I’ve never heard it put like that before, but that was why I, and probably many, became non-practising RC/religious, because if you wait for a god to care for you, you’ll be waiting forever… so experiencing autonomy from the restraints of a religion, whilst young-enough to grow from it, becomes preferable to uncertainty, of one’s life, and very existence.
Well yes, narcissism can be borne through religion and in-groups etc, but the spurned can cause narcissism in others to manifest… a friend was spurned at a local Bierodrome by a barman, who was relentlessly hitting on him, and as he proceeded and then continued to ignore her advances, she turned on him, calling him arrogant and such… I felt sorry for the guy, and I don’t blame him for how he reacted, in becoming indifferent to her continuing onslaught.
So sometimes narcissism is justified and necessary, but I doubt you, Surreptitious75, will agree?
Cult of Innocence? lol Sounds like a movie title or a dodgy sect, but I’m sure you’d say that that’s exactly what it is… a dodgy sect.
most of the narcissism we’ve come to understand belongs to people who’s pride and self-love is observably disproportionate to what we would expect to warrant that right. trump, for example. clearly a narcissist, but also clearly an uninteresting, untalented nobody who’s rise to power is purely circumstantial… not the result of exhibiting talents that nobody else could, therefore making him exceptional. he’s just a guy born into money, and because of that money, ended up in a position of power.
now because of people like this we’ve learned to associate narcissism with a concept that has become collectively accepted, developed and cultivated in modern psychology as a kind of disorder. the world is so full of flakes like this, we are no longer able to perceive an instance of warranted pride and self-love… because they all ended up being fakes. likewise, we then associate what we now call a disorder (because so many flakes have it) with a defense-mechanism… and naturally so. clearly, because trump is a flake, his exaggerated pride and self-love is unwarranted, but it has to be caused by something… so it must be a complicated psychological condition that generates it.
okay, but here’s the thing. there are people who are genuinely exceptional, absolutely in love with themselves, couldn’t care less what anyone thinks of them, and aren’t ‘compensating’ for anything through the same kind of delusion the flakes exhibit in their own unwarranted narcissism.
the difficult part is sorting those from the others, and its here where the observer comes into play and affects the outcome of the conclusion. typically anyone who rules absolutely that narcissism is a ‘disorder’ has either a) only observed the flakes, or b) observed exceptional people who they then become envious of. and this is why i said earlier that modern understandings of narcissism have come to be closely related to resentment. ordinary people don’t want to feel ordinary, and so despise people who feel/are extraordinary by virtue of that. basically the concept becomes something like this: ‘how dare you think yourself great while i have nothing great to identify with myself.’
and it may also be because such people have never experienced such an elevated sense of pride and self-admiration themselves, to be able to know that these things aren’t always results of psychological defense mechanisms. they then presume, as a result of their inability to experience a genuine case of it themselves, that anyone else exhibiting signs of narcissism is undeserving of it.
that is to say, they have to interpret narcissism either as an expression of the disorder of the flakes, or as some alien state of uniqueness/exceptionalism and self-respect that they are unable to have themselves. it’s the kind of thing where if you know, you know. or better yet, it would take one to know one.
when speaking of narcissism, speak only to narcissists (the real ones, i mean).
You are closer yet to truth. Primal narcissism is different from secondary, one is inherited, the other learned.
Constitutionally, primal narcissism It’s self is weird, it’s inherited grates are ambiguous, where do inherited traits form a process which tend to become forms of recognition? WmHow are structural processes interact with pre established forms of alignment with receptors, that take the upper hand in neural communication within and without the forms themselves, that determine how they are processed?
The whole 9 yards of philosophical inquiry concerns this generic relation with a priori versus a posteriori interplay.
Trump, in my opinion , is, a genius, albeit a PRI I lived one, who is able no only project identity on basis of the historically formed gaps of dependence on reified ideas that were formed out of instituted synthetic perceptions, all down a deconstructed line of reasoning, but he can, construct to envision an objective criteria, made up of many socially relevant types of concerns, which do cause neurally challenged preceptions to begin to actually perceive that the Cause, the cause begs of the challenge such a realization, to cause a rupture, or an existential solution to states of being, when it becomes domain to primordial catastrophic concerns.
I believe catastrophe is on everyone s mind, people of higher intelligence vary as to their interpretation as to what route such must take.
That for starters. It’s individuals that the crises of both ways constitute the. most glaring state, that the union ever experienced, since the civil war.
However public sentiment based on the science of politics is vastly stronger today then it was in the 19th century, a d the era of kingship is so most dead in the water.
Those who decry Spengler, have been ultimately been proven mistaken as to the meaning of Capital. We have passed as a united world, in realizing, that socially stratified partially differentiated classes of people, can not only form credible associations, but would rather, then to end up burned on a horrible auto da Dr of an ultimate sacrafice to an unforgiving blood thirsty god, who is beginning to doubt in Creation IT’s self.
