersect, do not stop when the other person steps out of the "movie set". Learning that lesson again would make the world much more honest.
Score: 7 (13 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 7:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Early childhood states are restorative, because the young child has a huge capacity for adaption and for receiving new information about the world. The problem is when our early receptivity compels us to adapt to a view of the world that is narrowed by the behavior of our authority figures. In my case, my father was too angry and aggressive and laid down the lines arbitrarily. In the case of those who perceive they may be narcissistic, mothers who were controlling and tried to live their lives through their children seem to have had a deleterious effect.
Reversion to a state of early childhood experience -- regression therapy -- can be a cure for deformities generated by the past.
The way out of fixating on the past is not to "realize you are nothing", which smacks of religious condemnation, but to become spirit, air, or ethereal matter, gazing upon the remnants of the past, whilst enjoying everything in a non-human way, as a divine spectacle put on for your edification.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 8:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
November 4, 2012 12:39 PM | Posted by Anonymous: |
I don't think he's projecting, and I guess makeup can be a sort of lie ... but no more so than any thousands of other status symbols that we parade in front of each other every second of our lives.
I'm not projecting. I couldn't understand the attachment women had to what is really nothing more than a Western burqa until someone asked me why I shave and wear clothes. We're all victims of exploitation. But women should not have to wear makeup. Beauty isn't in the eye of the beholder, our eyes are mostly 20/20 (as optometrists' tests will generally prove). The problem is not with what we see, but how our corrupted - emotionally conditioned - minds process what we see.
It's terrifying that humans have the capacity to accept the Reality that is subjective aesthetic preferences whilst simultaneously imagining that what they perceive is The Reality. It's never more than a corrupted distortion that is the uniquely individual product of our mass conditioning with corrupted constructs like the emotional poison that is Love, for example. Justice is equally illogical and therefore insane. No one interests are served by punishment or pain.
It's not a sane or humane approach to emotional insanity. Crimes of passion are not committed by sane human beings but by the victims of horrifying creeps who lie and lie and lie to children in their filthy obsession with pleasing themselves.
The rest of my 4000-word response to your post is here if you're interested.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
November 5, 2012 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's meaningful to distinguish between telling the truth and being honest, in which the difference lies in motive. One can be sincere but mistaken. In the contrary case everything being said might be true but still be misleading, that is being dishonest.
The Truth is the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.
The only time I could imagine leaving stuff out is when the disclosure of it serves absolutely no benefit to the recipient and would only serve to irrationally alarm; three examples of this are on Sam Harris' blog.
...the question of which truths to tell children (or childlike adults) haunts every room in the mansion of our understanding. For instance, my wife and I recently took our three-year-old daughter on an airplane for the first time. She loves to fly! As it happens, her joy was made possible in part because we neglected to tell her that airplanes occasionally malfunction and fall out of the sky, killing everyone on board. I don’t believe I’m the first person to observe that certain truths are best left unspoken, especially in the presence of young children.
It's a decent example but I believe it's slightly imperfect. It's patronising to imagine that children could be traumatised by what would only be traumatic if the reality is misrepresented or revealed inappropriately.
What if she saw a plane crash on the news? She would have every right to be concerned that her parents weren't telling her the Truth. The evidence will be perceived to be in front of her eyes.
Which is to say that there is a time and a place for everything—unless, of course, there isn’t. We all find ourselves in the position of a child from time to time, when specific information, however valid or necessary it may be in other contexts, will only produce confusion, despondency, or terror in the context of our life. It can be perfectly rational to avoid certain facts. For instance, if you must undergo a medical procedure for which there is no reasonable alternative, I recommend that you not conduct an Internet search designed to uncover all its possible complications.
This example is perfect, I feel. The key phrase is "must undergo a medical procedure". No options. No point torturing yourself with what there seems no advantage in being painfully aware of.
Similarly, if you are prone to nightmares or otherwise destabilized by contemplating human evil, I recommend that you not read Machete Season. Some forms of knowledge are not for everyone.
This seems like a rare 'logic' fail from arguably the most logical mind on the planet. If you are prone to phobias or traumatised by Hollywood's misrepresention of 'reality', you need to fix the problem you have with perception rather than practice Avoidance. It is not in your best interests to live with fears that can be used to manipulate you.
None of these three examples are what you're talking about above, of course. Distinguishing between Truth and Honesty? You're talking about silly Toddler word games. Everyone knows what the Truth is, and everyone understands motive. The problem is that the insane value neither because their parents lied to them non-stop whilst demanding Truth from them (how very Christian). Their failure to fully appreciate the value in knowing both Truth & Motive is a large part of why they're unhappy and exploited; they cannot act in their own best interests because they cannot perceive that their best interests are served by transparent disclosure.
This is because they've been corrupted by their parents' emotional degradation and deceit.
Imagining that there are shortcuts or loopholes to telling the Truth? You would clearly still be imagining there is value in deceit. The Truth is the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. This doesn't mean you need to show your child Snuff films. It would not be the Truth.
Substitute "snuff films" for "the Holy Bible" and you have the sickening reality that is Christianity's malicious emotional corruption of Their Own.
We have a strong intuition in these matters which is not easily analyzed intellectually. The answer to Pontius Pilate's question "What is truth" is not an easy one in terms of language, but most people nevertheless seem comfortable with the term.
Nonsense. It's very easy. Firstly, what you imagine is intuition is entirely programmable via conditioning. And ours has been. Secondly, the protagonist Jesus Christ was one of the most ludicrous sociopaths in history. He lied and twisted the Truth non-stop. He was a creepy son of a bitch (an immaculately conceiving bitch).
John 18 (KJV)
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Simple question. A "Yes" or "No" would suffice. But Jesus insults him with a Toddler-style question in lieu of an 'answer'. So crafty! Of course this is all moronic fiction written for imbeciles who imagine Jesus is so crafty with his forked tongue. In Reality, Pontius would have just repeated the question and then gutted him for insolence if he insulted decency again.
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Simple question asked by Pontius again. Ignored by Jesus, who decides to 'answer' the last question with babbling insanity instead. Because his servants(?) couldn't help him escape, this proves he's telling the Truth. This is classic Christian Toddler 'logic'. In reality, Pontius says "Prove it" before gutting him for insolence when he cannot.
Claiming something is the Truth when you cannot verify it is tantamount to lying.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Simple question again. A "Yes" or "No" would suffice. Jesus insults him with a 'crafty' redirection. Truly demented idiocy, refusing to answer a simple direct question. In reality, Pontius guts him for overdosing on Toddler insolence.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Simple question again. Jesus responds with "no comment".
That is a pure fictional interrogation. 4 questions, 4 insulting non-answers. In Reality, he'd be gutted (well-deservedly). Truth is not complex. Only Toddlers who want to lie imagine fanciful 'workarounds'.
--------------
The protagonist Jesus Christ lies non-stop in the NT. At one point, he gives four ridiculously different answers to a single question from a rich man who wanted to know what he needed to do to get into Heaven.
My point being, whenever someone (idiotically) asserts that Truth is Unknowable, they're instantly identifiable as a religious sociopath. You're Christian, are you not? If indeed you are...
Pray tell, what's your defence argument for why you have not forsaken all that ye hath (Luke 14:33)?
Pray tell, what's your justification for why Jesus turned perfectly drinkable water into a toxic drug of dependence 1900 years (and tens of millions of agonising child deaths) before Louis Pasteur did the trick Jesus could not do to milk?
Be an ape if you wish but don't involve the rest of us :) And yes, I am a liar. Wish I managed to be completely honest. It's easier if there is less to hide, obviously.
If you truly wished to be honest, you would simply eliminate everything you wished to hide rather than turn everything you say into a lie.
That's how Truth works; it's an all or nothing deal. There is nothing more ridiculous than someone asserting they're honest but "only lie about a few things". All their ostensible 'truth' is nothing more than a setup for the lies they know will be more convincing as a result of their selling the lie that they are honest and reliable when the Truth is that they lie whenever it's important to them to deceive.
But only the insane who cannot perceive optimal Selfishness ever imagine it could be to their advantage to take 'advantage' of another human being. Fear, Shame, Ignorance and Malice are the only reasons why people lie. In a sane world, there would be no motive to lie but 'insanity' (which doesn't need a motive but generally imagines one anyway).
Score: -3 (13 votes cast)
November 6, 2012 8:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Nemesis preceded even Zeus. Is she really the goddess of vengeance?
THANK YOU. Fraula says in a relieved voice because damned if our particularly Greco-Roman heritage of "ignore the goddess hidden behind that annoying bitch of a goddess" still isn't twisting every darn thing.
Btw, having done my Masters thesis in comparative literature on cosmogonic (creation) myths, comparing Native American, Greek and Norse: Greek myths are somewhat unique in that Gaia, second only to Chaos itself, was demonized, as well as split into several (more easily disdainable) sub-goddesses. This demonization did not happen amongst Native Americans (see also Skywoman), and had to be shoved down the throats of Nordic cultures. With the help of some Bible interpretations that conveniently ignored that Adam was originally held responsible for his decision, not Eve. Shhh. Don't tell anyone. It's right there in the original ancient Hebrew.
But patriarchal God forbid that you dare draw an insight from this: a culture that despises Gaia has been and continues to be in the process of destroying Gaia. (Earth.)
Cue "that's crazy goddess talk" rather than it being symbolic... Nemesis is smiling, we're still in the embrace of her mother dark Nyx... will we know ourselves in time?
Score: -2 (12 votes cast)
November 6, 2012 9:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're still doing the same thing. It's a front of caring about humanity, as you yourself say you have no interest in the actual human being that exists sitting next to you and abusing their kids -- at least by your definition. That would be my definition of narcissism. The narcissist doesn't see the other guy as "real people" they only exist in the way they interact with you.
You say you are interested in protecting the kids, but even then it's not those specific kids, it's the idea of saving kids from mothers who are abusing them with love. It's not a specific child, it's not Little Joey who's mother is smothering him with love, it's a general nonexistent child with nonexistent parents none of whom you have to bother to meet. Have you ever asked the KID what he thinks of mom's love? Have you ever tried to find out what MOM is thinking when she's raising kids? If you want to know, I don't have kids, I'm an aunt, not a mommy, but even then, I try to find out what people actually want, not what I think they should want (which is actually what I want). The Golden Rule isn't golden -- the real golden rule is to give the other guy what he actually wants, not what you would want in that situation.
That's what I mean with Alex JOnes, though you could probably sustitute just about any insta-eggspert you see on TV or radio. They proclaim themselves to be telling THE TRUTH, but they don't ever bother to find out where they are wrong. LIsten to Chris Mathews or Rush Limbaugh, and no matter what happens their ideas are always right, no matter what. They don't ask what or why, they don't wait for the facts, they don't want the truth to get in the way of THE TRUTH. The truth of why women wear makeup? I dunno, sometimes they like it, sometimes it helps them to succeed in a career they like, sometimes it projects an image. It depends on the woman. Why do women want a kid? Again it depends, so you'd have to ask the woman. catholics just don't like contraception, thus for some of them a kid is accidental, a result of having sex. Some like kids and want to have a kid. Some adopt kids from overseas because they want to rescue them from a life of starvation and disease in a third world orphanage. Some do so out of a sense of duty, either because hubby wants a kid, or because mommy wants to be a grandma. Point being is that you can't simply project a single reason onto any decision that a person would make. It's individual, and you can't project a single reason for this. I don't know what made your mother join a cult, or why she thought that reading anything other than the KJV Bible was good. Ask her. She had reasons, perhaps not reasons I agree with, but she had a reason. You aren't interested in the other person's thoughts. You aren't interested in the other person's life.
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
November 6, 2012 12:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dude, YOU sound like a self righteous asshole. Get off your soapbox and talk about yourself.
Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
November 7, 2012 10:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Translation: "I hate my Dad and all the men before him. And I'm also self-loathing/feel guilty for my existence. And since I feel guilty about it so should everybody else! Oh, and I'm smarter than you!" YUCK.
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
November 7, 2012 5:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
confused. how is Adam not held responsible for his decision in the NIV Bible? or Eve, for that matter? they both appear to be held accountable for their decisions or, depending on one's interpretation, also equally not accountable. please clarify.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
November 7, 2012 5:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Should I be concerned by the fact, that I did not understand Alone's post, but can totally see, where jonny is coming from?
But then: I am a female without make-up and a wish for her OWN child. Jonny: the link you provided for your 4000 words does not work? And why are you so angry, while Sam Harris isn't?
What I really do not get:
What was important was what he did, and what he did---- was nothing.
Isn't that wrong? Didn't he make his parents (and maybe Echo) happy? And isn't that the problem?
