Emotional Illusions (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 252)

If emotions are constructed from limited data rather than direct perception, similar to the way vision and memory are constructed , then, as with perception and memory, there must be circumstances when the way the mind fills in gaps in the data results in your “getting it wrong.” The result would be “emotional illusions” that are analogous to optical and memory illusions.

For example, suppose you experience the physiological symptoms of emotional arousal for no apparent reason. The logical response would be to think, Wow, my body is experiencing unexplained physiological changes for no apparent reason! What’s going on? But suppose further that when you experience those sensations they occur in a context that encourages you to interpret your reaction as due to some emotion—say, fear, anger, happiness, or sexual attraction—even though there is no actual cause for that emotion. In that sense your experience would be an emotional illusion.

To demonstrate this phenomenon, Schachter and Singer created two different artificial emotional contexts—one “happy,” one “angry” —and studied the physiologic aroused volunteers who were placed in those situations. The researchers’ goal was to see whether those scenarios could be used to “trick” the volunteers into having an emotion that the psychologists themselves had chosen.

Subliminal, How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior

Leonard Mlodinow          2012

Cribb Comment: Several experiments have been performed to explore and examine the validity of this theory. The results have strongly suggested that most people are not perceptive or engaged enough with reality to even accurately understand the root cause of their emotions. In other words, they make shit up that fits into the “reality” that they prefer to believe or that happens to be pervasive in the herd so that they can comfortably conform. It further logically follows that this psychological maneuver is the linchpin enabler of withdrawal and withdrawal is the primary means of avoiding auto-corrective objective reality to maintain persistent excusable or justifiable delusion.

2018

If You Can Just Answer the Question (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 251)

She was always the victim. It did not matter how much effort I willingly expended to be with her or how many uplifting and supportive direct compliments I gave her which she simply refused to hear or how much I stabilized her entire pack. She was always the victim unless she got to be the silent bully and do whatever she wanted, whenever she wanted, without complete consideration of the ultimate consequences to the entire pack, the pack that she said she loved. She was broken. I knew why and I had pity and empathy and resounding faith in her fractured spirit that it would choose to heal itself instead of slinking deeper into false excuses of fear and victimization; deeper into withdrawal from objective reality so that she might rule her own universe without question, without balance. . . without her having to expend the vulnerable effort and posture of maintaining respect for someone she could not control.

I said “I need you to do this for me. Name one time, anytime at all in his whole life, that your father hasn’t considered himself the victim. Just one time, anytime, that he wasn’t always running around doing whatever the hell he wanted to despite the wishes of and responsibilities to his wife and children. Even as he was over-dominating you and breaking your spirit as a little girl, he was always the victim, always, right? I’m not talking about blame right now. I’m just talking above his behavior and his perception. If you can just answer that question, you’ll break through, you’ll see it. So, tell me please, tell me one time in your father’s entire lifetime that he wasn’t the victim in his own mind while he bullied everyone else around him.”

She started crying, but she refused to answer the question and in doing so, in turning away from her fear of reality, she reset the cycle to continue in its revolutions of delusion, madness, and suffering.

Cribb          2018

A Promethean Act of Free Will (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 247)

Related image

William James widely considered the father of American psychology and a co-father to the philosophy of pragmatism, received a MD from Harvard Medical School in 1869. James had always been exceptionally bright and was well educated since his earliest youth. He suffered from severe depression and insecurity (self-loathing) which apparently hit a high point in his life after his graduation from Harvard and as a result he checked himself into an asylum for treatment.

James left the asylum in an improved state and perspective, but not as a result of the therapy he had received at the institution. He experienced a self revelation of awareness and understanding after reading an essay on free will by Charles Renouvier, a French philosopher. His epiphany has been referred to as “A Promethean Act of Free Will” and in essence lead to his profound belief that mental illness could only be accurately addressed and/or cured via the free will of personal choice.

Though James continued to struggle with his mental illness in some form for the rest of his life, his approach to his depression improved his quality of life significantly and kept it from crippling him severely anymore in the future. He went on to teach physiology and psychology at Harvard, published significant data and theory on human emotion (now referred to as the James-Lange theory), and eventually settled on the in depth contemplation and study of philosophy and spiritual energy in the later period of his life. He published numerous books of ongoing significant relevance including The Principles of Psychology (1890), The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), and a groundbreaking work on education, Talks to Teachers on Psychology and to Students on Some of Life’s Ideals (1899).

The sketch is a self portrait James produced around the age of 24 and the year 1866.

