Post

Antisocial Normalcy; Or Why Everything Sux

Psychology equals money, or psychology equals intelligence. If you are one of those who mean the second thing, this is for you:

How do people perceive you?

Are they divided into those who perceive you as amiable or fascinating and those who do not, and is this due to exposure-time, the old “familiarity breeds contempt” problem?

And if so, does this mean people are happy because they are surrounded mostly by people with whom they are not familiar? And so when they become familiar their happiness depends on them getting rid of the familiar people? In two ways: I must get rid of people who are too familiar with me, and of people with whom I am too familiar, and then I might be happy again.

Are you personally cunning enough that when people form an impression of you, you are in firm control of that impression? Is this your measure of confidence and intelligence, that people don't know that you are in control of how they experience you, because you seem quite genuine? Even to the point of accurately affecting to be completely unaffected? If you are, where does this impression of you go in the observer? Is the observer adding together genuinely unaffected input and affected input, or are genuine and disingenuous input divided so that all disingenuous input collects separately as its own whole?

Let's posit the latter: all disingenuous input collects separately into its own whole. Would this then be the conscious, and does this conscious make us happy, and is familiarity then the enemy of happiness? This means all adults are approximately equally cunning, so that they can all affect to be unaffected with the same result: that this impression affixes itself to the conscious.

Impressions serve as experience! If there are relationships with real people these are not where there is a consciousness of it or an observer observably processing it. These are unconscious in the perspective of the conscious observer, so that if a person points to his “me” or self, this self can't look at those relationships (which can be easily explained but needs another “story”. A brief explanation of “the animal intelligence” is at the bottom of this one, since I hate to keep people waiting.)

We are describing a familiarity-phobia. If we endanger our impressions we are making ourselves depressed. Happiness is a vehicle running on soothing, disarming, impressions. If we run out of impressions to pursue, as a refuge from the familiar people, the vehicle comes to a complete halt, we become trapped in a limbo where we are perpetually inadequately prepared by our “loving” parents, our “smart” education and our “practical” experience, and we require medication.

This phenomenon (familiarity phobia) does not merely relate to people, of course. If we must avoid the reality of a person, which becomes apparent with familiarity, this is about the eyes, the ears, the nose and so on; the mind's intelligence-gathering systems. These must be shut down, avoided. Familiarity-phobia must also be a phobia about perception, about being locked into the present through the senses. There must be a past of impressions and a future of impressions such that we do not ever need the present for any noticeable duration. The present must become a mere line between the two alternate times, past and future.

And the result here is that happiness, the kind human authority makes available to us once we must deal with it most of the time, is to take refuge from everything in the world. If we see the beauty of the stars, for example, really see it and not just know that it makes a good impression to affect to see it like the poets do, then we are in that place or condition of mind where people are becoming familiar in a single instant, and the permissible happiness (of believing in the righteousness of authority and a “healthy” egotism) becomes impossible.

So it becomes belief; everything good becomes belief. We believe the poet knows there is nothing poems can be that is as lovely as a tree, we believe ugly people should be integrated into the lives of pretty people because they have wisdom to share. We believe we should vote because one candidate has our interests in mind while the other has the other guy's interest in mind. We believe the priest has devoted the time to becoming more sincere about the love God expects us to feel for each other, and how this may be expressed by us; a consulting expert in charity. And we believe in God, because to actually find God directly manifest in the cosmic reality around us would require a prolonged stay in the present.

Whatever we can't derive from the conscious, which holds past and future, we derive by believing, which is as feeble as impressions. A belief does not contradict the conscious, the past and future, by being in some more profound medium than impression, some exponentially greater resolution. There really is no remarkable difference between creating the impression that one believes and actually believing, so that if one flits back and forth between the two one is being “constant”.

Annotation: In brief the medium of relationships is emotion, and conscious self ascribes no such significance to emotions, but considers them things to take personally as “my feeling”; here we must consider that if emotions show us real relationships, animal or evolved social sensibility, they are a threat to the sanctity of impressions, so fear of lost happiness makes emotions inert, and conscious is the synthesis of a refuge from emotions as social discovery, emotions as the complete and evolving intelligence about relationship.

PikdFlowr PikdFlowr 61-65, M Oct 9, 2011

Your Response

Cancel