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
November 7, 2012 7:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny is angry because he is a narcissist. Deep, unconscious rage is one of the hallmarks of the narcissistic pathology.
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
November 7, 2012 7:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
November 3, 2012 2:38 AM
Excellent comment by FL.
Of course, the "more Feminist than you, BRO!" metrosexuals will castigate me and/or FL for daring to suggest that women ever have done, are doing, or will do something less than perfectly and other than blamelessly.
Naturally it's some misogynist's fault that a woman acts poorly, selfishly, destructively. Because, you see, women are eternally blameless in this Patriarchy of Female Oppression.
You really can tell that TLP's commenting readers are a bunch of arrogant, politically correct "progressives" and/or "leftists" who believe in imagery and symbolist life-politics, and who are terrified of reality as-is.
They're too busy patting themselves on the back for "getting" what TLP is laying down.
I'd like to give them the Cliffs Notes:
Everyone's a narcissist, including you, and your desire toward denial is the door-shutting, case-closing proof positive.
Score: 2 (16 votes cast)
November 7, 2012 10:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Patriarchy of Female Oppression? Ugh....
When was the last time you heard a male under the age of 50, in a position where he could be held accountable (ie: prove it), that believes that sh*t you parrot about women being inferior?
Want an easier goal? Name me 50 women who do it.
So the rhetorical question is, who is really perpetuating this B.S.? Hint: don't say "men" or "american society". It's called a "Self-sabotageing mindset" for a reason.
Dostoyevsky called it a stone wall.
Score: 4 (14 votes cast)
November 8, 2012 3:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
TLP is a feminist, in the critical theory, post-structuralist vein...this is pretty clear from his writing. He has never stated that explicitly, but you'd have to be kind of clueless to not pick up on it.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
November 8, 2012 10:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Through the Veil,
You can thank me for giving you a reason to launch a screed about what you project as my thoughts. Well done. You exemplified precisely what I expected at least one person to post in response, the attitude that if someone doesn't agree with TTV's view of life, he/she is misogynist and reactionary.
Perhaps you'd be better served by talking to more women, rather than just the handful of Catherine MacKinnon clones you seem to think embody the entire gender populace. I've known quite a few women who don't follow that victimized, blame-the-patriarchy viewpoint and who know that when a woman is poorly treated in a given instance, it is usually due to one person's maltreatment of her, not an entire gender's attitude/perspective being culpable.
As to Anonymous projections of what TLP is via assorted "-isms" I am amused, eternally, at the desire of many to find greatness-by-affiliation. That's sorta what I was saying with my remark about self-back-patting for "getting" TLP. Yeah, you're superior for seeing patriarchy-blaming wherever you look, like Al Sharpton seeing racism in the bogus Tawana Brawley mockup.
"You'd have to be kind of clueless" to think that an entire gender is to blame for anything.
More Feminist than YOU, Bro! Swear I am! I'll prove it by calling someone else a reactionary misogynist patriarchy endorser!
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
November 8, 2012 10:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Name me 50 women who do it."
Why don't YOU name for me 50 men who are to blame for patriarchal oppression even without ever laying a hand on a woman, and without holding --for example-- employment supervision power over that woman.
Of all the women I've known over my lifetime, at least 1/3 have done very stupid things -- pretty much like men doing stupid things. You see, humans do stupid things. Men and women alike. Boys and girls alike.
Swell fantasy you've cooked up there, Bro, about women being blameless & perfect, and all that yazz. You sure you're not wrestling with a little gender confusion yourself? You sure you're not wishing you were XX rather than XY and possessed of the opposite gender's SSCs?
I love the InterWebToobz. So much fake expertise, so much pretense at knowing precisely what is behind another's posts without ever knowing that poster.
HERE, I AM GOD!
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
November 8, 2012 12:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
November 6, 2012 12:14 PM | Posted, in reply to Dovahkiin's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
Dude, YOU sound like a self righteous asshole. Get off your soapbox and talk about yourself.
She's not being self-righteous; but she is completely mistaken and living in a fantasy world where people are mostly decent instead of mostly pretending to be decent for reasons of perceived expediency.
Dovahkiin, at 5 years old when my mother started lying (i.e. when I realised she'd never told the Truth), I already knew more about why she backhanded my confused face for asking "Why?" than she did. I knew she thought the pain in her mind was being caused by me. It's the calling card of the emotionally abused who cannot separate the pain used to manipulate them from the pain their body uses to warn them of impending death. They're screaming all over this site, by the way. Alone couldn't care less. I feel that is telling.
When you understand why I am not interested in asking a babbling insane imbecile for her 'reasoning' which explains why she killed my siblings whilst I watched in horror at my incapacity to be mercifully humane and put her down, you will understand why I'm sick of asking liars to slap my face with their demented lies.
My mother (and I daresay she would have this at least in common with any mother who cannot give a motive for why she needs children of Her Own) breeds children to be used as little extensions of her corrupted, nearly non-existent Self.
I've asked enough liars for their motives to have a pretty good idea about what their malicious attacks (in lieu of the requested explanation, which has never been given) are all about. I know more about their motives than they would know themselves, wrapped up in the denial of Their Own needy.
Dovahkiin: The Golden Rule isn't golden -- the real golden rule is to give the other guy what he actually wants, not what you would want in that situation.
Your comment on the Golden Shower rule of Christian urination is well-noted; I've been making that argument to imbeciles who impose their unsolicited Knowing Best onto me against my wishes for my entire life. I was literally an adolescent child when I started yelling "DO UNTO YOURSELVES, get your caring away from me."
Filthy needy creeps.
I never imagined I'd be saying that for a quarter of a century. They're confused. I understand. They love me. I believe them. They're needy. They need to lean on themselves.
I'm telling you the reason this world is so needy is because mothers snap the free will of children in circumstances so horrific and brutal, the child suppresses the memory of the trauma. It's called "breaking-in" an animal or "imprinting" a human being with your image. It's how you make slaves out of living beings that were not intended to be slaves.
What a broken-in slave's opinion is worth is limited. I wouldn't take children off their mother when they love her, but then I'm not sure if I killed my siblings with my incapacity to do what needed to be done. It's irrelevant what slaves say they want once they're slaves. Did you know a guy once freed 200,000 slaves in Virginia who chose to remain in 'pleasant' dependency? Read about John Brown and his successful liberation of Virginia's slaves in 1859. He had 100,000 rifles for them but they refused to take freedom handed to them. They didn't want it. Days of what must have been soul-destroying confusion for Brown before Robert E Lee's cavalry came racing in to restore Law & Order. Brown was hung for treason. What a champion.
You imagine I'm wrong about human slavery but I am not. Mothers need to stop raping their children with their needy Love or this entire world is going to burn in its filthy need to consume...itself.
Four years, they reckon; and the polar ice cap will have melted completely through. We might not live to see it if the experts are slightly wrong and if I'm more right than I'd 'like' to be.
Antigone: I am a female without make-up and a wish for her OWN child. Jonny: the link you provided for your 4000 words does not work? And why are you so angry, while Sam Harris isn't?
Why do you want a child of Your Own?
Sam is more brilliant than I will ever be; but there are many fine minds in this world incapable of perceiving Reality (I was one of them for a over a decade of emotional insanity; you would have thought me very optimistic and "normal" - because I can make anyone believe anything about me if I imagine a motive to deceive - I even managed to lie for everyone else who sucked at lying convincingly to me, for my sake; I truly imagined I needed to believe).
I imagine Sam Harris does something similar. He clearly holds optimism in the species that I would like to share but cannot because the evidence is irrefutable that my (impossibly more pragmatic) understanding of Reality is accurate. Carnage and horror beyond anything this world has yet seen is already taking place under the non-existent radars of human denial and (mis)perception. It's not coming.
It has come.
I would give a great deal to be mistaken but I am not someone who clings to illogical opinions or beliefs. I am proactive in seeking out 'expert' opinion and answers that are simply not forthcoming (and that is always The Answer) for irregularities and inexplicable contradictions like the fact that Desoxyn is blockaded by the organised criminals who manage every slave plantation on the planet. Only in the US, where the FDA has indicated it is safe for children, will you find a miracle drug that would help with your aversion to reading walls of text like my mediocre 'writing'. But then I'm not selling anything.
Google that drug. Connect the dots. Wake the fuck up.
There is a Holocaust happening right under your very nose, on account of the sheer incapacity of humans to care about anything except Their Own (as perceived by them, ludicrously incorrectly). They should care. Selfishness cares. They're too busy having children of Their Own. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm pursuing happiness as best I know how. I am not invested in any positions and never have been. I'm kind of unique, in that way; I've noticed. I'm not wrong about Desoxyn and I'm not wrong about fresh water, either..
This is not my opinion. I'm not speculating. We don't need to discuss it back forth.
I'm talking about the future to a world of narcissists and sociopaths in an attempt to get them to care about their own best interests; but I'm not really talking in hypothetical terms. 2 billion of the 7 billion humans alive on this planet no longer have adequate access to fresh water. What this means in Reality is that they are forced to choose between going thirsty and taking risks with contaminated Supply. Have you ever been thirsty? Like so thirsty you were dehydrated and panicked?
They drink the water. And they get painfully sick and die agonising deaths. No one cares and that's fine; I'm telling you there is going to be war very soon because the planet is running out of oil but that's irrelevant. Fresh water is a non-renewable resource. We're not running out of it.
We've run out.
The only people who are confused are those who have a corrupted understanding of the definition of the word "we". When I say "We have run out", I'm not referring to Special little victims of their mother's exploitation; you (and I) have all the water and a great deal more we don't need. When I say "we", I'm referring to the interconnected Humanity which is being slaughtered systematically by apathy and needy delusions of miserable creeps.
Religion disconnected Humanity from each other, took the species apart - piece by piece, one narcissist at a time - primarily via the insanity that is misogyny. And if Toddlers don't wake up, they're going to be WOKEN UP very soon because of all the times in (Known) human history, now might literally be the worst time of all to be asleep. It's an even worse time to be pretending.
Narcissist: "TLDR"
Like I could possibly care about the illiterates' feelings. Awwh.
Score: 0 (12 votes cast)
November 8, 2012 9:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I looked it up, Desoxyn is basicly meth for kids with ADD. Sounds like a winner. although the weight loss angle is ineresting, it's meth.
And slaves rebelled all the time. Ever heard of Tousant? He and a bunch of other slaves overthrew the French government in Haiti. Or Sparticus for that matter. What stops the slave from rebelling is fear. You know the execution that follows if the glorious revolution fails.
There are also people solving the very problems that you speak of. Given your hate of religion, you might not have noticed that there are religious groups that are drilling for water all over Africa. Not all religious people are evil, it's not quite so simple. There are scientists working on water filters that can be as simple as a straw. We're working on it.
But how can you claim to love humanity when you still proclaim to know and not be interested in who we really are?
Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
November 8, 2012 10:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Narcissus is the ultimate example of the 'despair of possibility'.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
November 8, 2012 11:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah guy had options in life, but it not wasted greatness and grandness which make it sad.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
November 9, 2012 4:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Jonny (sorry, just sounds like "good night Jim-Bob" to me).
I am not an English native speaker. What I meant is, that I do not want children of my own either.
In fact I am completely unable to comprehend, how anybody could wish to do so with a clear conscience. Having children of your own, who you need to live a long life, and for whom you'd be willing to sacrifice everything, and whose death you probably will be, is a choice and not fate anymore. And "we" just completely refuse to discuss this and it's implications in reasonable terms in the Western hemisphere (do not have a clue about discussions elsewhere). Why is this still a story about Narcissus and not a story about Liriope (except to a degree in this blog)? I guess because he was better looking than her.
I wouldn't take children off their mother when they love her, but then I'm not sure if I killed my siblings with my incapacity to do what needed to be done.
You didn't. You need to forgive yourself for being your mother's child.
I know, that is impossible bullshitting balbalbalb. But you can postpone killing her or yourself till you tried to help them. Really tried. As in not giving up on them just because of their fault, that is your fault: not having killed stopped loving her, when it still would have made a difference.
And then, we invent clear water. No need for a death wish to save humanity for the non-religious, no?
Q.e.d.
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
November 9, 2012 9:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
'He'll have a long life as long as he never knows himself.'
Imagine punctuation in that. 'A long life - as long as' - 'A long life, as long as' - it's a comparison, to me. My life is as long as my period of unknowing. When I begin introspection, I cease being of the living. Daily life can't occur concurrently with self-analysis.
What is 'never?' It's not 'doesn't,' as I've used above, to indicate alternating periods. Now that I've participated in even a tiny shred of self-possession, it's over for me. I will not 'live long.' I will not pursue, participate, or achieve. (But I bet I could write. It's like daydreaming, efficiently.)