Information borrowed and paraphrased from:

1) Subliminal – How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior, Leonard Mlodinow 2012

2) Introduction Notes for The Varieties of Religious Experience, Wayne Proudfoot 2004

Cribb          2018

Rhetorical Stability (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 244)

A child sits alone on the floor in the middle of a room by themselves. The child cowers and shivers uncontrollably if anyone else enters the room. Which of the following responses do you believe is the most stabilizing to the child?

1) The first person walks into the room and kneels down directly in front of the child. They cower a little bit themselves and coddle the child with baby talk saying things like “Are you sick?”, “Are you hurt?”, “You’ll be okay”, “Everything’s alright”, “You don’t need to worry or be frightened”, and “I know how scary this room is, I understand how you feel.”

2) The second person walks into the room and stands directly in front of the child in a domineering stance. This person looks directly at the child and says loudly and with force “Stop that, there is no reason to be scared!” or “Quit it now, I said stop acting like that!” or “If you don’t stop acting like a baby, I’m gonna make you stop or give you something to really be scared of!”.

3) The third person walks into the room quietly and calmly. This person sits down next to the child and refrains from acknowledging the behavior of the child while they also display no self reaction of worry or concern for anything in the environment. After a while, this person stands up next to the child and silently extends a hand toward the child in an obvious gesture to assist the child in standing up if they should so desire.

Cribb          2018

The Conformity of Being Broken (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 243)

I have fought for the broken, the bent, the destabilized, the sexually repressed, the let down, the abused, the oppressed, the insecure, and the manipulated, almost my entire life. I have thrown myself up against a pervasive and heinous social and familial indoctrination system matrix that is the underlying force which inoculated all of these aforementioned entities with the fear that rules them in their preferred form of accepted and continued cyclical unending destabilization and suffering. I have flayed my life, my anger, my confusion, my demons, my own madness, my embarrassments, my vulnerabilities, my shame, and my own neuroses, in my own public blog and other forms of social media, to speak to these lost souls and try and get them to understand that I “get it,” that I “get them,” and I get the struggle they deal with every waking moment. I have read and educated myself endlessly on behavior, psychology, delusion, addiction, and a number of other related subjects, to become the most stabilizing entity, whether it be as son, friend, boss, father, lover, teacher, or veterinarian, possible. That has been the emphasis of my entire life, and I’m not exactly a dull light bulb of mediocre awareness and determination.

And despite all of this intent, focus, education, contemplation, and the best effort I can muster, over and over and over, what I have learned in 99.9% of the cases is that what broken really wants to do the most and what broken also really does best, is stay fucking broken, forever and ever and ever. And as broken does so, it expends an excessive amount of effort, will, and energy, to cycle through an infinite number of scapegoats, excuses, and every form of plausible deniability imaginable.

I once thought that the majority or at least a significant portion of broken adults and all of their excuses with them, could be helped or cured by another entity of supreme stability, empathy, and awareness. I now believe that such a notion is silly at best.

Broken wants to stay broken because that is what it has accepted as normal and it is too scared to choose to be abnormal, that is to break from the constructs it has previously cemented around its psyche as a result of the real or perceived life experiences it suffered in the past.

Normal for Broken is conformity to itself and the role that all the other enabling entities of its pack have “stamped with approval” as acceptable for one of its members even if that group “approved” behavior leads to its own perpetual destabilization. The enabling pack actually controls the destabilized Broken by keeping it weak, fractured, confused, and dependent on them. And they do all of this always in the name of love.

Abnormal or a state of healing change and cure for Broken is nonconformity to what it has previously accepted as itself and nonconformity to the entire damn enabling pack that it has been entrapped and tortured within. It matters not if this enabling pack has done this dastardly deed with specific intent or woeful ignorance, that is an irrelevant issue.

Broken will almost always choose conformity because that is the primary driving force behind social behavior. This conformity will eat its soul alive even as it pretends that only by conforming more and never less to its enabling pack might it ever become unbroken and find true peace.

The Broken were all once nonconformist. That’s a secret no one ever tells you. The reason they became Broken was because someone could not tolerate them with mutual respect and coexistence in their non-conforming state. So, the “non” was cut out of the nonconformist and what was left was Broken.

Broken, now a conformist, bent the knee, and lived happily ever after in the perpetual destabilization and suffering created by the psychological rift of their inherent core awareness and will conflicting continuously and paradoxically with their own outwardly adopted conforming behavior.