Such he a enly doubt would extinguish by immolation Being into Nothingness, and the problem then is an ultimate reduction into the imbicilitu of God Himself.
Of course God would need not fear such an event, and denial would cause Him to actually swallow his creation into a state, staged in the finest garments imaginable, to tempt, in order to at that precious moment, all the world into believing that as in Genesis says, " It Is Good".
What is the intent attributed to God here?
It is based on a grand Oracle, that after this horrendous process of generic self doubt, One will come, t
In an effort to renew the contract between god and man, even gods with men, so as to prevent the collapse of continuous existence.
This now shifts, in a vast kundalini energy build up, resolutely proceeding from the other form of belief, of the ontic belief, in a mind game alike to truth and/or dare, the bounding of the explosive energy released when the artificially simulated transformative power of the will directly connects the unimaginable absolute set to every soul in the planet, which in terms can effect every subordinately less intelligent spacial colony in the universe.
Only the higher universes survive, and they can not interfere, for formally organized reasons, that they are by now absolutely bound by
So at that point the different jobs are mere partial tra rd with huge gaps, that only the highest firms of heavenly realizations can attuned to in a calculus if contingency.
The Highest us probably a multifirm triumphirate a Napolianic set, who have achieved relative gigency, where they check and balance, them selves into a one , so that they do note mate, by any form of temptation, even that of pleasure bursting it’s own facade.
That facade , mate, is the extremely brittle skin by which they can hide their venomous connivance, by which only the children are permitted re cognition, a re cognition which exists for all to perceive, but simply can’t.
The children of God even a god can suppress not to realize, for that would become aximoronicall.
The Jews have been done has been fought up in this process, primarily and maybe because circumstantial effects of being There.
Being there, but where , is the ultimate question, consisting of unanswerable genealogy, dusproportionality, and thematic countervalances.
The ultimate based us adapted from division of self and matrix, of calculation and survival , and the propagation if the faith to survival.
For the ulprimate mantra is based on loss and not of gain.
Emotions evolved to deal with specific stimuli that increase survival and reproduction.
An animal has no problem with self-love because ti lacks the source of nihilism: self-consciousness.
Only humans can develop this due to their ability to compare self with other.
Nihilism offers a defensive relief, then exploited by religions and politics and marketing.
A semiotic shelter.
There is a continuity between animals and man, they can not evoke self consciousness based on our sense of it, but they compare for dominance , at least significantly, the male of the species. Up until fairly recently.
To know one’s self is to know the entirely. The primal. The irrational. That which dare not reveal itself - sometimes not even to itself.
we live in the lucid part - I use ‘ego’ to differentiate it from the other two parts of identity.
egoselfSelf.
animals offer insight into the self, the middle part, as it relates to past - before birth - that which is inherited genetically.
An unbroken continuity of memories.
Here the differentiabiliry is occasionable between what is called the genetic and the memetic, and that differentiabiliry is calculated by means of expediency, so new constructed constitutions have to be interpreted.
That way, some states of measurability depend on the various modes(models) of interoperability,.
This is necessarily the element that becomes the reasonable modality of interpretation. The center You allude to represents an inversel derivation toward a causal grey area, more inclined to adhere to primary forms of identification.
Just musing on signification of co existential binary interpretations, as a signal toward further signification.
To most, this is tantamount to a sense of reduction to absurdity, based on a sense of stability as a common and naive sensibility.
It appears, this common sense approach is do for revision, since it becomes a matter of. it’s self, by it’s sense of apoathesis.
In other less symbolic sense, the unbroken continuity metamorphs into less and lesser. capped gapped interpretations, and conversely -more and more in a reconstruct ed revision.
the only part of the ‘self’ that is irrational or not is in reasoning, where language and the logic of grammar combine and work in tandem… hence why we don’t call physical things ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’, but only thoughts, conclusions, motivations, expectations and the like.
moreover, the theory that there is an effective subconscious realm that guides and gives intention to thoughts we are conscious of, presumes the subconscious is able to give intentional direction to what arrives in consciousness as a result of its influence. but again, anything below or before the stage of conscious reasoning can’t be rational or irrational simply because it doesn’t take place in language. so there is no ‘irrational self’ waiting to be discovered and accepted through some kind of philosophical method of ‘knowing thyself’. rather, it’s the interpreter who places those monsters there himself (freud and jung often did this) by utilizing lines of reasoning that attempt to describe behaviors as being motivated by secondary intentional influences (the subconscious). these psychologist’s mistakes are either made honestly by being ignorant of this impossibility, or by doing what nietzsche once called ‘trying to pull into the foreground everything despicable about man’… which, on account of there being no possibility of a subconsciousness directing behavior, only reflects the malevolent intentions of the psychologist to belittle his subject.
