Analysis of a despicable friend

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:13 pm

Doable only with magic.


Suggests at the appointed time will be doable without magic.

[b]
Then after arriving here to this stage , it becomes obviously clear to them through the invisible world of non being , that they are at one with time on the everlasting : they live in an eternal plasma.


I would signal ... "Being without form".

At the moment we are being within form.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:21 am

Being has but one objective ... to shed it's form.

Being naked is much more comfortable than being fully clothed ... provided one's privacy preferences are maintained ... ergo ... being stays within form for this reason.

The fall back position is the struggle to have form con-form to being.

Therein lies the underpinnings of "Being Evolution"
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:25 am

[quote="pilgrim-seeker_tom"]Being has but one objective ... to shed it's form.

Being naked is much more comfortable than being fully clothed ... provided one's privacy preferences are maintained ... ergo ... being stays within form for this reason.

The fall back position is the struggle to have form con-form to being.

Therein lies the underpinnings of "Being Evolution"[/qu
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:47 am

[quote="Meno_"][quote="pilgrim-seeker_tom"]Being has but one objective ... to shed it's form.


Yes before this happens Being is transcendent, after, becoming one dimensional, blending to other formless invisibles, shadowy creatures, held together by various energy systems from lower red to higher blue as described in the Tibetan Book of.the Dead, reacting to Karmic Laws.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:57 am

J ... are we still on the same page? ... just checking. :-)

Seems the boat we're in is approaching the demarcation line separating banal human existence with let's simply say the "other" ... figuratively speaking.

For me, no individual or group of individuals has the copyright/patent for charting the territory of the "other".

My feeling is entry to the "other" is by invitation only ... excluding entry by 'magic' of course. :-)

Do you feel an invitation is required? If yes ... do you feel you are being invited?

Do you have a secure tether? ... some people talk of difficulty getting back at times.

Perhaps we're at the impasse you mentioned a few times.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:05 pm

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:J ... are we still on the same page? ... just checking. :-)

Seems the boat we're in is approaching the demarcation line separating banal human existence with let's simply say the "other" ... figuratively speaking.

For me, no individual or group of individuals has the copyright/patent for charting the territory of the "other".

My feeling is entry to the "other" is by invitation only ... excluding entry by 'magic' of course. :-)

Do you feel an invitation is required? If yes ... do you feel you are being invited?

Do you have a secure tether? ... some people talk of difficulty getting back at times.

Perhaps we're at the impasse you mentioned a few times.



I do agree with You.the invitation of course, may be mitigated by the projective identification. , which remarks the object of this discussion. , may be lurking beneath the tumbling furious river, who need no invitation since he, Frank, did not need an introduction. Nor require one when we started the discussion about him.But knowing Frank as i do, he doesn't mind, proof of patent agreements.He is far to preoccupied to be able to spend more then necessary above water, his demons raging as the terrible foaming effects , veer him higher and tither and he has little energy left to fight over the many formed directions the river has achieved to follow.Getting back, yes that is a problem, (reminds me of the beetle lyricks 'get back' and Bob Dylan's film 'dont look back')-in call diversion bla test whether one Can in fact get back with out looking back.


Later, my friend , duty calls for now.
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:54 pm

Back . Frank is a desperate man, and I know him only too well. He stays away sometimes not leaving his place, and his. borders are not well defined. He belongs to another time when it was a literary fashion to be intimate with someone he learned to trust

But the more I got to know him, the more I got the impression that he would swing between a willingness to sustain a thought he learned in the military, of the immediacy of the need for trust , as a requirement. For survival. And he drank, he drank to remember and at times to forget.

The net effect of such relationship became , as time would pass, a mix between a push and pull between us, a need to dig deeper, but in his sobriety a feeling that too much has been said.

There was periodic impasses where he would merely write a few paragraphs , and when they stoppes coming, at first I was alarmed that perhaps something happened to him, where as the truth lay merely in the naked truth of spoken or written block.