Cribb          2018

So It Doesn’t (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 242)

I don’t believe that there has ever been a lack of genuine love in the universe. I think it has always been there since the moment of creation and perhaps it was even the primordial or originating flame that climbed out of darkness to produce that fulminating event. What I do see are the overwhelming number of souls everywhere suffering in isolating fear. Instead of turning to the light, they turn much more often and much more readily to the dark, defaulting to an existence based on overcontrolling and over-dominating all else within their sphere of influence. These confused souls obsess on their destructive orientation even as they vehemently deny such intentions and instead adamantly proclaim that their motivations are harbingers of unifying love. The majority of humanity spends its time not on the contemplation, fostering, and actualization of genuine love enacted, but on denying, sabotaging, corrupting, bastardizing, and defiling this inherent energy of union, grace, and peaceful bliss, which is just too simple, too pure and vulnerable, too calm and quiet, to otherwise ignore.

Humanity is too scared to listen, so it screams and shrieks instead. Humanity is too scared to be kind and gentle and peaceful, so it wars and kills and rapes and pillages in the name of justice and freedom for all. Humanity is too scared to be stable and uplifting with unconditional respect for everyone, so it becomes a fear mongering leviathan, eating itself and branding all in destabilizing doubt, confusing uncertainty, and paralyzing paranoia. Humanity is too scared to make love with one another, so it either fucks its fellow beings instead or chooses to simply fuck itself in a perverse anti-union effort of celebratory climax. Humanity is too scared to live, so it eviscerates life, cuts everything vivacious, organic, and perceptively aware, out of our collective and individual existences.

Humanity is too scared to love,

so it doesn’t.

Cribb          2018

Why did you let me? (Love vs Sex 252)

‘Yes, you call it love but I call it torture,’ I said. ‘Why did you let me go into society if you thought it so evil that you ceased to love me because of it?’

‘It was not society, my dear,’ he said.

‘Why did you not use your authority?’ I went on. ‘Why didn’t you lock me up or kill me? I would be better off than I am now, deprived of all that made up my happiness. I should have been very happy, instead of being ashamed.’

I began to sob again and hid my face.

‘Yes,’ he began, as though continuing his thoughts aloud, ‘all of us, and especially you women, must discover for ourselves all the futilities of life in order to come back to life itself: the experience of other people is no good. At that time you were far from having got to the end of that sweet and charming nonsense that I used to enjoy in you, and I left you to have your fill of it, feeling that I had no right to stand in your way, although for me the time for that sort of thing was long past.’

‘If you loved me ,’ I said, ‘why did you stand by and allow me to go through with it?’

‘Because even if you had wanted to accept my experience  you would not have been able to: you had to find out for yourself — and you did.’

‘You thought it all out – thought it all out very carefully,’ I said. ‘You did not love very much.’

We lapsed into silence again.

‘That was harsh, what you said just now, but it is the truth,’ he exclaimed, suddenly rising to his feet and beginning to walk about the veranda. ‘Yes, it’s the truth. I was to blame,’ he added, stopping opposite me. ‘Either I ought not to have allowed myself to love you at all, or I ought to have loved you in a simpler way.’

Happily Ever After

Leo Tolstoy          1859

Cribb Comment: I believe this passage exquisitely portrays a dynamic all too common in any relationship involving one member who is maturely and aptly at peace with themselves and their existence versus another member who is immaturely floundering about in nervous energy anxiety (etc.) and the narcissism of satiating themselves in societal delusion and distraction. The passage is even more profound and relevant for this dynamic when a significant age disparity exists between these two entities. The man of this passage (the more mature entity in this case) profoundly loves this woman and he almost refused to marry her earlier in the book because of his prophetic knowledge of how things were likely to play out. The last sentence in the quote refers to this. His other counter to this tragedy, in this very same sentence, is to say “or I ought to have loved you in a simpler way.” My interpretation is to assume that this simpler way means without such passion or remaining further removed, but it is feasible that he is simply referring to enacting greater patience and personal acceptance of the “cost” involved in remaining unselfish and supremely stable in such a relationship. Any of these behaviors by the man would have required enormous self sacrifice and essentially equate to him moving into a long term yielding (negative) transcendence state (instead of a horizontal or upperward transcendence state) with someone he dearly loved.

At the time of this passage in the book, the female character has already bucked a simple, intimate, and quieter life with her husband, opting instead for the chaotic excitement and thrill which dwells most manicaly in the nervous energy of the fickle societal herd. She has run that course out of her own choice with some component of said choice being related to her utter defiance of her husbands stable posture and contentment which she cannot help but perceive primarily as authoritarian in nature. After profoundly discovering through her own experience and suffering that the societal bosom is never more than a “futility of life,” our female character must look to blame another for the consequences of her own unrelenting egocentric perspective. She must blame him, damn him for being too authoritarian or for not being authoritarian enough, to justify the suffering and consequence that she so proudly chose to march into with such gleeful determination. Our female character now sees all of the wasted and nonrecoverable time that she threw away in the suffering and consequence of her independent choices.

Cribb          2018