Narcissism doesn't happen naturally. It's artificial in the allegory. What really happens? People are rejected because they're real and flawed. You don't know the extent of your flaws or beauty, but why give the benefit of the doubt? Daydreaming is better than reality.
Do you think constant attention from others wouldn't clue you in to your worth? Independently of self-analysis? Or is that some fake sense, some removed idea, that thing teenagers profess to with the abstract 'pressure?'
Can you know how others see you? Is that the pre-game Narcissus: be your reputation and nothing else?
'But if Echo was no longer a projection, she was still a reflection.' 'What kind of man attracts a woman who can only echo him?'
He HAD seen his reflection already. In her, in everyone. He saw himself in reality, disliked it strongly. What did he see in the pool? Himself, physically, but without the internal monologue. If he daydreamed, it was of the possibilities of other minds that could be in his body. It wasn't ego, wasn't narcissism. He was caught in eternal imaginings of his own betterment. The trap is the illusion of the possibility of self-improvement.
The result of rejecting other people is a desire to be a better person, to earn the attentions of better people. Death is the result of thinking you can change.
'He stopped having desire and instead desired the feeling of desire.'
Being trapped in an attractive fantasy is nothing new for people on the internet.
If he loved his reflection, why didn't he reach out to touch/shatter it? Because he was so happy to desire, to aspire, that he felt no need to acquire. He knew it was a fantasy. He knew 'better people' didn't exist. He chose it. He chose his ideals. He died happy. He was content in his self-created world. Reality had disappointed him. It was suicide.
Score: 18 (18 votes cast)
November 9, 2012 9:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, you should rename yourself ''Echo in the bushes.' You're the disembodied voice upon which we project all our fantasies and hopes, even as you parrot our stupidity back at us. Don't ever come out of the bushes, bro.
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
November 9, 2012 9:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The posting by Grasslong was very interesting to me, because of my studies of Georges Bataille, whose whole way of thinking involves a destruction of this mode of thinking about self-improvement.
1. Stop self-improving, but instead seek out your own limits, and keep seeking them out as an engagement with reality that tells you something -- but never something final.
2. Face death, which is rotting matter. Revel in it. Ugliness is as much a part of life as beauty is, and being able to recognize this enhances one's strength.
3. There is no "better class of people" but rather people in various stages of incompleteness or wholeness. Those who live according to imaginary ideals are incomplete; those who face their own demise as rotting matter are more whole, since they accept reality as it is and don't require outside adulation.
4. Keep challenging reality and don't be afraid of anything it tells you about yourself. You are a dead man (or dead woman) walking, anyway. You have nothing to lose. You might even stand to gain something.
5. Introspect, but also partake in periods of active challenging of anything or everything around. Who knows, but maybe one of the outcomes of a challenge taking place within reality is you will reconsider some of your conclusions based on introspection.
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
November 10, 2012 7:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Can't hear you.
Some of this babble is brilliant, sure - but it doesn't change the situation.
It would take you so little, you probably have no idea.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
November 10, 2012 10:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Alone, you should rename yourself ''Echo in the bushes.' You're the disembodied voice upon which we project all our fantasies and hopes, even as you parrot our stupidity back at us. Don't ever come out of the bushes, bro."
But Echo didn't have a voice of her own? The author does. It's us who echo in the comments then. If your were choosing to apply the story as a metaphor it seems more appropriate.
After all, he doesn't know any of us either. People are in the bushes, and if any of us came out he probably wouldn't love any of us.
Which is as it should be, because really we don't have a reason to love him.
I mean, I find the writing very thought provoking. But just as he doesn't know me, I also don't know him.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
November 10, 2012 12:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I was annoyed, pardon my tone.
True love never ends. Advice or observations on how to make go true progress for individuals and relationships are most welcomed, though being an example is it, as we know.
Realizing something other need to understand isn't enough. People don't listen for all sorts of reasons. Help me to understand how to eliminate them.
From another TLP post:
What I don't mean is that a person lacking human connections turns to addiction, ha, you don't get off that easily: what I mean is that the addiction satisfies the same needs as human connection, but better. It bypasses the of maintaining human connections.
You're on the ball but it's not a substitution, far from it. Drugs make loneliness okay, thats it. Then why don't they turn to people instead? We could pursue that thread. What I really wanted with this, was to say it would provide a tremendous kick if you talked.
What I value most in a relation is the conversation and it must be obvious how little I would care about a five year age difference in the "wrong" direction. Do you want us to grow together? I am confused, because it doesn't seem like you'll let it go either.
I'd be surprised if you've spent all this energy for nothing.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
November 10, 2012 4:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It would take you so little, you probably have no idea.
I don't. Please tell me: [email protected]
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
November 10, 2012 9:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Of the numerous question put forth of you I will enqueue the religious ones, they don't come off as honest inquiries for learning something. That said, I will give you my best. Try asking again if you're serious serious.
I will tell you what I fear is the truth about Luke 14:33. When people has asked me whether I'm a Christian, I've often answered no and added that only those who carry their cross are Christians.
I hate to admit it, but I want someone so badly that you might as well call it a need. Carrying my cross? Using myself to improve conditions? Ha!
Laziness, selfishness. It's not the whim of the moment, as I say that my solitude make me indifferent to pursuit. The priorities get reversed as I first seek companionship, then pursuit. It's corruption. Do you understand?
So the natural continuation would be that you move on. Don't let the sunken cost persuade you into wrong decisions. Life is short. Come on!
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
November 12, 2012 1:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the reason that people turn to addiction is that the drug doesn't make demands (at least not until you're hooked). A person is a real being with needs, someone who at some point is going to need something from YOU. Rum doesn't call you at 2pm after a crappy day at work just wanting to talk about its problems. Your friends will. You can do anything you like to your iPad, and it won't leave you, in fact it will continue to play whatever you want. People will say, "I don't feel like Mexican, I'd rather have Chinese food. I'd rather watch a chick flick than that new James Bond movie." Not as much fun, as you wanted a chalupa and Skyfall and now you have to consider that you're going to have Moo Shu Pork and rent Sleepless in Seatle.
That's why we turn to inanimate objects and impersonal communication via facebook and twitter rather than face to face talking to living humans. Humans don't bend to our needs, humans have lives outside of US. Your boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't just lie on your dresser like an iPad until you need them -- they have nights out, they have needs, they have desires. They do stuff when you aren't around. While you're at work, they're doing stuff. Even your pets do stuff when we aren't around, though we never seem to think so.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
November 12, 2012 2:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Substitute "drug" with "dog" and I'm with you.
You're not totally wrong, it's true enough that a life of drugs involve less commitment than a life. Playing video games or using drugs imply doing as you please without any need to consider others.
I'm not sure how detailed or personal this thread should be, but speaking as an individual who abuse drugs:
I crave for being with someone, male or female, whom with I can nurture and grow a serious relationship i.e friendship. Say if I shared an apartment with someone and "had" to "report" the events of the day, or my plans for the next. Someone who'd listen to questions or comment my observations, and visa versa.
It would make an enormous difference in my particular situation and I doubt I'm unique in this. Note that I'm not scheming an unbalanced relation of emotional support or dependence, just ordinary chatting (albeit between two equals, trust)
No technology or drug can remove my (our) desire for friendship and communion. Re being called at 2 pm - don't you feel good about being needed and useful for other people? I love it.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
November 14, 2012 3:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Simple question again. Jesus responds with "no comment".
Its reasonable to claim that Pilate's - "What is truth?" was intended as a comment in form of a question. There was no response from Jesus.
Truth is not complex.
Expect to find me sitting at the floor next to you, giving you my full attention. But you're right, there tend to be this one thing that stick out.
All their ostensible 'truth' is nothing more than a setup for the lies they know will be more convincing as a result of their selling the lie that they are honest and reliable when the Truth is that they lie whenever it's important to them to deceive.
Dark, but beautiful. Your writing. Thank you it's i don't know what to say so great.
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
November 16, 2012 6:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Short comment regarding Alex Jones and alternative media.
...our lack of interest in why people are lying shows me it's a front. Like Alex Jones who holds himself out as an expert on how the shadow government works, while at the same time not knowing how Congress really works
That's what I mean with Alex JOnes, though you could probably sustitute just about any insta-eggspert you see on TV or radio. They proclaim themselves to be telling THE TRUTH, but they don't ever bother to find out where they are wrong. Listen to Chris Mathews or Rush Limbaugh, and no matter what happens their ideas are always right, no matter what. They don't ask what or why, they don't wait for the facts, they don't want the truth to get in the way of THE TRUTH
I listen to him. Personally, I've noticed how he's full of himself. Outright narcissistic and yes he and many in his crowd appear just as self-serving and selective re Truth as their counterparts in MSM. Alex Jones and equivalents aren't bought/incentivized by the same people, so I'd say they indeed are marginally more trustworthy than Illuminati.
I also observe that a lot of websites, youtube documentaries etc which are too kooky to be credible as kooky align themselves with him(Alex Jones). In my interpretation that is information warfare, (successfull) attempts to discredit him.
AND, something re the public perception of fringe news /happened/changed in 2010/11 and I don't understand what. E.g anyone remember Glenn Becks imitation of Alex Jones? What was that about? Don't buy into theories about insanity.
What happend in 2010/2011?
Any native Americans (that is white, middle aged men) care to voice an opinion on this?
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
November 22, 2012 9:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Christ on a cracker this is awful. It's like it was written by a gorilla bashing a typewriter. Push back from the internet long enough to develop some real writing skills, not this cutesy betcha-were-thinking-this! guff. Didn't you ever take English Comp?
Start by spending a lot of time reading. I mean honest writers - Montaigne is a good one. Cancel your subscription to Esquire, its ruining your brain. And stop the performing. Drop the silly New Journalism-lite tics and clumsy attempts at stand-up, that stuff's for people who don't really want to communicate - they just want to act like they want to communicate.
Score: -5 (11 votes cast)
December 5, 2012 10:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
god your readers are dumb.
it's a good post. your interpretation of this myth reminds me of jordan peterson's interpretations of various bible stories.
people have become very literal-/shallow-minded. (myself included!) when we read these stories today, we often engage in a bit too much suspension of disbelief, we accept too much without further inquiry (e.g., we accept that narcissus is looking at how beautiful he is--rather than ask, if you were there by the side of the pool, what would you be thinking?)
the problem is that we hear the mythical parts of the story and think: oh how imaginative were our ancestors! what wonderful storytellers!
what we don't do is wonder: this story has persisted for so many thousands of years. why? what did our ancestors understand about themselves and about us that we don't understand about ourselves? what is the truth that the story conveys?
in other words, we think these stories are about "them". but these stories are about us.
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
December 10, 2012 5:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone is sane.
Narcissus is sane.
To be sane is to be Alone.
You cannot win because they corrupted the marketplace. This is a game of Chicken with pretty little Toddlers and men blink. I know why they blink. How did the girls know I would? There are dark secrets being traded and guys have been shut out. You're out in the cold. Women like sex more than you but if you suggest that they're being a whore, they lose their fucking minds.
It's funny because I think it's so much darker than that.
They lose their minds to cover for everything. Girls have told me truth when I could not pay them to tell me truth. I've tried to give them cash and they will take money for sex but not for secrets. It's insane. Men have been betrayed by their own, coercive monopolies organised into some kind of cartel. They're conditioned to blink. It might be implicit but it's something more...tangible than a mere understanding. This is the subjugation of an entire gender. Something is going on here that is unbelievable.
This is a boycott situation. Like picket lines and scabs beaten or something utterly vulgar like that. Desperate times call for violent protection of fair trading. There's no other way around the corruption. Men have to unite instead of fight. Take back market share. We've been bred to be miserable. It is our destiny to suffer this way. We're told to be brave but no one asks "Why?"
It's a set-up. Destiny is bullshit written for the boys of mothers' propaganda. There is something very dark going on. That poisonous toxic sweet. Girls don't get the hysterics. The waterworks. The concern. The caring. The crying over nothing. The tenderising.
Mothers have made a deal with devils. Or they are the devils. They breed sons to be miserable. Emotion is the toxin. Religion is heavily mixed up in it somehow, perhaps entirely controlled by women. I dunno how they do it but this The Firm at work. How does an entire gender get tricked into thinking it needed to be hijacked by such an insulting degrading lie? Women don't like sex. Hah. Morons. Men are morons.
Like flies to wanton boys, mothers toy with their sons for sport.
It's not women that present themselves for the approval of men. You jack traitors line up like puppies with your presents and your sleaze and your mother's lies smeared all over your stupid face and you wag your tail and blush when you get the treat.
