Running out of titles here

A lot of talk of shunning interpersonal relationships on a very existential basis lately, very strange. It seems everyone who I've talked to has come to the conclusion that nobody besides themselves can know them to the extent that justifies getting involved in a resultingly superficial relationship. I'm not sure if this is some theme we all reach, but it seems very rational, rather than temporal, to me. Probably the result of hanging around people who have experimented with various psychadelics.

I believe, and I'm trying to reconstruct what it was that was said last night, something was brought up on the subject of tipping points, namely how everyone can be shown to be miserable if you probe them deep enough. What's interesting on this subject is that people react differently, or come to be in different places, on the same issues. Take sexual preferences for example, talking about it to some people, they will be completely fine talking about their unique preferences, compared to other people who will do a complete 180 when you ask them the same kinds of questions. Another example of the way people train themselves to be a certain way, rather than revealing an aspect of a person using a constant probe. Obviously, there are lines and extents to which people are okay, but that's a different story.

Once again, I feel bad for those stuck on the existential crisis. But they'll get over it, I suspect. Or they won't. We are psychological creatures, anyway, not philosophical. I just love the way how much one's 'stage fixation', in place of taking the time to explain precisely what I see in that regard, dictates one's behavior, one's philosophy. Take, for example, someone who is caught up on the idea of guilt. In comparison, I don't analyze guilty feelings, I analyze feelings of shame. Not to say that I'm caught up in that, but since this is my blog and I'm being completely honest, I don't think pussyfooting around any issue is of dire importance. Anyway, I think the whole thing behind that is developmental levels. One who gets caught up on a certain issue, such as autonomy/shame, as opposed to initiative/guilt, will have different outlooks a broad, broad range of issues. Obviously, this is not a new point, just sort of cementing old things.

And, again, there is that trap between our rationale and our emotionale. Certainly we should all be the Neitzschean superman, but who can really attain that? Even Neitzsche himself didn't believe he was one. As far and far away we think we are getting from our primal roots, we're still there, and strangely enough I believe it to the best way to communicate. Since nobody really knows anyone else, and everyone loves someone they can understand, why not, in the interest of self-furtherance OR utilitarianism, be that which others can benefit from? All signs, logical ones at least, point towards the sacrifice of the mind. What a hex, we have brought ourselves upon; through this hex we can only recognize that we are in a such. Yeah, yeah, forgive me, I tend to wax poetic when I am recovering from the night before.

Not a whole lot to say on the subject, I'm afraid. I came to a good way of putting it to a friend of mine last night, but it disappeared by the time I flushed the toilet. Something like, "In the face of existentialism, absurdism." Not that, not anything like that, but that was the message. But, is that all? I feel like I've run out of logic. And once you get into the absurd, driven there by all the logical fallacies that exist in the realm of mainstream thought, or all thought for that matter (let's just go with sane thought)...once you get into the absurd, I don't really see any progression. If that's the case, have I literally lost my mind? Lost the use of my mind, per se, but lost it nonetheless? I've always wondered if one could think themselves into schizophrenia. I mean, when one is on that path, there are certainly thoughts, and it has obviously been shown how one's changing chemistry changes their very philosophy...

The biggest counter-argument I've encountered is the diathesis model. One has an inherent predisposition to, say, schizophrenia, and the encountering of stressors is what sets it off. However, there's obviously a scale, and I believe everyone has the *potential*, at least, to 'go crazy'. It's just a matter of what level you're at, and what you encounter. However, as I have shown, at least to myself, what you encounter is really not at all about what it is you encounter, but rather the experiences, both cognitive and emotionally, you take away from that experience. And then, as I have shown, it's not about the experience at all, since logic is directly controlled by the senses, so it's really perception. And, as we go blind, say, the world loses an entire aspect of it to that person, so, getting sidetracked, we are [obviously] completely dominated by the senses (and for women, the menses -- just kidding). But, getting back to my real point, seeing as how it's not at all about the outside world, and how virtually anything could be turned into a stressor and perceived in just about any light by the person involved, it then becomes totally about that person's inherent predisposition. Then, logically, one who is at the farthest end away from potential for losing one's mind, could go through the 'craziest shit', pardon my French, and still walk away from it with a completely intact sense of logic. Or cognition.

I still can't decide where I place those. Cognition, perception, and logic. I guess, right now, I would say that logic is the result of a limited determinism, based on perception and the environment. So logic is preceded by the other two, and many other things. Perception is first, it would have to be, for with no perceptual information, we would have nothing to base our thoughts on. So then, logically, cognition would have to follow, but it has to be tied in with logic. There must be a difference, I have to remark, between a 'proper sense of logic' and a proper pathway in the brain. By that I mean losing one's sense of cognition would be truly evidenced not by adopting a philosophy of absurdism, but rather hallucinations, mixed sensual pathways, etc. And...the two don't always go hand in hand, but a loss in cognitive processes always means a changed philosophical (usually for the worse) stance as well.

So if we start to think wacky things, maybe it's just nature's way of reminding us that the human race is evolving in a brainy, sedentary, manic-depressive, schizophrenic people. Now, to find a way to disarm ourselves...



Addendum: Just a quick thing I wanted to add to my last post. Please don't take it to mean that I'm especially vitriolic to people who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Or you can, I don't really care, but I would maintain that I'm not. Also, on a somewhat separate topic, it's very hard to have conversations or have what someone says impact you when you know that they rank very high on the scale of idolization/archetypes. When one is going on and on, almost histrionically, about something so mundane to me, yet it means so much to them, it's hard to take what they say to heart. And when this notion is incorporated into someone's personality, as it is for everyone in some subject or another, we stop listening. So don't blame me when everything they say goes right by me.

Whenever I think of histrionic personality disorder, a certain quote comes to mind and I'm not sure where it's from, mostly likely a cartoon spoofing Shakespeare or something, but it is this: Something like a smurf, a very tiny, depressed and blanketed character huddling themselve into a corner, on the verge of crying but trying to convey how pertinent and important what they're saying is, reciting the quote, "All the world's a stage...and we are merely players..." ...Or something like that. And being weepy. It's stuff like that that just gets to me, people who think what they're saying is so important when it's not at all. Yes, like my blog; I'm aware of the irony.