He would then , after he reappeared from some kind of hibernating instinct, look at me with that accusing look, that could only be attributed to a child. That made him rather endearing , and arose the feeling that he must have felt at those times ; that I agreed with his unfounded idea that I owed him something on basis of what has already went down between us.

I'm still torn occasionally on that , but suppress it into the depth of that great tumultuous flowing thunder of that river.
The next day its like the storm never happened, and regained its gentle serene flow unto the great ocean.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:05 pm

Frank is, the typical post modern man, and here Deleuze and Guattari can help out, in the view of the meaning of multiplicity , where so-called objective subjective realities may overlap within and without definitional paradigms . If these types of considerations also impinge on Zizek's idea of a bubble world, and that may be a stretch , but is certainly considerable from the point of view of geometric similarities.

Getting back reconsidered: "Do You have a secure tether?"
I don't know the answer to that, only that security and free expression are at times antithetical. One thing though, the ability to expand from basic ideas into other matters barely relevant, testing the capacity to return to the original disposition, does in fact at times increase the subtle texture and multi dimensional structure of the matter at hand :Frank's situation
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:01 pm

J ... utmost caution is prudent ... feels like you need more time.

My take on Frank ... he declined the invitation and got pulled in despite his resistance ... a familiar enough story.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:21 pm

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:J ... utmost caution is prudent ... feels like you need more time.

My take on Frank ... he declined the invitation and got pulled in despite his resistance ... a familiar enough story.




He had no resistance, for at the time although all was revealed to him, he was quite drunk. But he was a long8 time drinker, so he may have feigned it, so he may have wanted to let it out.

Perhaps Your right , I may require more time , but if I feel feel as You do, I may decide to give myself more time; , its Your call, but You needn't worry about him, its acquaintance, and trust my judgement about him.

As friends go, though , I have developed a certain required responsibility for him, which I cannot ignore.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:29 pm

I wonder if Irrelus is around , he had a friend quite similar , much more in trouble as I recall, bit perhaps he may be otherwise occupied. He has a long standing psychology forum here , .
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:12 am

I have long believed we encounter who/what we need to encounter to continue our personal journey through life.

Intimate friends are often a mirror reflection of ourselves.

I agree that the collaborative effort of three minds ... life experiences ... have more potential than two.

Ierrellus is likely one of the passive readers.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:32 am

Even when he is anchored in the river he appears as moving against the movement of the river, the whole objectified reality built only to reduce words to mimic a sensible world has built up the absolute necessity to believe in himself, now that he had to transcend god into the self of his own making.

Early on the hint , hissing through deception , -god helps those that helps himself- offered a simplified version of a more practical god, with the man-god idea dissipating the paranoia that such loss of a transcendental God's power have created.

Frank needs to go on by sheer exercise of self determination in spite of, the loss through the erosion of his transcendental ego(which was really his connection to god &, had to be reinvented,) to augment a synthetic extension of a bridge to higher artificial intelligence.Who will exceed these expectations but such?

Have faith Frank, God has been proven, by superintelligence.
A new dawn, where everything is possible has arrived.

Just a thought , for him to be able to regain the loss of paradise, the night is still long, with slumber descending, the universe sleeps with a sense of harmony and peace. Through the loss , : paradise regained.

Emerson comes to mind, who, in his praise of individualism, where Plato and Milton are singled out , as thinkers, who were able to propagate ideas without reliance to any references.
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:15 pm

Navigating the "dark night" challenges all individuals who experience it ... some in the extreme.

Frank is fortunate to have such a kind friend. I remember Ierrellus writing in a thread somewhere that sometimes individuals struggling with various degrees of anxiety/depression simply need someone to listen and respond kindly.

I have tasted mild paranoia ... not a pleasant experience ... yet ... perhaps a necessary building block. Who knows eh!
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:17 pm

Hello Pilgrim!