Treat your Self. Stop treating girls to exploitation. Stop being exploited. Narcissus has been betrayed by forces united in emotional manipulation. This is an emotional gang-rape and Narcissus is immune. That's how you win. When you have nothing more that you need. This is what they've done. This is the extent of the insanity. It's a game of Chicken and you are losing by being in the game.
What is Narcissus' crime? How is he the bad guy of this story? What has he done wrong? This is the banshees screaming their judgment. They unite in crowd sourcing to scream down sanity. There's only one thing to do. A girl told me the Truth but I had to want to see it. She's brilliant. She'll never speak to me again but she told me the truth before she cut me off.
I see it now. I was lying. It's doesn't matter what the need is. Why are you in the game? They can't be fooled. They set the rules of the exchange.
But I don't need the lies. I don't need the insulting. I don't need to be degraded by the implication that I'm a creep. I need none of those things. Narcissus is sane. Alone is The Last Psychiatrist but what I do not know is whether he was also the first? If you're reading it, he's just contradicted his entire pitch. You can't see it because you're blinded and he can't take your blinkers off so he's doing some harm minimisation or something that threw me for a loop. You need to be looking for Truth to see it or you won't see the horror.
When you see it, you'll stop reading. Nothing more matters. Narcissus is looking at Utopia. It's where there is no insanity because no one imagines a need to shoot their Self in the foot. He is looking at a dream so close he cannot just leave. So he lives in hope whilst all the screaming Firm attempt to Confidence game him into cracking. But he cannot be broken. He has seen the Truth. Narcissus knew the Secret of Exploitation: He didn't want to be the target of leeching because leeches can only get you one way.
I dunno. Are you special enough?
If you want to feel Special, this is a world that will make you feel that way, if only to rape you. If you want to be Special, you'll sleep alone. We should all go look in the mirror that never lies. And then we should go the liars, "Mother, RIP."
But we won't. And so it's you. It's all you. It's always been you. Your sociopathic exploitability. You're Special. They know. They invested in your insanity to disconnect you from Humanity. It's about love. It's about trauma.
And all roads lead to Stockholm.
I don't need the love. I don't even need trauma. We are exploiting ourselves. They are just looking at us with contempt. We are the enablers. Who is the guilty party when one is providing the treats and one is accepting them? Don't provide. Cut off the Supply. It's what they did.
Or don't. I don't care any more. If you care, they will make you pay for that mistake. You cannot win. They're just beating you. I don't need to be beaten. I don't need to be manipulated. I don't need to pay for past mistakes. I don't need anything validated.
I just need to be alone.
Score: 6 (12 votes cast)
December 11, 2012 9:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is Liriope throwing a good BOY (not Narcissus) away: kid gets discarded because she wants sex without liabilities.
Won't you feel for her?
Won't you consider her needs?
Emotionally validate her! Tell her how pretty she is because that's what's important to her! Her son can fuck off. Sure, he's a good slave. She still loves him because he's a good BOY. She'll miss how he braids her hair, gets her filthy whore ass out of bed in the morning, stays up late with her to keep her company, watching movies and eating ice cream with her.
She cannot find fault with him.
I can. He's a little bitch but then I'm on his side. Without any mirrors, what chance in Hell does he have of finding himself? He'll be told how selfish he is for not being her slave. But when he is the perfect slave, this is what happens.
This is why Narcissus needs to be Alone.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
December 18, 2012 3:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I hate to hear that another person is in such a dark place, even though you are a stranger. "Waiting to die" is a place that I have been before, and I know that finding a new way to live is very difficult, but if you reach out to others and ask for help then you may find a better way to exist and can gain some joy in your life. I hope that things gets better for you.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 18, 2012 10:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Emotionally validate her! Tell her how pretty she is because that's what's important to her! Her son can fuck off. Sure, he's a good slave. She still loves him because he's a good BOY. She'll miss how he braids her hair, gets her filthy whore ass out of bed in the morning, stays up late with her to keep her company, watching movies and eating ice cream with her."
So, don't you think the kid deserves better?
What do you want to do to her? Kill her. Rip her whore cunt open and grind her face until it rips apart and you can fuck her slutty dead throat since she wants it so much?
Boo hoo... everyone loses. There's no fixing that. Maybe the kid will be better maybe not? The point is you don't know.
You don't know anything.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 18, 2012 10:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I guess I'd ask you this. Why do you think she should keep him? To love him? Give him what he deserves? Validate him? Do what a good mother should?
But she's not a good mother. She knows it. You know it too. So why do you want her to keep him?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 27, 2012 1:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So, don't you think the kid deserves better?
He's in love with his abuser, so at first blush it would appear that he does not. You could make the argument that, much like Josef & Elisabeth Fritzl, they deserve each other. But it's painfully obvious (to all except the religiously insane, I presume) that no child could ever deserve such beastly parents.
What is deserved is an insane religious consideration that has no value. No one deserves to be hijacked into an existence in a world where misery is universally suffered, only to be denied. Once they're here, mea culpa is irrelevant; it becomes a fight for survival. You are not perceiving optimal Selfishness by imagining the boy should get what he deserves. You should be more Selfish. You should be exclusively preoccupied with what you deserve and that is a future without need.
Utopia is what we all deserve but we won't get there by fighting to control (or not care for) what is irrefutably in the interests of all.
Children don't belong to those who cannot wear the liabilities incurred by their abuse of shared property. This child doesn't belong to this vile screaming whore, he's not her toy to be isolated and exploited and ultimately disposed of. He belongs to Humanity.
This isn't about the boy's interests so much as it's about yours. You should only be motivated by your best interests, and your interests are not being served by the suffering of Humanity's children. They are your future best interests. Do you want them to be more likely to bring you happiness or misery?
The misery of the human race will be assured for as long as humans are ambivalent about the abuse suffered at the hands of those who have nothing to contribute. Leeches lean on everyone else with love & lies. It's all they know.
What do you want to do to her? Kill her. Rip her whore cunt open and grind her face until it rips apart and you can fuck her slutty dead throat since she wants it so much?
The screaming binary mind of the religious Toddler. Hush this psychotic madness. Show me where I triggered such a twisted emotion in your 'mind'. You're just screaming insanity right here. I don't want to do anything to anyone; but she should be rested in peace because she's ruined. But humans are far from being humane enough to be decent when faced with suffering. So the attempt should be made to show her why she cannot be permitted to breed liabilities for Humanity, before being sterilized.
But of course, she's the product of careful planning. Her reduced state is not incidental; Power wants humans to be like this (it's easier to convince them to hand over power).
Why do you think she should keep him? To love him? Give him what he deserves? Validate him? Do what a good mother should?
There is nowhere that I suggested that I want her to do anything. Mothers should love their children the way primates love their offspring; not the other way around.
But the reason mothers raise their children with love is slavery. Children are a cheap source of labour who can be remunerated with love. But you can't eat love? It doesn't keep you warm? It provides no shelter? It's just a feeling that isn't actually tangible so the child's interests are not served by being made to feel it.
But try asking a mother why they motivate children with emotional currency. Brace yourself for the acid.
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
December 27, 2012 6:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well said. The dreams and fantasies of what we want, what could be cloud us from truly appreciating the now, the people we have around us and the love, talent and knowledge they have to give if we listen.
I confront the narcissus in myself as we all do by acknowledging the now of our situation. The context, the content and the surroundings.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 27, 2012 6:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Also referencing the article not the preceding comment to my own. Context people, gotta pay more attention next time I speak...
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
December 27, 2012 9:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I felt dread when I looked into Nemesis' eyes.
And I don't know why.
Coincidentally, the area around the pool was full of burned, blackened plant life.
No. None of this matters.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
December 27, 2012 12:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A long life is not the same thing as a good life. Narcissus never knew himself, he lived long. Had he known himself, he might not have lived long, but he might have lived well. Perhaps that is the point of the story.
Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
December 27, 2012 7:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Last Psychiatrist, you have some good insights and interesting ideas, but why do you constantly scold your audience, presuming to know what they are thinking?
Your authorial voice is so grandiose and condescending. It really makes otherwise good articles painful to read.
Score: -5 (19 votes cast)
December 28, 2012 11:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You could not - I don't think - have more completely missed the point of Alone telling you this story about a guy who chose to be alone -------------- rather than enable all the needy humans who could not lean on themselves nor leave anyone else that had the right to be left alone, alone.
Narcissus has been the victim of historical spin by those who sympathised with Lirirope and Echo; both of whom are guilty of crimes. But what has Narcissus done wrong? What crime has been commited?
Saying ”No” and meaning "No" when you say it? Is this a crime now?
Ask any sociopath and they will tell you the truth. They Know Best for you what you should do. They can't make a case to convince you but they feel very stongly that you should trust them. Because they love you, Silly. So obviously their only interest is your best interest. What does your mother have to show for her life of existing? Did she know best, in the end?
Or did you just forgive her for that lie to you? What's one more....
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
December 28, 2012 11:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Also replying to Dr Lap, but the commenting software didn't play along.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
January 6, 2013 11:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This gave me chills the first time.
Food for thought.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 13, 2013 4:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you for your writing, it makes me think a lot about the direction of my life. Your words are beautiful. Simply thanks.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 7:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
this is just brilliant. thank you TLP for posting this. this explains the last 10 years of my life and MY part in "falling" in love with a malignant abusive narcissist. the pool.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 7:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
obvious troll is obvious?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 6, 2013 5:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
True. But it still doesn't make it okay for this to have been done to him. Break the mirrors, they were erected by a$$holes.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
March 7, 2013 3:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 8, 2013 1:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Perfect piece of writing rich in information. I have been looking for such a post for a long time. Thanks again.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 11:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Really impressed! stunning blog, keep it up, THANK YOU, how to buy youtube views
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 18, 2013 12:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your post had provided me with another point of view on this topic. I have learned a lot from this post.
the tao of badass pdf
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
March 18, 2013 5:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is very educational content and written well for a change. It's nice to see that some people still understand how to write a quality post!
web design tucson
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 8:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You're thinking whether it is true that not loving others comes before loving only yourself
This is so well written. You are extraordinary. Feel privileged to have found you before the rest of the world.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 2:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is a great re-reading, but a re-reading it is. Narcissus knew:
> "No more my shade deceives me, I perceive
'Tis I in thee--I love myself--the flame
arises in my breast and burns my heart--
what shall I do? Shall I at once implore?
Or should I linger till my love is sought?
What is it I implore? The thing that I
desire is mine--abundance makes me poor.
Oh, I am tortured by a strange desire
unknown to me before, for I would fain
put off this mortal form; which only means
I wish the object of my love away.
Grief saps my strength, the sands of life are run,
and in my early youth am I cut off;
but death is not my bane--it ends my woe.--
I would not death for this that is my love,
as two united in a single soul
would die as one."
And not just the flower remains (postquam est inferna sede receptus/ in Stygia spectabat aqua). And dude, this is totally a just-so story for both Echo and the flower--one can find many meanings in the richly suggestive allegories of myth, but that does not prove that The Ancients conceived of them in this way.
Also, you have a very... unusual... idea of what's a "fairy tale"--Propp in Limbo is shaking his head, gloomly.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 7:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This may be an issue I have with the internet in general but I don't get why you post comments anonymously. I don't. Some of you are smarter than me, and some of you are pretending to be. I care so little about who is which that it could hardly be said that I cared at all. Be a person making a comment instead of writing something on a bathroom wall while you're taking a crap. Otherwise you may as well just be drawing dicks with swastikas on them. /rant
I've read a few of the author's posts and I'm not really impressed with his opinions. Clearly he has a much greater understanding of psychiatric techniques and terminology than my own, but it seems like he paints the world with a very pessimistic and cynical brush. People do have to be motivated for their own self good, whatever level it may be at. I read a story about some guy that ultimately killed himself by donating his organs to other people. It seems crazy and non self-preserving, but clearly it would be more psychologically unsettling for him to keep his organs than see others go without. People live and die for themselves, even if it's in the form of altruism or charity or love. Basic cognitive dissonance stuff. That doesn't mean that every person should be labeled with the negatively charged term narcissist. Self interest is an evolutionary necessity, and it shouldn't be damnable by association with its exaggerated pathological forms. People are people, no more and no less. (Does that sound more inspiring to you, or more disappointing?)
As for this article, people see what they want to see, and sometimes they make connections that aren't there. It's a pretty basic story with a pretty basic moral, as much ancient greek mythology is and has. This one just happens to be about narcissism so you think that there's more to be analyzed.
