The Depths of Narcissus

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.

This… is very true, for those that reach this stage/the end game, pushed, to an abyss… too dramatic? No! not enough!

I’m not inferring to gene/religion/ethnicity specific, but individual specific.

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.

see section on ‘bad faith’: albany.edu/~ron/papers/sartre.html

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.

Yeah…what he said.

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.

I was referring to you.

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.

Haven’t I made that point in the thread Ideal vs Real?

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.

Happy Holidays!

I put to you… anyone who reads this post, that narcissism is simply a form of self-awareness?

I swear I said a bit about narcissism a while back to clear up the clumsy use of the term in the mouths of psychologists. As a concept it’s been given a bad rap, and as a healthy narcissist I felt obligated to come to narcissisms defense. Where was it… hold on a minute…

Kay. Here it is.

Seems like I was basically saying that most usually narcissism as criticism isn’t insightful enough and probably just from someone drinking haterade. What they talkin bout are poser narcissists, not healthy narcissists who are the most modest and humble where it really counts.

Makes some sense, after all narcissism , philosophical, modest, vampiric, or what exactly, basically for into the most general criteria of insight, namely that which runs along each and every degree of continuum related self esteem. It does not matter of it is poignant and.carefully designated , with minimum reliance on whether it’s genesis lies on an indigenous process or , it has some exterior effective causal derivitive.

An assessment can be made whether it’s inception was consistent with an intentional causal reference.to basically reassert the once meaningful assurance to reassert a being that was taken fraudulently , by exogenic factor, which down the line may have been removed from it’s conscious element, and as such became open to more insight by upgraded analysis , in pro per, or by some one else.
The structural hierarchy pointed out above, at.the minimum signals a need to assess a prima facea case of determining intentional or, unplanned gestures of posing in good or bad faith to paint a picture of determinate or unfounded narcissistic personality.

Be as it may, at the most archaic level, even for an advanced.thinker, it is difficult to write this down , in any other general terms, other then as in primally defensive gestures, such as denial and projection, since higher intelligences may be driven more.by needs.of.association then it’s opposite.

This distinction may be narrow or broad, and even within that structural meaning it is hard to define a narrative whether it is more pointed toward an affective or effective compensation or, whether it really is merely an effort to recompense , to affect or to effectively regain a structural decomposite change, either long lasting and become fairly rigid , or it has possible openings , or niches, that can decompose lost variable associations.

The whole idea ultimately rests on the fact that preliminary prima faciae evaluations are impossible, and assertions on the contrary usually indicate a failure on part, or in part( my favorite starting point) to transact without using the compensation by the archaic methods pointed to above.

I used to be a narcissist until I worked out I was better than that.

Ha ha , Good one Tabby ! ( and don’t be hurt, it was captain crunk. who called You that first, and I think it may be a good fit as well)

Perfect fit for one being deeply shallow.

That’s the most narcissistic thing anyone could have ever said Tab… was that your intent? :stuck_out_tongue: lol

youtu.be/ZvIYaYvVImc