So far we have made incursions into some channels and directions in the way societal/personal issues could be looked at, and i don't see anything compromised that would lead one to believe that we arrived at a fork in the road, where directions may carry one far afield , to unrecoverable beginnings. Ideas are thrown out, but not willy-nilly, as do various tackle thrown in to catch some kinds of incoherent sets or patterned signals, but in order that a major sign or metaphore could be then reconstructed


In my opinion we still only barely scratched the surface, more can be done.

I think it was Levin, who was said to fail in a mathematical demonstration of these patterns , in a psychological context


Touching on perceptive effects on states such as transparency and invisibility continues to be my main under stream preoccupation, and as all ideas deeply buried within the rushing current, , slowly moving in depth, remains a germain signifier.

The night's terrors dispersed with then coming daylight , and the river depth appears clearer to an increasing degree, although the opposite riverbank has not made seeing it anymore visually accessible. The the river-bend made the depth as quizzically even more shrouded, creating more levels of uncertainty and ambiguity.
.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:20 am

Your comments trigger a memory of Lao Tzu thought:

Who can make the muddy water clear?


Momentarily reflecting on these words here's what bubbled to the surface ...

1) Certainly stirring the waters doesn't help ... ergo ... rehashing what is already known ... regardless the source.

2) OTH ... inhaling/ingesting/digesting the muddy water ... transforming the "mud particles" to transparent crystals and exhaling the clear water ... will help.

3) Seems to me science does this ... replacing superstition with scientific fact. Philosophy to some degree and religion only at the level of intuitive concepts such as ...

Julian of Norwich, we live in the belief that, irrespective of any present darkness, the ending of our story is already written, that in the end all will be well and every manner of being will be well.


4) The 'body of muddy water is unimaginably large ... yet ... science tells us that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Personal experience confirms this. :-)
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:01 am

More emerging thoughts ...

inhale/ingest/digest = absorb

Examples of 'mud particles':

hatred, anger, violence, jealousy and murder itself


the antithesis of absorb creates mud particles such as:

envy, resentment, bitterness, vengeance, impatience, anger, factionalism, idolatry, and sexual impatience


Mud particles transformed creates clear water such as:

charity, joy, peace, patience, goodness, long-suffering, fidelity, mildness, and chastity.


Today's readings seem to echo this particular e-exchange:

"Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again;
but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst;
the water I shall give will become in him
a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:59 pm

I was being analyzed at the time and what comes really through by what You are saying is the parting shot she made, very similar to Yours minus the religious overtones.

Life she said was like a jar dull of sediments, once in a while its prone to be shaken, upsetting the sediments , making the water look muddy. Give it time and the water will become clear again.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:50 am

Meno_ wrote:Life she said was like a jar dull of sediments, once in a while its prone to be shaken, upsetting the sediments , making the water look muddy. Give it time and the water will become clear again.


Were her words prophetic? ... or ... Are you still in the phase "Give it time"?

My understanding of the Lao Tzu quote ... "Who can make the muddy water clear?" sees the water as having always been muddy versus at one time clear and becoming muddy. This interpretation fits the historic unfolding knowledge of reality.

Her suggestion raises two questions:

1) She doesn't address the underlying cause of the serious disruption of your neuron pathways and circuitry.

2) Seems counter intuitive to expect that your former neuron pathways and circuitry ... having been thrown off the rails ... would return to their previous state.

Reminds me of the children's nursery rhyme ... Humpty Dumpty

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again


Humpty Dumpty.jpg
Humpty Dumpty.jpg (7.22 KiB) Viewed 2045 times
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:23 am

More emerging thoughts ... I'm going out on a limb here ... forgive me if I offend you. I too have had a couple of failed experiences with psychologists and psychiatrists ... though this certainly doesn't make me an expert.

1) She doesn't address the underlying cause of the serious disruption of your neuron pathways and circuitry.


I failed to consider the possibility that you and your analyst agreed on the underlying cause ... which pointed to a particular triggering event.

In time, you appointed yourself judge jury and executioner ... eventually declaring yourself guilty.

Since the system wouldn't punish you ... you had no choice but to punish yourself ... you're doing a fine job ... though lots of collateral damage.