It's your blog, but that's my two cents.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 5, 2013 8:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Vanity, trying to arouse a good opinion of oneself, and even to try to believe in it, seems, to the noble man, such bad taste, so self-disrespectful, so grotesquely unreasonable, that he would like to consider vanity a rarity. He will say, "I may be mistaken about my value, but nevertheless demand that I be valued as I value myself", but this is not vanity. The man of noble character must learn that in all social strata in any way dependent, the ordinary man has only ever valued himself as his master dictates (it is the peculiar right of masters to create values). It may be looked upon as an extraordinary atavism that the ordinary man is always waiting for an opinion about himself and then instinctively submitting to it; not only to a "good" opinion, but also to a bad and unjust one (think of all the self-depreciations which the believing Christian learns from his Church). It is "the slave" in the vain man's blood- and how much of the "slave" is still left in woman- which seeks to seduce to good opinions of itself; it is the slave, too, who immediately afterwards falls prostrate himself before these opinions, as though he had not called them forth. Vanity is an atavism."
Nietzche, Beyond Good and Evil
The growing rise of vanity has nothing to do with the increased self-worth or productivity of our society but rather has to do with its decline: slaves keenly desire a favorable rating or value from their master. In the same way, we have been economically devastated and trained to become dependent upon the praise of our boss/teacher - all the while getting profited from for what Marx would call our surplus value.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
May 6, 2013 2:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You said:
"I know my mother's love was a lie" -- this is a belief common to virtually every narcissist ever.
Could anyone please expand on this? It make sense, and not - it's confusing. It seem like an important statement, so I'd be thrilled if someone would elaborate.
Thanks in advance
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
June 7, 2013 7:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The internet is a mirror.
Reflecting this blog.
Reflecting this comment.
Be your own mirror.
See infinity.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 8, 2013 1:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You said:"I know my mother's love was a lie" -- this is a belief common to virtually every narcissist ever.
Could anyone please expand on this? It make sense, and not - it's confusing. It seem like an important statement, so I'd be thrilled if someone would elaborate.
It's just a lying mother victim-blaming in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that the love of every mother in the entire history of misogyny (that has needed a child) has been a lie. You cannot love when you need love. You cannot care for anyone you need.
Love is worthless when it is needed. Humans are worthless when they're needy. Girls sell their need for love (in a double-feature package deal with sex) and it's horrifying; no matter how many times you ask them, "What is your needy worth? How could you imagine guys would be interested in your needy?" - they won't be able to give you an answer but even more horrifying is that they don't feel any compulsion whatsoever to do so.
They just shrug and move on to the next prospective john; looking for one that is so desperate he's willing to overlook their non-existent value because he needs a wife or a leech on account of not having Self. Or one too decent to realise they are more than willing to help him take care of that problem he's got, with not needing their needy.
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
June 20, 2013 10:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
hey TLP, you got me going with your topics on narcissism. I figured you'd might have some thoughts on this 80's Brazilian song by Raul Seixas (who was very popular in here, and still known by everybody). I kind of translated it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxUu7zcCYdg
if you fell like you don't have enough luck,
if sickness or death have you worried
if you're fearful of hell
of the eternal fire
of god, of evil
I am a star in the outer space abysm
what I want is what I think, what I do
there is no bugaboo in here where I am, no
I go forward in the infinite nothingness
setting on fire my rock, my screams
my sword and the guitar in my hands
if that's what you want in your life: peace,
a lot of sweets, your name featuring on the movies
and you get pissed if the sugar won't come
and you cry, you pray, you request, you beg...
meanwhile, I taste the wine and the vinegar as well
I want temptation on my way
because people are the exercise they do
I know, I know that the purest honey
is just gall gone wrong
and I know that war is a product of peace
what I eat from a full plate
come on, it might be your poison
but how will you know
if you don't try it?
if you find my sayings are fascist,
"mist", simplistic or anti-socialist
I'll admit, you are right on track:
I am fish, I am self, I am fish, I am self, I am selfish
I am, I am selfish, I am, I am selfish, I am, I am...
why not? why not? why not?...
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
July 16, 2013 11:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I've read this four times now. Only for the last time did I focus on this line:
"The secret to the story of Narcissus is that the story is the pool, it is your pool. What do you see in it? It's a reflection and a projection."
Whenever I read TLP, this story included, I think about myself. I apply everything to my problems. Am I a narcissist? Why did I leave my significant other of three years for a coworker? Why am I afraid of progressing the relationship with my coworker? Why am I so anxious around people? What the fuck is wrong with me?
Over a year ago, I started going to psychotherapy as a way to deal with my social anxiety. After a couple of months, I decided I wanted to go twice a week. I wanted to "learn more about myself."
Since then, the anxiety has waned. I've been more aware of my emotions towards people (both negative and positive) and capable of coping with them without second-guessing myself in every angle available. I've been going out on the weekends instead of holing up in my apartment, and I've enjoyed doing it in a sincere way. Maybe it was the therapy. Maybe it was the LSD. I think it was a mix of both.
---
I don't want to know more about myself. What is there to know? What do I have to gain by focusing on the past or future, on how my father beat me or how my mother neglected me or how too many of my peers rejected me for years and I am sometimes afraid that will continue to happen? How does it help me to continue identifying as someone who needs therapy because all of those experiences have shaped me into this abstract identity whose actions must be a constant reflection of it all? That's not what it means to be who you are. It's such a strange question to answer, and people get wrapped up in it because they have a name and a fucking Facebook.
I'm never going to have zero social anxiety. I will never be a super-man who cares nothing about what other people think of him. Sorry, I care. Who doesn't? Sociopaths?
My life is already good. It is enviable by many measures. I have a job I like, and I can afford to go to therapy. I don't waste my time in front of a television. I don't eat a lot of crap. I'm healthy. I have a growing circle of friends after moving across the country and starting fresh. I don't focus energy and anger into politics any more. I can make eye contact with women, and I've found that a lot of them don't reject me. Simply in terms of my behavior, I'm in pretty good shape. I can imagine it getting better, but it's never going to be by ridding myself of all social anxiety or problems. That's not going to happen during the two hours per week I spend talking to my therapist.
So what am I there for? To make sure there is some central conflict in my life: my identity? To "learn about myself."
It's time to end therapy.
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
July 16, 2013 4:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I I I I me me I I I me I I me me I I me me I I I I I me me me I.
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
July 26, 2013 7:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you're reading it - it's for you. I read this a year ago and was fascinated by it. Now I do not find it fascinating. I have cured my narcissism.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
August 4, 2013 3:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I read this a year ago and was fascinated by it. Now
I do not find it fascinating.
I have cured my narcissism.
Thanks for letting us know you've beaten the "I" disease. There's hope for us all.
Please keep us regularly updated.
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
October 16, 2013 11:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Just gonna leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGWO2w0H2V8
Movie trailer for The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
October 28, 2013 10:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Yooooooooooooou
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
October 28, 2013 10:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Yooooooooooooou
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
November 16, 2013 3:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Echo and Narcissus" or "How not to waste your life with Philosophy"
"He will have a long life as long as he never knows Himself"
This is the lesson....allow me to explain. Semantics of "as long as." This can be taken by the reader in a contingent sense, or in a spatial sense. Contingent, we take it to mean "unless he knows himself." Spatially it can be construed to signify time. Wrap your cortex around that for a minute. Narcissus, we are told by Ovid, never died!! He wilted and morphed into a flower. On the surface of the pond, we perceive Narcissus to be perpetually obsessed with his facade, never discovering what is under the surface, "himself." Now I don't know about anyone else but if I were staring at my reflection for eternity, it would not be to merely admire my striking visage. I would be pondering the deeper meaning of life. I would be pondering what was beneath the surface of the pond!! The parable to this plebe is "Don't waste your life with Philosophy." You will never "know" yourself (or anything for that matter), and if you try to know yourself, you will wither into eternity trying. Lesson 2: When Echo (Sincere Love) comes your way, live for that. Regardless of how annoying, toxic, beautiful, or ugly what you love may be...embrace loving, being loved and living IN Love!!
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
January 19, 2014 6:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
To those still wondering about the Hymn: Nemesis is not the goddess of revenge.
"Revenge" is "You have wronged me. I want you to suffer for what you did to me. I will be the arbiter of your punishment."
Nemesis doesn't care about you.
The name "Nemesis" is derived from the same root as the following greek words:
Nomos - "law".
Nomidzō - "think".
Nomisma - "currency".
The verbal form is nemō. It means "to apportion, distribute, divide properly".
Nemesis isn't the goddess of revenge. She isn't even the goddess of justice. To the Greeks, Justice (Dikē) was a representation of fairness, moral judgement, and the established social order.
Nemesis is older, and far less forgiving. No mitigating circumstances. No long-held social customs. She simply knows exactly what you deserve. And then she gives it to you.
No wonder she never shows sympathy to mortals.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
February 3, 2014 4:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
HELLO I just wanted to say thank you so much for doing this for me and many others. At the beginning of the break up I felt like I would never love again and that my life has ended. Thanks to all your advice, I now have the courage to face every new day. My heart has healed tremendously and I feel like I can now really move on. If it wasn’t for your words then I would probably still be in that dark place of my life. Thank you, thank you!”[email protected]. com
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 17, 2014 9:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you for the cover photo. It's beautiful.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2014 1:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think this is Alone's finest post and I think this paragraph is perhaps the most important:
Before Tiresias became a prophet he had spent seven confusing years as a woman, and made two important discoveries about women. First, that women get more pleasure from love making than men. When he told this discovery to Hera and Zeus, Hera, in a rage, struck him blind, which lead to his second discovery: not all women want to hear this.
No one really discussed this paragraph in the comments. Perhaps they overlooked it, unable to accept the implications of betrayal?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 26, 2014 1:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I got an idea that is freaking me out. I should be working no, but cant focus.
Sometime ago I found this article on the internet
Was the myth of Narcissus misinterpreted by Freud? Narcissus, a model for schizoid-histrionic, not narcissistic, personality disorder.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16544197
I started a post sunday, and someone redirected me here.
http://www.psychforums.com/schizoid-personality/topic135417.html
It is making much sense now. The article itself is not very deep, but combining it with this story and with and harry guntrip description, it all makes sense.
I am being masochist, as Narcissism is almost a cursed word.
Personally I see the history of Narcissus in me. But I am ugly and only sometimes girls approach and for a reason I cant grasp. However I am very different from DSM NPD.
I'll ask know at this forum. What you think, does it make sense?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 3, 2014 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why is it presumed that Narcissus had something wrong with him? Is protecting yourself from the malicious intent to blind and enslave you a personality disorder?
Who was Narcissus hurting by rejecting the malicious, entitled needy leeches who wanted to impose their desires onto him without his consent?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 4, 2014 7:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Indeed, who would want a woman who only repeats yourself?
But narcissus has nothing to to with NPD.
First avelock Ellis in 1898 assosiated Narcissus with auto-eroticism
Then Freud used this concept to explain paranoid schizophrenia with Megalomania, but we have to keep in mind the concept of Introversion by Jung that was subject of this paper.
Finally Kohut creates the term.
But this idea is not new, see the article was of 2006. Burt my criticism by that time were mainly three. It was to quick to point Freud, it proposed Narcissus was histrionic, and wellit didnt go so deep in the myth like this one.
But many things make sense from an schizoid point of view.
That part of the mirror is exactly what RD Lang says, and the part of he rejected them because they loved him is fear of attachment.
I am not saying about SPD it is more about schizoid as described by old psychoanalictical tradition
Personally, my doctor said I have no PD, that I am just very ntrovert. My therapist said that I might have it. But the reason my Doctor gave me was more like, you arent experience trouble by it and you indeed have a good self-esteem. But psychology itself havent caught my atention, until recently, but greek philosophy, politics and mythology yes. And as I told, sometimes girls do approache me but I am unresponsive. It may be hard for them.
And by the way many greek words are misinterpreted.
Diogenes was not cynical he was indeed very "humble", Stoic sages werent apathetics, Hedonists werent pleasure seekers, they seeked tranquility.
http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/javanbakht2006.pdf
Anb by the way, I foundmthe full article above.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 5, 2014 8:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"But all of those explanations are your lies working to hide the truth: a nemesis is the one who makes you fall in love with yourself. Without Nemesis, there'd be no story of Narcissus. Without your nemesis, you don't have a story."
The Nemesis is us, your readers. Narcissus is you. You pride yourself on your self awareness on your blog but I believe (not you believe, the way you are fond of stating things), I believe that the only cure to your narcissism is self reflection. You actually have to be introspective and find your "story".
I believe (because it my opinion, not fact) that narcissists can focus on trying to tell you who you are because they cannot figure out who they themselves are. If they don't examine themselves, they don't have to make personal choices and live their own life. Because they see identity as potential for weakness. Why create an identity that could be compromised when you can have lack of identity that can never be compromised?
Don't try to diagnose us. Diagnose yourself.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 5, 2014 10:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I mean, I suppose it could be, if at some point you're no longer interacting with people trying to blind and enslave you.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 6, 2014 10:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If I wanted nothing to do with you, you would imagine I have a personality disorder? You're perfectly insane.