self deception exists, ironically, in believing that there is an irrational aspect to some part of man that must be discovered below and underneath his lucid self. rather it’s because man needs to believe there is more depth and substance to his being/behavior than simply being the consequence of multiple, non-teleological causes pushing and pulling him about for no reason. he delights in thinking himself a secret even to himself, then believes he becomes the philosopher when he goes to investigate what he thinks is there, but is not. for you this is especially obvious, as you fancy yourself as a psychologist who reveals for us ‘the hidden essence of everyone’s degeneracy’ with all kinds of philosophical word salads and language games that are’t the least bit empirical. but that’s just it; what is available empirically about human nature and the ‘self’ is incredibly simple and doesn’t allow one to project their own confusions, misgivings and malcontent onto it. for that reason, philosophy has a very limited role here… and philosophers hate that. especially the misanthropic type.
nothing is given to judgement and reason except what comes immediately to consciousness, and the entire subterranean world of supposed unconscious desires and motivations exists as nothing more than inert physical states (neither rational or irrational), without purpose, reason, intention or desire. one does not not ‘know thyself’ because they haven’t yet let some pseudo-psychologist implant in them reprehensible feelings of doubt, fear, shame, and the like, and feel they need to ‘examine’ themselves. no. one doesn’t ‘know thyself’ because there is no depth or substance to this instruction. there is no ‘self’ to be searched for here. at least not the kind of ‘self’ these wind-bags are looking for.
ain’t that a wonderful irony? all this time they thought ‘know thyself’ was the hardest of things to do. in fact, discovering and accepting that there is very little ‘self’ here to be known, is the hardest of philosophical admissions. but not everyone has the minerals to be a nihilist.
Except the idea that there is primal re cognition of displacement of irresovable pre reflective elements of what supposed to be a recog is able set of elements in rcogmatipn of the primal gaps of a quisituon of knowledge.
The k knowledge of primary identification of primary motives under lying the procedure to recognize the comparative phase of
identification via the program of
unacquired sets of inherited characteristics, whereby the original intent is established.
The evidence for that lays the structural indifference between what model of reified requirement or conditions which arguably can be entailed.
The fight or flight mechanism was pre eminent within the domain of a reducible flow of even a re instruction of available knowledge. based on the evidentiary de instruction of available data.
Can a judicious modern person use this with an analogous set of pro n.a.?bilities ?
It is not at all above the convolution of what is in ‘evidence’ as a probable conviction.
But he said was in a conjectural set of perceptive autonomous judgements. that is yet to be simulated in a cohesive Set, of phenomenal intentionality.
What that was grounded in, remains an enigma.
Lets see, how that corresponds to sets of re integrated criteria. Most would welcome a release from such an obligation at best, or a requirement at worst.
There, reference is am inference , a con lecture, that is analogous to the difference between ideal and prescriptive general interpretations.
I hazard an absolute identification between the One and the other, as a mere calculated effort to collude the two.
But in fact , they are different as The Baptist is from the baptismal.
And thank You to point that out, if that was your intention.
You know, the continuity may be reestablished by my review of that, but if that supposition stands, there may still be a point of agency of arguability, wether the credible justification of that is sufficient.
But assuming that is justified, can there remain a difference that overcomes absolute ideas of reference?
So may I grant you as much?
If not, then is there sense to a view which succeeds in the jump from belief to truth? Or like the condemned of Althea , is there an wywrnal Faustian doubt as to , whether Odessyus learned from that experience of primary vision?
I am not as idiotic to resign my self to remaining in a self constrained residence to a depth that can not bear the it’s own recogniscence.
That would be placed in the grayish shadow world of the unrecognizable.
By matter of the principle of the power of the will, that is out of the question.
The world is unconceivable.
The eye interprets, the mind interprets again, each time distancing from the source.
Art is all we have. Being lost in it, is a man’s final escape. Being lost in himself, hoping he’s seen enough to stay alive for a little longer, as he crawls into his own mind.
And that may be a position most of us are finding ourselves in, the grayish ego ridden area of pragmatic utilitarian hope for a betterment, without reliance to facts to cover our tracts for a possible retraction of record, an existential jump into an uncertain future.
An existential contraption, yes, but one with more promise then the mere empty reactionary naive symbolism which the inexperienced is tantalize with on very shallow basis of modeling.
Such occurs very early, and is set almost in stone, as the endearing qualities with which to support the earliest signifier, as significant other.
Such seeming insignificance of early and adaptable qualifications, gain momentum by the numbers.
That is, where the politics of inexperience can lead us.
Contraversally, the opposition may incline a formative channel as well, but like two stellar entities ; one is a shining star, the other a burnt one an appearent a black hole , one will incorporate the other.
Then significance of what is reformed. The judgement day, is almost a far gone conclusion.
Altogether they either diminish, or signify a becoming.