Let's hope in time brother 'doubt' will visit you and encourage you to revisit your prior judgement .... who knows where such an event may lead.

Have you seen the movie "Horse Whisperer? There's a profound subliminal message in the movie for those with eyes to see.

Horse Whisperer.gif
Horse Whisperer.gif (45.53 KiB) Viewed 2038 times
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:51 am

Have not seen the horse whisperer, but realize their keen aptitude in communicating with the animal
For instance we , my wife and I in India took a ride on am elephant and the elephant took a trail which snaked in an upward walk dangerously close to the edge of a very deep drop, but the trainer, who owned and raised it, had a very close animal man relationship, where they communicated closely , an instinctive trust had been the result. There was no caiae for us to worry, he assured us..

This has ramifications toward trusting our instincts, our based. on our animal nature, . and learn to rely on it. when our cognitive faculties fail us.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:09 am

Profoundly insightful comments ... for some "flesh on the bones" for those readers who prefer more than a skeleton ...

The Divided Self
For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what
the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed
to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.
—St. Paul, Galatians 5:171
If Passion drives, let Reason hold the Reins.
—Benjamin Franklin2
I first rode a horse in 1991, in Great Smoky National Park, North Carolina.
I’d been on rides as a child where some teenager led the horse by a
short rope, but this was the first time it was just me and a horse, no rope. I
wasn’t alone—there were eight other people on eight other horses, and
one of the people was a park ranger—so the ride didn’t ask much of me.
There was, however, one difficult moment. We were riding along a path on
a steep hillside, two by two, and my horse was on the outside, walking
about three feet from the edge. Then the path turned sharply to the left,
and my horse was heading straight for the edge. I froze. I knew I had to
steer left, but there was another horse to my left and I didn’t want to crash
into it. I might have called out for help, or screamed, “Look out!”; but
some part of me preferred the risk of going over the edge to the certainty
of looking stupid. So I just froze. I did nothing at all during the critical five
seconds in which my horse and the horse to my left calmly turned to the
left by themselves.
As my panic subsided, I laughed at my ridiculous fear. The horse knew
exactly what she was doing. She’d walked this path a hundred times, and
she had no more interest in tumbling to her death than I had. She didn’t
need me to tell her what to do, and, in fact, the few times I tried to tell her
what to do she didn’t much seem to care. I had gotten it all so wrong because
I had spent the previous ten years driving cars, not horses. Cars go
over edges unless you tell them not to.
Human thinking depends on metaphor. We understand new or complex
things in relation to things we already know.3 For example, it’s hard to think
about life in general, but once you apply the metaphor “life is a journey,”
the metaphor guides you to some conclusions: You should learn the terrain,
pick a direction, find some good traveling companions, and enjoy the trip,
because there may be nothing at the end of the road. It’s also hard to think
about the mind, but once you pick a metaphor it will guide your thinking.
Throughout recorded history, people have lived with and tried to control
animals, and these animals made their way into ancient metaphors. Buddha,
for example, compared the mind to a wild elephant:
In days gone by this mind of mine used to stray wherever selfish desire
or lust or pleasure would lead it. Today this mind does not stray and is
under the harmony of control, even as a wild elephant is controlled by
the trainer.
Plato used a similar metaphor in which the self (or soul) is a chariot, and
the calm, rational part of the mind holds the reins. Plato’s charioteer had to
control two horses:
The horse that is on the right, or nobler, side is upright in frame and well
jointed, with a high neck and a regal nose; . . . he is a lover of honor with
modesty and self-control; companion to true glory, he needs no whip,
and is guided by verbal commands alone. The other horse is a crooked
great jumble of limbs . . . companion to wild boasts and indecency, he is
shaggy around the ears—deaf as a post—and just barely yields to horsewhip
and goad combined.
For Plato, some of the emotions and passions are good (for example, the
love of honor), and they help pull the self in the right direction, but others
are bad (for example, the appetites and lusts). The goal of Platonic education
was to help the charioteer gain perfect control over the two horses. Sigmund