Alone: "You should take note of this first, easy lesson: if no one ever seems right for you, and then the one person who does seem right doesn't want you, then the problem isn't the person, the problem is you."
It's ridiculous that I have to elucidate this fact but no one owes you filthy, sleazy, needy creeps a damn thing. If men don't care to have anything to do with women who need them (when they've been too busy selling sex to care for themselves), it is not the needed men who have something wrong with them. Those who love have a personality disorder. Narcissus exercised his Right to reject putrid leeches, which makes him a mythical hero.
You want to impose. You need others. They don't need you. You want to hurt them, they are not hurting anyone. They're Alone not because something is wrong with them but because something is wrong with you. What is your needy love worth?
If you need, no one needs you.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 6, 2014 11:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you talking to Koerner or Alone?
If they don't examine themselves, they don't have to make personal choices and live their own life. Because they see identity as potential for weakness. Why create an identity that could be compromised when you can have lack of identity that can never be compromised?
Of course this is true about narcissists. They're fragile and terrified of failure because they have no Self. They're all about appearances, everything they do is for show. Unable to cope with the terror of trying and failing in reality, they refuse to try and fail by default. That way, they can at least hold onto the delusion that they could have succeeded, if they wanted. They will even sabotage themselves just so they can say, "I failed on purpose."
I didn't care, you see? I cared way too much.
__________________
Alone doesn't care about appearances. This blog is widely read and respected. If he was a narcissist, his identity would be all over it. Narcissists claim their successes and disown their failures. You know, like parents who ride children into the ground [i.imgur.com/xvQCKyC.jpg]. If the child becomes a champion, the parents are all over them, claiming their 'success'.
If the child becomes a mass-murderer, killing children in a Crime of Passion [i.imgur.com/W2sD4wL.png], don't bother looking for the source of their passion. She'll be out of sight, out of mind.
She knew he wasn't sane. Well he was, at one point. Children aren't born passionately deranged. Their mothers wanted a slave.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 6, 2014 3:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am talking to Alone. Sorry for the ambiguity.
"Alone doesn't care about appearances. This blog is widely read and respected. If he was a narcissist, his identity would be all over it."
Alone's identity, or appearance of an identity, is already all over it. What we know about this anonymous blogger Alone is only because Alone described this "appearance" in his/her blog posts. Rum drinking, misanthropic, cynical. How do we know any of this is his/her actual Self when we can't verify the information?
If Alone was serious about not having an "appearance", he/she would shut the blog down. As a blogger you create an "appearance" of an identity through blog posts. Why does Alone care enough to even keep and maintain a blog if not for "appearance" reasons? If he/she doesn't care about "appearances", what difference would it make if Alone posted a full biography instead of caring about actively preserving anonymity? That would assure accountability for Alone's Self instead of an "appearance" of anonymity that would only leave the readers with a self described character. If Alone wants to get information out there without having an identity, Alone could experiment with posting on multiple different blogs, with multiple usernames, with multiple described identities, writing in multiple tones of voice. That would be more anonymous than having one blog that people go to to encounter the same "appearance" with the same mindset with the same style of writing regularly. That self described "appearance" is identity enough to conform to.
I think Alone has a great analytical mind, but he/she clearly writes as the same character over and over again that the readers must take as the Self rather than an "appearance". The internet is the easiest place to create a character (blogger that blogs in the same place regularly) and live up to time and time again.
(Sorry I'm repeating myself but I just want to make my opinion clear.) The internet promises an anonymity that you can't get in everyday life. Maybe Alone is not a Narcissist, but we will never be able to prove that over the internet.
Also, I think Alone's definition of a narcissist is so all encompassing that all human beings are Narcissists. All interaction with the world has to go through you first, and that to Alone seems narcissistic. Even expressing your Self in any way can be accused of conforming to an appearance for the other person. How do other people know you're not lying about your Self? The only way to not be narcissistic is to keep your Self inside, unexpressed, and realize that whatever you convey to the world can never be believed. But even then, how do you know what your Self is and what other factors influence it? How would you ever know if your Self is truly organic? You can never know your Self and you can never express your Self if you managed to know it so therefore everyone is a Narcissist putting on an "appearance" and playing a character in their heads. I haven't fully fleshed this out, but I think it's enough as a start.
Thank for the productive response. Hopefully, there is a response to this comment too.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 9, 2014 9:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
stirner: Indeed, who would want a woman who only repeats yourself?
Who would want a woman who is limited to polite small talk as she clumsily attempts to determine your suitability for extortion?
[i.imgur.com/G5kxvnf.jpg] (The future of conversation)
[younggirl.jottit.com] Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl (Tiqqun)
The scrawny character of the Young-Girl's language, though it implies an incontestable retraction of the field of experience, does not in any way constitute a practical handicap, since it's not made for talking but for pleasing and repeating.
Blather, curiosity, ambiguity, hearsay; the Young-Girl incarnates the fullness of a misfit existence.
The Young-Girl is a lie, the apogee of which is her face.Men don't want what women reduce girls into being (worthless, entitled, deceit-obsessed whores). Men merely appear to value being deceived. Men don't want to pay for sex and they don't want to carry leeches. But in a world where Beauty is mutilated because Ugly cannot compete, where women hate their betters for being better [i.imgur.com/CIhgF4H.png], where every girl is made to conform to women's slut-shaming, male-enslaving, tribal war-leaching value system (at penalty of death), men don't really have any option but to sleep alone. It is unacceptable to reward women for mutilating their daughters' minds with lies of entitlement [i.imgur.com/O2tV6Lq.png].
Girls who wait for what they deserve imagine they're being shrewd exploiting men. But in reality, they're just too stupid to realise their mothers have owned their stupid faces, tricking them into defeating themselves by waiting for what they deserve for waiting (desperate, needy, ugly, elderly men who will pursue a Toddler whore as she waits for the chaff she deserves).
[washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html]
About 10 years ago, a group of graduate students lodged a complaint with Linda C. Babcock, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University: All their male counterparts in the university's PhD program were teaching courses on their own, whereas the women were working only as teaching assistants.
That mattered, because doctoral students who teach their own classes get more experience and look better prepared when it comes time to go on the job market.
When Babcock took the complaint to her boss, she learned there was a very simple explanation: "The dean said each of the guys had come to him and said, 'I want to teach a course,' and none of the women had done that," she said. "The female students had expected someone to send around an e-mail saying, 'Who wants to teach?'The rest of that article in the Post reveals why female academics are unsuitable for academia. They do not value truth so their interests are not academic. They aren't remotely interested in establishing or explaining why women are effectively a Cargo Cult waiting for shipwrecked cargo to wash up onto their beach, they know perfectly well why women are the way they are. They're just malicious whores trying to obfuscate reality (the emotional mutilation of girls by their mothers and Society).
[i.imgur.com/QU7bF8r.png] (What should a girl do if she finds herself alone in the company of a strange male? Experts say, "ATTACK HIM! After all, being terrified is the greatest weapon you can ever have.")
You couldn't make this shit up. Only women are reduced to being this diabolically malicious.
______________
You've missed Alone's not-so-subtle message, framed to be palatable to women who complain that men only want them for their sole utility:
Alone: "...what kind of a man am I, that attracts this kind of woman? What kind of a man am I that attracts the kind of woman who only likes me for how I look? Despite how I treat her? What kind of a man am I that only attracts the kind of women who like me for X? Is it because there is nothing else of value inside me except X?"
"What kind of a woman am I, that attracts this kind of man? What kind of a woman am I that attracts the kind of man who only likes me for how I look? Despite how I treat him? What kind of a woman am I that only attracts the kind of men who like me for sex? Is it because there is nothing else of value inside me except sex?"
For hundreds or even thousands of years, many women have imagined men were only interested in them for sex, when sex was all those women are good for. A deceitful and malicious mind has no value, leaving only the body's utility. Sex (or malicious inducement of male desire for extortion) is the sole interest of most women. Men have a wide variety of interests. Stand in front of a magazine stand one day and you can see the disparity in interests between the genders [i.imgur.com/nGWAabJ.jpg] Men exploit all value but women just won't accept the truth (about why men leave them or why men consider them good for nothing but sex). Men don't leave women with value. Men leave women when their value has been depleted; if they leave after sex, those women aren't even good for sex.
I wrote a brilliant tweet that got a single RT.
"He made you laugh, you had a great time, so you slept with him. Now he doesn't want to see you again.Because you gave it up? NO.
Because you're a whore."
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 9, 2014 11:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nb. The html blockquote code got screwed up a couple times in my comment above, it was correct in the preview.
How do we know any of this is his/her actual Self when we can't verify the information?
Why do you care about Alone's identity? How is it relevant? He's communicating truth to a broken world of narcissists, many of whom are screaming batshit insane. This is a world where people shoot the messenger, not for deceiving them but for not deceiving them. People present themselves not as they are but as they wish to be perceived. Alone is presenting his identity as unimportant, i.e. you should focus on the message. You're just looking for reasons to avoid confronting truth.
In any case, what makes you think you can verify the information? It's like these shrewd little girls who interrogate me for information their malicious mothers raised them to imagine they can elicit from men; they enquire about my work, my financial situation, my social status, my prospects etc, but they are utter morons. They literally imagine only they have the capacity to present themselves not as they are, but as they wish to be perceived. Ironically, they don't have that capacity. The men they're maliciously trying to exploit game their stupid faces.
Why does Alone care enough to even keep and maintain a blog if not for "appearance" reasons?
I cannot speak for Alone's motives, but I can speculate. It's patently clear he's not interested in self-promotion (as Society idiotically perceives pursuit of one's selfish best interests). I speculate he is motivated to increase the value of his Self and the only way to do that intelligently is to increase the value of you.
The value of this species rises and falls as one. It is selfish to increase the value of others. It is selfless insanity to reduce the value of those you are reliant upon for value, if only to secure exclusive access to their (reduced) value. Women (and most of their children) are horribly confused about how to pursue their own selfish best interests. They tear you down to their level instead of letting you pull them up.
If he/she doesn't care about "appearances", what difference would it make if Alone posted a full biography instead of caring about actively preserving anonymity?
The value of what is said is not a function of who says it, but you're reflecting your mother's malicious need to protect you from truth that would free you. "Only family can be trusted. Don't trust strangers who say bad things about your family. They're just trying to insult you." People who don't like confronting truths will look for any reason that allows them to dismiss it. Alone's anonyminity prevents you from doing that and it frustrates you.
Maybe Alone is not a Narcissist, but we will never be able to prove that over the internet.
Nonsense. Narcissists hate their true Self and fall in love with their projected image. Narcissists have an eroded Self and obsess over pleasing others with their false appearance. Narcissists need external validation, the expressed approval of others, the positive feedback because they cannot validate themselves, approve of themselves or even know how to conduct themselves because all they can think about is how others perceive them. Narcissists are conformists and they endanger not merely themselves but everyone around them as they don't care about your best interests or your welfare. Their only concern is whether you like them or envy them or hold them in high esteem. So they'll let you suffer and/or defeat yourself instead of telling you the truth you need to hear. They can't afford to lose you or risk your thinking poorly of them. Their need makes them sub-worthless.
I wrote another brilliant Tweet (0 RT):
To HELP you cope with rejection, your Mom & friends will tell you how great you are. They care!About you? No.
About your opinion of them.
Alone is not a narcissist so he can speak truths you don't want to hear. He doesn't need your approval. He doesn't value your corrupted opinions, but I'd wager he'd like to? You need some value first (i.e. you need not to need).
Also, I think Alone's definition of a narcissist is so all encompassing that all human beings are Narcissists.
They are, with the exception of anyone who doesn't need to present a false image of themselves to gain the approval of others (in shame of their true Self). Babies and toddlers aren't narccissts. I suspect most nudists aren't narccissts. I am trying not to be but I suspect I'm too broken to ever completely validate internally. Anyone who relies upon the expressed opinions of others to gauge their worth or feel good about themselves is a narcissist (and it's insanely self-defeating to value the expressed opinions of liars, for reasons that should be obvious but aren't realised by most people).
The only way to not be narcissistic is to keep your Self inside, unexpressed, and realize that whatever you convey to the world can never be believed. But even then, how do you know what your Self is and what other factors influence it? How would you ever know if your Self is truly organic?
The only way to not be narcissistic is to be true to your Self. Concealing your Self is narccisism. Express your (true) Self.
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
- Shakespeare
You need to stop caring about whether other people believe you or not. Believe in yourself. Care about yourself. Protect yourself. When you no longer need to censor yourself or conform to others' opinions about how you should suffer to please them, you will find your Self.
"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed."
