Wanderlust

Someone with agoraphobia has conditioned their self to have the house be a soothing object, a compulsion designed to relieve the stress brought on by the pre-occupation of sociality/life beyond their control (perhaps?) But, this is very specific and I don't want to get this far just yet. I'd like to take a moment to expand on just what factors are at work in people with anxiety disorders, such as panic disorders and the like.

To start off, I have observed that we all have triggers - things that activate stress, be it pressures of one's job to provide for a family, obligations to other people, lack of control over the way people see them, et cetera et cetera. In the case of the agoraphobic, what they have done, at least in my interpretation, is they have a fear of society (and what that means I may or may not go into for right now)...a fear of society, coupled with a creation of a specific defense mechanism. Now, I'm not exactly sure what category of defense mechanisms a...security object would fall under, but it is quite obviously one. It's almost projection, but...not quite. The baby who has a security blanket uses it for a wide variety of stressors and anxieties, e.g. abandonment, confusion, problems with developing coherent cognitive interpretation of surroundings...etc.

Um, for the agoraphobic, what they have done is create a security object in which they feel safe because it provides some modicum of... Well, it, for whatever reason, relieves them of their anxiety. And that conditions them to continue using it as a defense.

Now, we all do this to some extent. And by that, I mean we all condition ourselves to certain situations based on our anxieties. It seems to me that construction of a personality style (as defined by selective uses of defense mechanisms) is at least a partially self-constructed act. We have a choice over what we, at least, use as security items, or coping techniques. And while some work better than others, some working not at all, there still exists some range. For example, one could develop a liking for a house as a means of dealing with outside pressures, whereas one could try to actively charge at them. I believe that continued use of such would indeed become reinforced over time. To illustrate, I could retreat from any sign of danger as a coping means, or I could, if so inclined (with an intial attitude equal to experimental) charge and charge at all stressors as a Nietzschean means of overcoming them. And I believe if I were to continue doing this, there exists enough intellectualization to continue such an act, and even pick up devotion perhaps.

So what this shows, at least to me, once again, is that the retreative nature vs. aggresssive nature is not the lowest element at work here. I have shown that intellectualization can be responsible for both actions, giving them fuel vzv logic, or through an internal...reward system.

Now this reward system, it can be said, is at work here through intellectualization or whatever defense mechanism we adopt. Meaning, we could get relief from the logic of "it's safe here" (when really we could expose ourselves to the knowledge that it is safer on the move, perhaps) and that would invalidate our feelings towards our house. Or, we could use the knowledge of Nietzchean...whateverisms to continue or change (through another knowledge) our headstrong defensiveness. This goes to show, and argue against the idea that defense mechanisms are an element, and that rewards and attitudes towards objects are entirely dependent on frame of reference (viewing lens, based on current knowledge, if you will) and subjective...interpretations of experience.

Now, as for what this shows, I'm not sure I can provide a working theory of consciousness, learning theory, or what have you.

Just a couple other points I'd like to gloss over:

Well, to begin with, looking at "wanderlust". And, I'm gonna get a little personal, so bear with me. Um, I think I'm at a point in my life where I'm fine where I am. And I'd like to think of this as an analogy, evolutionarily, spatially. Ok? So I have come to a meadow, let's say, and I'm cool spending the rest of my life here for right now. Obviously, this can change, yada yada, but...yeah. And so my friends, the people who I have come to this meadow with, (and obviously, this meadow is only a meadow in the sense that I perceive it as such), meaning my friends will perceive this spatial location as something different than I would - which, is a really good analogy, actually.

However, my friends want to keep moving, maybe because they don't like what my meadow means to them, or they have reservations about the concept of settling down (neuroses), uh, or they are on a path to a better place to settle that they can see.

What's an interesting distinction is if they can see it or not. If they can, that's great, and they're going to get there if they don't lose sight of it. If they can't see it, they're drawn to the idea of it. They're drawn to the notion that there exists a better place to settle. And what are they relying on? Well, something supernatural, of course. Not God, per se, but something within themselves that is telling them that there must be somewhere better, and they should go to it, which they oblige. Now, I also have dreams of utopia, but I haven't seen that utopia, and right now, my reliance on my perceptive facilities and logic/cognitive hoo-hahs is telling me that I should stay put. Or maybe they're a part of me, and I'm telling me I should stay put, but whatever, let's leave that where it is for now.

The idea of wanderlust is that latter, that we cannot see where we want to be going, but we know where we're at is not where we want to be, and we know there is somewhere better. Obviously, there are flaws with looking at metaphysical journeys in a spatial frame of reference, but...it's...it's going alright so far.

The problem, however, is not that I have wanderlust, but that I will be left alone at where I want to be by everyone else who is either actively seeking a known place out, or is simply moving as a negative reaction to the idea of staying put, for which reasons I have not really adressed yet, and I suspect it varies from person to person.

But I can approach this from my own view, and that is my changing attitude towards my own personal land-to-be-settled once everyone has left. It could be the nicest place I know, and it could be the nicest place my friends have seen (in my eyes), but if there's nobody around, I don't want to be there. And I think that's true of everyone, and I think that accounts for a lot. What people are really looking for is group approval of an action. I mean, the very root of neurotic behavior is an impulse that enough people disapprove that we decide not to show it. And if enough people approve of it, such as cults, fetish communities, whatever, then we do show it. So, you see what I mean?

If enough people want to settle somewhere, it's really not dependent on the fundamental properties of that location, but rather of the fact that enough people want to settle there, and that outwieghs in our eyes the number of people that want to leave. And this decision varies. We all know people that really only take the approval of one other person to commit "phi" action, insert "phi" what you will. And those people that rely on no others to have self-approval, a superego that complements their id, are...fill in the blank. Sociopathhhhhhs. Yeah!

Haha, so I mean, and I've said it so many times before, aren't they the most complete people? And our persecution of them, our stigmatization is really just...a defense mechanism on ourselves, that other people enforce that makes us not be like them. That makes us conform to the wishes of groupings of other people: democracy. Our superego is just that, it's not ours. It's a product of our environment, which includes people. It's an ugly system, and even the recognition of such a system has terrible properties within it. I mean, as I've been saying for the past few days, even the study of defense mechanisms is a defense mechanism - an intellectualization of why we should feel ok not expressing our inner, socially unacceptable desires. It's astounding. And it's a spiral, too. This, uber-reflexive property that is not inherent, at least not accessible to different sets of unique, conscious beings.

And that, right there, is my biggest logical evidence of why I am against realism in the first place. But, I don't plan on trying to convince anyone else of my view, so...please read this blog with caution. Thank you.