Freud offered us a related model 2,300 years later.6 Freud said that
the mind is divided into three parts: the ego (the conscious, rational self);
the superego (the conscience, a sometimes too rigid commitment to the
rules of society); and the id (the desire for pleasure, lots of it, sooner rather
than later). The metaphor I use when I lecture on Freud is to think of
the mind as a horse and buggy (a Victorian chariot) in which the driver (the
ego) struggles frantically to control a hungry, lustful, and disobedient horse
(the id) while the driver’s father (the superego) sits in the back seat lecturing
the driver on what he is doing wrong. For Freud, the goal of psychoanalysis
was to escape this pitiful state by strengthening the ego, thus giving
it more control over the id and more independence from the superego.
Freud, Plato, and Buddha all lived in worlds full of domesticated animals.
They were familiar with the struggle to assert one’s will over a creature much
larger than the self. But as the twentieth century wore on, cars replaced
horses, and technology gave people ever more control over their physical
worlds. When people looked for metaphors, they saw the mind as the driver
of a car, or as a program running on a computer. It became possible to forget
all about Freud’s unconscious, and just study the mechanisms of thinking and
decision making. That’s what social scientists did in the last third of the century:
Social psychologists created “information processing” theories to explain
everything from prejudice to friendship. Economists created “rational choice”
models to explain why people do what they do. The social sciences were uniting
under the idea that people are rational agents who set goals and pursue
them intelligently by using the information and resources at their disposal.
But then, why do people keep doing such stupid things? Why do they
fail to control themselves and continue to do what they know is not good
for them? I, for one, can easily muster the willpower to ignore all the
desserts on the menu. But if dessert is placed on the table, I can’t resist it.
I can resolve to focus on a task and not get up until it is done, yet somehow
I find myself walking into the kitchen, or procrastinating in other ways. I
can resolve to wake up at 6:00 A.M. to write; yet after I have shut off the
alarm, my repeated commands to myself to get out of bed have no effect,
and I understand what Plato meant when he described the bad horse as
“deaf as a post.” But it was during some larger life decisions, about dating,
that I really began to grasp the extent of my powerlessness. I would know
exactly what I should do, yet, even as I was telling my friends that I would
do it, a part of me was dimly aware that I was not going to. Feelings of
guilt, lust, or fear were often stronger than reasoning. (On the other hand,
I was quite good at lecturing friends in similar situations about what was
right for them.) The Roman poet Ovid captured my situation perfectly. In
Metamorphoses, Medea is torn between her love for Jason and her duty to
her father. She laments:
I am dragged along by a strange new force. Desire and reason are pulling
in different directions. I see the right way and approve it, but follow the
wrong.
Modern theories about rational choice and information processing don’t
adequately explain weakness of the will. The older metaphors about controlling
animals work beautifully. The image that I came up with for myself,
as I marveled at my weakness, was that I was a rider on the back of an
elephant. I’m holding the reins in my hands, and by pulling one way or the
other I can tell the elephant to turn, to stop, or to go. I can direct things,
but only when the elephant doesn’t have desires of his own. When the elephant
really wants to do something, I’m no match for him.
I have used this metaphor to guide my own thinking for ten years, and
when I began to write this book I thought the image of a rider on an elephant
would be useful in this first chapter, on the divided self. However,
the metaphor has turned out to be useful in every chapter of the book. To
understand most important ideas in psychology, you need to understand
how the mind is divided into parts that sometimes conflict. We assume
that there is one person in each body, but in some ways we are each more
like a committee whose members have been thrown together to do a job,
but who often find themselves working at cross purposes. Our minds are
divided in four ways. The fourth is the most important, for it corresponds
most closely to the rider and the elephant; but the first three also contribute
to our experiences of temptation, weakness, and internal conflict.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:34 pm

Its funny.how this transpired. How this narrative from the divided self, was one which I have actually lived through, and don't recall seeing anywhere.