- the Buddha
When you need, the Needy will help you suffer to ensure you need them. The Buddha understood the 'value' of external help.
Another Tweet (0 RTs):
Sociopaths need you to suffer or you won't need them. Your suffering brings you closer to them.
Priests, therapists, mothers, friends...
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
April 5, 2014 12:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
what are moder nversions of the story?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 5, 2014 9:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A fascinating stories and new details related to Narcissus very attractive, everything is always cause and the details of its removed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 6, 2014 9:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps I am prone to magical thinking, but the sliver of synchronicit(y/ies) I seem to be experiencing recently have this posting of yours being read immediately after I read this. It's a thought shared by Humanist RK. I think you may find some of his discussion of interest.
If you leave comments on his material, chances are he will strike out, but understand that's his way of being nice, of respect and such.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 6, 2014 9:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Strike-through the last two lines of my last post ^^ (paternalistic)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 7, 2014 3:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm interested in synchronicities. I need to learn more about this kind of stuff as I'm not entirely unfamiliar with statistics and the conformist I used to be would routinely censor and suppress "impossible" (statistically-implausible) incidences. I simply saw no benefit in ever thinking about them, let alone bringing them up conversation.
I cannot believe I only heard about this stunningly brilliant idea the other day. The logic is very solid. We've got to be in a simulation. I really don't see how we're not, if we accept the premise that it's theoretically possible that our development will reach the stage where computers will have the power to run simulations on this scale (and I think that's a given), then we have to be in a simulation as it would be farcical to presume we're the original civilisation that will develop the technology (recursion makes my brain hurt, but mathematically, if it's ever going to be possible, we basically have to be in one).
________________
I think Richard Kulisz is clearly intelligent but I can't take anyone seriously if they're not talking about early childhood development and the cannibalistic nature of women. For thousands of years, our species has been enslaved by mothers' perfidy; a biological betrayal (one of many) so vile and horrifying.... No one will ever be able to be as evil (defined as: culpable for suffering) to us, individually, as our mothers. Our very existence is illegitimate.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2014 11:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
How do you make a child know himself? You surround him with mirrors. "This is what everyone else sees when you do what you do. This is who everyone thinks you are."
You cause him to be tested: this is the kind of person you are, you are good at this but not that. This other person is better than you at this, but not better than you at that. These are the limits by which you are defined. Narcissus was never allowed to meet real danger, glory, struggle, honor, success, failure; only artificial versions manipulated by his parents. He was never allowed to ask, "am I a coward? Am I a fool?" To ensure his boring longevity his parents wouldn't have wanted a definite answer in either direction.
It's interesting what Alone is doing here, playing on Society's corrupted value system, mimicking the child-mutilating, war-mongering tribe's obsession with defining children by their identity (artificially constructed for them by the manufactured need to compete / fight with each other rather than cooperate for mutual advantage / shared happiness).
Who defines honour, the dishonourable creeps who slut-shame girls as they send boys to die for lies? Who defines success and failure and why would the struggle be important? Who are we struggling against and more importantly, why are we struggling at all (if we're not cannibals)?
Parents condition children with the illusory need to prove they have these creepy, exploitable traits (as defined and bestowed upon vassals by the plantation Massa).
Is it a good thing that children are told they're cowards or fools? Is it a good thing that children are allowed to meet real danger? Is it important to strive for glory? Who defines what is glorious, the same people who say it's important to strive for it? Bunch of filthy creeps preying on children (i.e. yourselves).
He was allowed to live in a world of speculation, of fantasy, of "someday" and "what if". He never had to hear "too bad", "too little" and "too late."
He never had to feel bad because he was never forced to compete with others to define himself. He was never made to feel like a failure so he never had to prove himself to anyone but himself.
This is healthy. Society's mutilation of children is pure sleaze.
When you want a child to become something-- you first teach him how to master his impulses, how to live with frustration. But when a temptation arose Narcissus's parents either let him have it or hid it from him so he wouldn't be tempted, so they wouldn't have to tell him no. They didn't teach him how to resist temptation, how to deal with lack. And they most certainly didn't teach him how NOT to want what he couldn't have. They didn't teach him how to want.
I can't believe I missed this. "When YOU want a child to become something..." - parents never care about what their children want because it's all about using children to keep up appearances. Making children suffer to please others. Children are considered a reflection of their parents (not real human beings, they have no rights, no options, no minds of their own to decide for themselves, they're slaves for utility and disposal). As no one is happy, everyone is fighting, everyone is inflicting suffering on others, lying, using violence, taking offence - I'd say the reflection couldn't be more damning.
Is it important for children to be made to live with frustration, to master their impulses, to learn to live with temptation? Is it important to teach children NOT to want what they cannot have?
Why teach them to want in the first place? Why teach them to be frustrated, to control their shameful desires, to endure without giving in to dangled temptation? Why teach them to suffer?
Christmas is so f creepy. Presents bought early, concealed and left sitting there to tantalise and titillate children for no reason (read: evil reasons).
"Good things come to those who wait."
- mothers
How does that Cargo Cult 'logic' work?
"He's making a list and checking it twice
He's gonna find out who's naughty or nice
Santa's whores are running the town."
It's a game to condition children to learn how to want what they cannot have, to enable their manipulation. Mothers induce artificial desire to exploit their children in the way women induce artificial arousal to exploit men. Mothers are teaching the virtue of behaving as temptation (alcohol, sex, liberties, etc) are dangled in front of children who are told "You're not old enough [to have fun]." Temptation...like a girl twerking to induce desire she intends to leverage into more suffering, for only the most decent reasons involving extortion, exploitation, slavery and death.
"We must teach boys not to rape. Because rape is wrong. Good boys respect girls' Right to maliciously insult and degrade them. Only bad boys are allowed to steal all that valuable, illicit sex from girls who say 'No means no', and mean it. Thou Shalt Not Rape. You're not allowed to have that forbidden fruit."
- feminists
Vomit. They're marketing rape as a prize, as if it had value that's off-limits to all but the brave. "He who rapes, wins." It can appear that way, to a spectator. But there is no prize, or value, to be stolen. Women spend their youths perfecting skills to induce desire. One wouldn't tweak in front of a White Supremacist in prison if one wasn't keen to be loved from behind.
The result was that he stopped having desires and instead desired the feeling of desire.
Desire is suffering, by definition. To stop suffering would be pretty good, but you couldn't be manipulated. Happiness isn't exploitable. Only suffering and need can be leveraged.
Narcissus's parents were demi-gods-- didn't they know how to raise a good son, what a proper parent needs to do? Yet they listened to a charlatan anyway. They were given meaningless information by a supposed expert and abandoned all common sense, and so created a monster who brought death to at least one person and misery to all.
Aha. We know Tireseas wasn't a charlatan. We know common sense is insane. Narcissus was a monster? What did he do? The guy that killed himself was a gay guy that loved Narcissus, even after Narcissus had rejected all male suitors. Narcissus gave him a sword because Narcissus was humane. Is it Narcissus' fault that everyone suffered? Or were they to blame for their rapey love being rejected? If I loved Natalie Portman, would it her fault if I suffered with unrequited longing? Is she supposed to return the needy love of every infatuated jerk with an obsessive need to isolate, control and cling to her?
How is Narcissus the bad guy?
Alone is mocking the psychotic interpretation of imposing creeps who believe they're entitled to rape men, for life (it's called marriage, feminists are notably cool with it).
The moral of the story of Narcissus, told as a warning for the very people who refuse to hear it as such, is that how Narcissus came to be is irrelevant. What was important was what he did, and what he did---- was nothing.
And if everyone was as monstrous, we'd live in Paradise. No lies, no violence, no agony, no temptation, no unrequited desire, no control of corrupted wants, no war against our natural impulses, no shame of biological desire to suppress and conceal, no misery, no war, no need. Nothing to feel bad about. Everything to feel good about.
If only we were all as monstrous, doing nothing to each other and nothing to children. That would be a beautiful, magical, selfish world of beauty and liberty.
There wouldn't be a human alive who wouldn't be willing to die in defence of such a world. No one wants to die in defence of this one, which is the logical proof that everyone should die or at least, stop breeding life to suffer / sacrifice.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
April 24, 2014 12:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry you were abused as a child but both genders are at fault for the state of the world. Get some therapy.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 24, 2014 2:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You might want to think on that myth for a moment and consider another conclusion- at least at that early step of the way, Buddha did the most rational thing he could, which was to calm himself and get himself into a good headspace, one from which he could function better. Horrified and overwhelmed does very good little to anyone. The Buddha had just been confronted with the very innate condition of humanity- not just a crowd of people suffering from one singular, potentially remediable condition. He had discovered not that there existed human beings who were suffering, but that the nature of reality itself was that people were to suffer, some of them greatly so.
If that wouldn't send one into a tailspin then I don't know what will.
Now, as for his basic conclusions and the rest of his mythic life chasing Nirvana for himself through really funky meditation sessions veering on narcissism (though he did proselytize his path , that's another story.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 25, 2014 1:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TQ for kind and generous sharing. U have illuminated n expoundeded the story/legend brilliantly. Very impressive.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 25, 2014 1:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TQ for kind n generous sharing. U have illuminated n expounded the story/legend brilliantly. Very impressive.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 9:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I was finding myself lost in my marriage. My husband Tyson and I have been married almost 15 years. We had UPS and downs in these years. I however felt recently our love seems to be slipping away. Instead of husband and wife I feel like we were roommates than lovers. I felt he was losing his love for me and all I wanted was our love back like before. I came across [email protected], by hope and faith of a help. Thank goodness I found [email protected], We have three wonderful children that I didn’t want them to face the problems that we have. [email protected] helps us restore our loving strong family. Thank you again for being there for everyone. I also pray for other couples going through hard times to find their help in you as you are such a great man.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 2:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you so much. This won't be in vain.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 8, 2014 11:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Brenda Kent - This is not Modesty (Youtube)
Vancouver Youth Poetry Slam
We were taught to avoid mirrors
Mirrors in puddles and store windows
Mirrors in our own cameras and the windshields of parked cars.
We learned this from many teachers
Often times, more than we need
Often times, more than we even know about.
We were told that if we stared too long
At our reflections, we'd go blind.
We were reminded of Narcissus' slow death
Of his parched throat from lack of water
Body aching, stomach shrunk to the size of a plum
Dried up tears leaving ghostlike trails on his cheekbones
Impossibly mesmerized by the gaze of his own eyes.
We were told to stop looking at ourselves
We call this a lesson on
"Don't be so full of yourself" and
"Why are you so self-centred?"
Except what is so wrong with being full
On the days we feel so empty?
Is there harm in being centred
When our balance is so off?
I learned how to put on mascara at the age of 14
To make my eyes look bigger.
At age 16 I would straighten my hair every day
And at 18 I barely ate
So I would look slim in my prom dress.
When prom finally came along, us girls,
We took turns complimenting each other's dresses
The ones on the receiving end savouring those sweet words
For seconds at a time
Only to brush them off like burning ashes.
A game of "Thanks, but..."
"Thanks, but the top keeps getting ruffled around my waist"
"Thanks, but I look so pudgy in a sleeveless"
"Thanks, but I really like yours better."
The key is, always look your best
Tell people you feel your worst but kind of joke about it
Because we cringe when we hear someone say,
"I absolutely love the way my body looks today"
But we also shy away from the words,
"I fucking hate myself, I wish I was someone else."
It's kind of like how we're allowed to joke about being lonely
But never to admit the truth behind it.
Allowed to say, "I've got no life"
"I'll end up a lone woman with 24 cats", and
"I'll be spending my Friday night with my friend NetFlix."
But the second you admit
How you've lost anyone you ever cared about
How you never truly feel connected anymore
How you really - really - wish
Someone - anyone - would invite you out tonight
Suddenly the room gets tense.
Have you noticed this?
So to the people who say that
A girl who's sexy and knows it is hot
But the one who doesn't realise it is beautiful
To these people I say bullshit.
Having a low opinion of yourself is not modesty
Having a low opinion of yourself is self-destruction.
So the next time you find yourself
Confronted by your own reflection
Be it in a mirror, puddle or store window
Stare a little longer.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 12:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now, as for his basic conclusions and the rest of his mythic life chasing Nirvana for himself through really funky meditation sessions veering on narcissism (though he did proselytize his path), that's another story.
No, you don't understand. The Buddha was Narcissus. All the evil and suffering in this world is inflicted by people who hate / love because they do not love themselves. When your Self has been eroded by people who wanted your love, you will be needy. You'll be an intolerable threat to the welfare of everyone around you.
The Buddha's light"If you truly loved yourself, you could never hurt another."
“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.”
“Purity or impurity depends on oneself, no one can purify another.”
“You are the community now. Be a lamp for yourselves. Be your own refuge. Seek for no other."
“You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.”
“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.”
“Doubt everything. Find your own light.”
“Do not look for a sanctuary in anyone but yourself.”
“Even as a solid rock is unshaken by the wind, so are the wise unshaken by praise or blame.”
“Attachment leads to suffering.”
“He who loves 50 people has 50 woes; he who loves no one has no woes.”
"Fear nothing. Depend on no one. Only after you reject all help are you freed."
The Buddha understood the value of needy help and malicious women, of the sort who help you need them. Like mothers, et al.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 10:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First sentence. About you.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 9:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The Buddha was not a narcissist. He started his solitary retreat after seeing an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and a holy man. To him that provoked a unbarable feeling of pity, to the point that he believed that he had to do something about it.
But I ve liked the author interpretation of Narcissus Myth.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 5:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Buddha was not a narcissist.
I didn't say he was. I said he's Narcissus, the polar opposite of narcissists. It's the difference between having Self and having an eroded Self. It's the difference between truth and false.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 12:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I never had it in mind that thing were ever going to come back to normal, My name is Frank Silver and i am so pleased to thank Dr Ekpiku for doing what he knows how to do best that is bring back lost lover. My lover and myself has some stress with each other and it let to our break up, After a while i was missing my lover and i needed Him back but he refuse to pick my call or reply my mails or test message. During my search on the internet i saw the details of Dr Ekpiku which were via email: [email protected] and i contacted Dr Ekpiku and by his help i was able to get my lover back within 48 hours. If you are having any stress in your marriage or relationship contact Dr Ekpiku today so that you can also testify of his powers
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 12:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't think people take away from this story enough about the story of Echo. One can assume that this nymph or whatever she was talked and talked and talked her whole life. her life wan't dedicated to action but talking. Hera didn't arbitrarily put that curse on her, that's the curse that befalls anyone who talks lives their life through their words without applying action.
You just become some echo of what other people told you. This is especially relevant for the media. So many people unconsciously echo media narrative because they've never been there they've never had to live through these experiences in their lives. Everything you assert, right or wrong is what someone else told you beforehand.
Echo and Narcissus go hand in hand, those who do little in their life, expose themselves to little real experience are ultimately only able to Echo what they hear, see, read. The narcissistic aspect comes in to play when you judge yourself, which isn't based on what you actually do in your day to day life.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
August 5, 2014 1:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Narcissus did not suffer nor did he live a unhappy life because he did not believe he was separate from what he desired or lacked what he admired. Because he was not conditioned into suffering, because he did not grow up, because he remained "like a little child" who is allowed to remain in the "kingdom of heaven," he maintained the ability to practice unconditional love--desire without the the need for validation or reciprocation. He never let himself mistake the symbol for the truth, or the finite for the infinite. Imagining potential is not "doing nothing." It is the purest form of creation, it is being one with the divine. It is what it means to be in flow, to lose track of time, to not experience time, and therefore be in an eternal state. Narcissus was spared the human existence of being fractured into seeking what he "lacked" from external sources. His cup remained full. He did not need, and was therefore repulsed by the sight of the desperation of the people who fawned over him. No, he did not experience the human story, which is why the idea of him bothers us. The idea of being satisfied in and of our own selves bothers us, because it is what we all long for, yet don't allow ourselves to do--and because of this, we all hate Narcissus and want to see him punished for not suffering. We hate that, human beings who don't suffer, because it is so entrenched in our own narrative. You're happy and proud of who you are and love yourself and put your own well being first? Must be a narcissist, therefore evil. You can look at your own being and love what you see, every last part of you? That's so messed up. Society tried to punish Narcissus by not allowing his love to be reciprocated, but that punishment ultimately fails on the one who is already complete and who has completely lost a sense of self or ego. Pretty ironic story. You know the prophecy really meant? "He will live in a timeless state if he never creates an ego."
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
August 11, 2014 8:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Society tried to punish Narcissus by not allowing his love to be reciprocated, but that punishment ultimately fails on the one who is already complete and who has completely lost a sense of self or ego.
This was well-noted.
It is amazing how people can hate a fictional character. I've been reduced to yelling "What was his crime? WHAT WAS HIS CRIME?"
They can't tell you what his crime was but they keep on hating him for being better than them, for not loving or needing them. They're all horribly abused stalkers, really. Creeps raping toddlers with their violent love, bullying kids in private, shattering them into pieces, playing dumb when you ask why the only species that could communicate in a number of nuanced ways has the exclusive need for violence to raise slaves. Snivelling vermin, so pious and certain that their victims need their 'protection', isolated from anyone who might intervene. "Just fuck off." Hah. They can't be rid of that easily. They Know Best how to help you need them. "This will hurt me more than it hurts you."
A world of loving Joe Fritzls.
"One can no longer live with people: it is too hideous and nauseating. Owners and owned, they are like the two sides of a ghastly disease." (DH Lawrence)
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
August 24, 2014 2:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thought you'd enjoy the study Alone. Apparently narcissists don't suffer in insight.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0103469
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 20, 2014 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So what you're saying is: Everybody is narcissistic, therefore nobody is.
Really?
Everybody is human. Does that mean that nobody is?
Obviously there is no point in calling somebody a human, but we can and do classify actions, experiences, behaviours and performances in a scale that ranges from inhuman to very human, to superhuman.
There's no reason not to use a similar scale of narcissism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 20, 2014 4:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The problem with narcissists is their need for narcissistic supply---that's really the only issue. They do huge damage to other people because they need them only as mirrors. What they CANNOT do, and this is significant, is hurt a HEALTHY person who is unafraid of facing truth. That person they cannot harm. They harm only the weak and fearful, which is most of us. In a world of healthy courageous people, they would be considered harmless eccentrics. So their power is an indictment of...US.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 20, 2014 6:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What they CANNOT do, and this is significant, is hurt a HEALTHY person who is unafraid of facing truth.
Oh really.
Say a healthy person, unafraid of truth. Being healthy, he desire connection, trust, bonding. Rejection hurts, especially coming from someone highly valued.
I know that people have experiences with "narcissists" which have them convinced of the of a sort of "otherness". That sense of "something else, the other" will fade as you learn more about yourself.
It's a prop for funneling out the content of their wicked minds - I know, been there. I flamed everything narcissistic
Wish Alone would write that post.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
September 20, 2014 9:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
sure there's a sting to it, but a healthy human being knows that he is capable of connection and joy with others beside the narcissist. He or she moves on, possibly with some regret. Don't get me wrong; I think that healthy, strong, courageous people are in the serious minority these days. So yup, lots of people are getting maimed by narcissists. I just shrug...figs in winter, figs in winter.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 1:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
that's the trick. if it bothers you, you're a narcisist.
because, you know, everybody doesn't think about you too. without "yet".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 7:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Are you a Narcissist if you introspect constantly to find things you've done wrong because you don't know if accusations are true or not? What about if you always blame yourself?
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
October 12, 2014 8:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You thought nemesis meant enemy, you thought it meant the person who always opposes you, the one you struggle most against. A person who is something like you, but the opposite.
But all of those explanations are your lies working to hide the truth: a nemesis is the one who makes you fall in love with yourself.
My interpretation: I don't have enemies, there is no adversary, no opposition. Thinking in terms of opposition is the mindset of someone else.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 3:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Say a healthy person, unafraid of truth. Being healthy, he desire connection, trust, bonding. Rejection hurts, especially coming from someone highly valued.
The need for connection, trust or bonding are open narcissistic wounds. These are hooks whores use for exploitation. A healthy human has no need to connect, no need for trust (there has never been a need for trust, in all of human history) and no healthy human ever needs to bond with another human being.
Guess how much need a healthy human has?
Rejection cannot hurt when you value truth. All false criticism is dismissed (invalid / irrelevant). All true criticism is craved (value).
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 3:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you a Narcissist if you introspect constantly to find things you've done wrong because you don't know if accusations are true or not?
Probably. Why would you be confused about the veracity of accusations, otherwise? You do not love truth. Why would you need an accusation to trigger introspection? A healthy Self has clarity, there are few surprises.
What about if you always blame yourself?
I think it would depend on the blame. If it's productive and intelligent blame, it's not narcissism. Most of the time, we are - at least, partly - to blame for nearly everything that happens to us.
If you're accepting blame when you're not to blame, it's not good.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 5:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What do you see in it? It's a reflection and a projection.
From my perspective, you're the one who wrote the book.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 5:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From my perspective, you're the one who wrote the book.
Does it come with a manual, a how-to? I enjoy plain english.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2015 8:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I dated a guy for about 5 months, I totally feel happy whenever i am with him. We got along great never fought but one night, i had much drink on me and then got a little jealous and then embarrassed him in front of his female friends, Because of that he broke up with me right there. For the first week i tried to do everything in my power to get him back but all were in veil. Till a friend introduce me to this great man called Dr.Eziza of [email protected] I was surprise when Dr.Eziza told me that my lover will come back to me within 3 days. But the good news is that my lover is really back to me now all thanks so much Contact Dr.Eziza of [email protected] or +2348058176289
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
March 6, 2015 5:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To : justsomenewagebullshit.This is one of the best analysis for the mind of Narcissus himself. Who is to say that a life as content (if not complete from a worlds perspective) as his is not good enough.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 13, 2015 4:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear author,
your writing style scares me. Really good.
Tom
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2015 10:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you, I have recently been searching for information about this topic for a while and yours is the best I've found out so far.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
April 13, 2015 9:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, it's been a couple of years of reading, off and on, this post. I turned it into a little booklet because it was so interesting to me, but I couldn't figure out why.
You know how sometimes you "get" something, and then later "really get it?" That just happened to me. The part I was struggling with was the meaning of "Because he never loved anyone, he fell in love with himself. That was Narcissus's _punishment_."
I won't try to unpack the significance. But what's still left of the undergrad lit major in me from a couple of decades ago is just thrilled with this new reading. This would be really well received in Greek Studies.
Anyway. Thanks.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 13, 2015 5:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This was very insightful, many people would have strong opinions about why you wrote it the way you did, but really it's just your style of telling a story. It was nice, I felt that it was a blunt message as if it was a lecture from a parent of sort or a figure in which teaching a child a lesson.
It was really relevant to what I have been experiencing in life, Nemesis representing the Goddess of Vengeances could possibly also be another interpretation or perspective of 'Karma'.
It's a very metaphoric story and you done a great job interpreting and opening up my perspective through your description of everything.
Narcissus was always so ignorant of the world and the possibility of desired and focus to know more about his "love" that he was blinded by the people who could enable his sight of love to begin with. The pool could also represent a reflection in which you said, represents and symbolizes someone's identity in the reflection, showing one's surface, but not realizing that it does not show your personality, the internal questions that cannot be answered by mere reflections. He wasn't looking into himself with that reflection, but the image in which he saw was somewhat a illusion in which he was focusing on. He didn't love himself, for Echo wasn't heard, for Echo could also represent his inner-voice and heart that he didn't follow because he was so focus on what he thought wasn't true to him because he was so focused on his "perfect" situation of desiring only ONE idea of his "love".
Very interesting indeed, It's amazing what the ancients have collected and created over time. Being in the minds of one of them is truly profound.
Thank you for this, very insightful indeed.
Van
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 13, 2015 5:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This was very insightful, many people would have strong opinions about why you wrote it the way you did, but really it's just your style of telling a story. It was nice, I felt that it was a blunt message as if it was a lecture from a parent of sort or a figure in which teaching a child a lesson.
It was really relevant to what I have been experiencing in life, Nemesis representing the Goddess of Vengeances could possibly also be another interpretation or perspective of 'Karma'.
It's a very metaphoric story and you done a great job interpreting and opening up my perspective through your description of everything.
Narcissus was always so ignorant of the world and the possibility of desired and focus to know more about his "love" that he was blinded by the people who could enable his sight of love to begin with. The pool could also represent a reflection in which you said, represents and symbolizes someone's identity in the reflection, showing one's surface, but not realizing that it does not show your personality, the internal questions that cannot be answered by mere reflections. He wasn't looking into himself with that reflection, but the image in which he saw was somewhat a illusion in which he was focusing on. He didn't love himself, for Echo wasn't heard, for Echo could also represent his inner-voice and heart that he didn't follow because he was so focus on what he thought wasn't true to him because he was so focused on his "perfect" situation of desiring only ONE idea of his "love".
Very interesting indeed, It's amazing what the ancients have collected and created over time. Being in the minds of one of them is truly profound.
Thank you for this, very insightful indeed.
Van
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
August 6, 2015 2:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Good write-ups are always a motivation for the readers. This particular article belongs to that category as it is highly inspirational and holds the breadth of the reader and force to read it out in a single stretch.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Comments