Bit the content being the same is astounding

Which brings me to the left and right symbol. And it was after we came back from India that I had the strange experience of having a cognitive dream in which I was climbing a very steep hill, and upon reaching a point very near the summit I came to a fork in the trail and I had to make a decision as to which way to proceed, left or right. I chose left and was relieved to find a beautiful valley.

The reason I was relieved was that the day previous, In Lumbini, three wasps bit me on my right check causing a severe allergic reaction , which according to a monk in the Chinese temple was a sign of guilt for which the insects' punishment cleared my consciousness. Be as it may the reason for our trip to India was some kind of illumination or atonement for my son"s death

Now whether the left side represents more them merely the oppoaite of Right (Good) ; or Left (bad) could be too contentious interpretation, because it would have entailed more opposites. The irony here is that the wasp stings were on the Right side.

At this time we are talking about Frank, who could in fact stand for someone or anyone, generically, whereby the guilt may be a figurative quantification of any type of perceived wrong, lesser or greater. Causation is very difficult to discover, and minor disturbances of affect can be tied to a major effecting cause. In Frank's case the affect is plastic, and flat, and to me it speaks of many underlying and unsatisfactory opposing contradictions between the left and the right. Frank is not alone, absolutely, in the sense that these partial and cut. off segments play a role in interacting between them. Any I'd-ego-superego configuration can generalize. The undertow, through ,which the partiality can be discovered, as generalized and hypothetical.

But such generalizations can not comprehend the subtle interplay of specific hidden , large metaphors of exposed objectivity as regards to the dynamic build up .This is why Levin failed, with the mathematical topical description of apparent dynamic - as some kind of map. What I illustrated in the case of the three wasps may actually be equated with the I if , ego , superego triad, but inasmuch as nothing about dynamics between animals and men is truly categorical. It really can't connect to underlying motivation, even if, the idea is accepted, as some kind of panpaychic phenomena .

Your son's breaking off, for instance may be also a representation of a state of death between You and Him, although metaphorically this may be stretched to the limit. The dynamic undertow , however may be more similar, then not. Continue in the morning.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby Meno_ » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:03 pm

Before. returning to bed, a tie-in I should add j here. to oppose Laimg's idea of 'knots' a title which topically opposes it.

Shelley and the Romantic Movement terminated the idea of the personification of evil, as a heroic figure , and the underlying underlyingidea animated from Johm Milton through his Paradise Lost/Regained work. through this influence, that major cut off competed with the tie ins.

Major motives motives at times are hidden under minor ones, manifesting denial and unconscious neurotic behavior
symptomatic of very large aggregates of major conflict, like a huge underground piece of iceberg below the surface. This is why my preoccupation with invisibility and transparency. Its not overly allusivennes that shows a lack continuation, but missing pieces resulting in large empty spaces in-between
I will let it go with that because it's nearly light Sunday morning and must get some sleep
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Analysis of a despicable friend

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:09 pm

Bit the content being the same is astounding


It is kinda kool eh! Begs the question ... What isn't coincidence?

Be as it may the reason for our trip to India was some kind of illumination or atonement for my son"s death


an echo of my earlier post ...

Since the system wouldn't punish you ... you had no choice but to punish yourself ... you're doing a fine job ... though lots of collateral damage.


Your son's breaking off, for instance may be also a representation of a state of death between You and Him, although metaphorically this may be stretched to the limit. The dynamic undertow , however may be more similar, then not.


My son's decisions/actions have been replicated in one form or another by his four sisters. As I mentioned in an earlier post ... my five children are granting me a great service. The consequence of their actions ... my isolation ... fuels my efforts towards achieving ultimate individuation.

Major motives motives at times are hidden under minor ones, manifesting denial and unconscious neurotic behavior
symptomatic of very large aggregates of major conflict,


An echo of my first post in this thread ...

An alarmingly accurate microcosm of the Western Psyche ... intentional or otherwise. :-)


Paraphrasing the title of your OP:

SOS ... Please Help!!


Countless people around the world utter the same cry every day ... consciously or unconsciously.

... and they get the same response.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron