Monday, November 21, 2011

Guest post: schizophrenic sociopath

From a reader:
Schizophrenic sociopath: a joyous autoportrait of Pabaisa
And they worshiped the dragon [the prototype of Pabaisa] which gave power unto the beast [the archetype of Pabaisa]. And they worshiped the beast, saying: "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
- The Revelation of John, 13, 4
Pabaisa – the Immoralist, the Antichrist, the Anarchist, everything, that is opposed to civilization, the breaker of codes and rules; the man with the strength of a giant and the brain of a child; the soul contract Terminator and the wish fulfilling Mephisto. Pabaisa imagines himself as a green-skinned, sharp-toothed, bird-of-prey-nosed, hatty, sabotted and with dingy purple dusters, even if no one is afraid of him outwardly and react to his grotesque smile neutrally. The blind, who don’t see the accursed wickedness and consider him as a friend. The feelings of abandonment, terror and lost identity spring from the degenerate’s inner being, his projection of himself as a despicable demon, who looks at his own reflection in pond like Narcissus, and cannot see himself truly, so he rolls away from his Olympian mountain of solitude and seclusion, and engages on a journey through dark, naked forests and barren, scorched deserts, searching for something, which would give him an identity, an understanding and a shelter. The beast does not look aggressively in reality, even on the contrary, like a sociopath, like all the rest, maybe even a perfect replica of a human. The intra-speciary predator is unfazed by the hunters in this regard.
The problem of Pabaisa‘s sexuality: Pabaisa is only partly a man. At least, he doesn‘t perceive himself as one. Due to accidental meiosis and gene selection, his body was born as a man. Pabaisa doesn‘t see himself as a woman, either. There is no hidden desire to be a woman, no secret jealousy. For all he knew, it didn‘t matter, if he‘s a man, a woman or both. Things like sex and sexuality didn‘t matter, from an abstract perspective to life; he could become any with the circumstances. He was a man, but he could easily become a woman any time he wished, if he felt, that the circumstances demanded it. The mastery of disguise.
First metamorphosis: Schizophrenia and split-personality disorder. Five different voices in his head and 1 = ½ + ½, or A = B + C. A as the state before Lucifer gets thrown out of Heaven, like a pure state, B and C as different embodiments of “evil”, annihilators of “good” and destroyers of life, i.e. chimeras and killers with the thirst for power and the hate for weakness. Question: Why? Answer: The man’s becoming a half-man, or two half-men, was prompted by his genius-overman flight to the skies of brilliance, which was replaced by anti-genius, when he flew too high to the Sun, or madness, and burned like Icarus. The absence of identity, family, friends from birth or losing them along the way. Adam without his Eve, or the inability to hide from humanity without his species representative. The Colossus B is Pabaisa’s A part, which doesn’t want an identity from the start, being the universal bodily brutality in the world of objects. The Titan C is Pabaisa’s A part, which wants an identity from all his heart, despite the consequences, being the conscious identity-subjectivity seeker. From appearances alone, one would say that here exists an extreme complex duality and conflicting characteristics, despite this, they both are nihilistic psychopaths, who, due to an open intimacy, love each other more than the lost A, the last connection with humanity, which they forged.
It seems, that monster’s C only goal, like some kind of ambitious animal, who is playing God, is to give others power, or value, maybe he even wants to create a race of snakes. Save himself by saving his saviors? Still, when the vampire extracts and reaches the other person’s zenith of happiness and the height of potential, when there is no place to climb higher, for him that person becomes a bore and he feels incomplete, which makes him act with cruelty and kill the parasitical person from hunger. On the other hand, the giant B is bathing in nihilistic conscious revelations about the indifference of the universe and the relativity of values, by which he tries to justify his murders. Cerber C didn’t want an identity connected to physical activity, which will never satisfy him, but with intellectual; he wanted an identity, which embodies everything he is opposed to, so he searches out the aristocrats.
Second metamorphosis: Narcissistic possession of a Prince. Prince is not as much of an ogre’s fruit of labor, as that, which Nietzsche claimed to be as soul-awareness transformation’s third stage. In short: 1. The camel – memory. 2. The lion – will-to-knowledge. 3. The child - wisdom. In this case, Prince is something of a “second childhood”, radiation of will-to-live and the forging of new values. Prince to the devil is everything, which he desires by his understanding of identity at that time: a status in society, political power, money, reactionary disregard for the sheep morality, wide connection circle, etc. The creature endures his hunger and postpones this inevitability for a long time for the means to an end, but one thing is missing – the War ambition, the natural evolutionary development condition, the only Art form of the ruling elite. The seven-headed, ten-horned and ten-crowned behemoth rises up and swallows up his Father and Mother, the King and the Queen, burning everything behind him and searching for a greater height, a new order within himself, which would shake the whole foundation of the Earth. The barbarian should not be held responsible for the killings of other people, because it is in his nature to be the Machiavellian, to be the blond beast-of-prey, devouring the lives of others.
Third metamorphosis: Re-integration into one person. The need to become singular: the pianist’s cut off arms, the drowning man's oxygen, the thirsty man’s water need. I am you. You are me. We are one. Prince is the outcast. We always were a monster, with a human side, which desperately clung to an identity, to save ourselves from drowning. The dragon with his identity as a Prince and as a Kreator gulps down the centaur without an identity. The active nihilism overcomes the passive nihilism. The monster, with a monster’s hunger, with a monster’s appetite, munching his other half from within. Pabaisa in a poisoned garden of Eden, knowing and wallowing in his own death, was made wild and totally uncontrollable, to satisfy his every desire, to realize his every ambition with unconditional commitment. And only then the Leviathan experiences his second true suffering, - having in mind, that the first one was the absence of identity, - not by killing his family and humanity, but whilst assimilating his other half, his primordial anonymity. The formless, faceless, nameless mammoth of a Prince, in the past only thinking of himself as un-and-in-human, feels a human, an all too human, familiarity with humanity, as if being a slave to the collective unconscious programming, which doesn’t have any uniqueness, personality or individuality, as if all the memory was implanted into his robotic brain – the gargoyle, who achieves cold intellectual empathy, the Satan, who finally kills God and outgrows the nameless humanity and its identity, swallowing it and making it his little, dirty dog-bitch. Ego-centrism as a whole humanity’s ego. Not power through wisdom, but the “real” world’s transcendence, which is denied to the rational mind. My name is Titas, for I am many.
Mutant A, troll B and savage C in the consequence of all the metamorphoses become phoenix A again, who has no identity, because it is stolen from the Prince, and made his own. The achieved pseudo-identity results in an existentialist tragi-heroism: after finding an identity, a meaning of life, Moby Dick understands, that the identity is the reaction between him, the other person and the whole world, that there is nothing, who could call him by his name, his meaning of life effectively disappears. The eternal incognito, a walking corpse and the super-cannibal in the end returns not even there, where he started, but into a negative sequence, because the beauty of the identity has disappeared, leaving only a heart filled with choking terror and disgust. The last man standing syndrome: will-to-life and will-to-power as will-in-itself, the loss to the world is its conquering. And so stands the Prince of princes, saying to himself, that if he is made of the parts and characteristics of dead people, then, basically, he is a person, but because they are dead, he never himself is alive. What scares the most – the paradoxical hunger in Pabaisa’s eyes and a satisfaction with his fake identity. Nobody stands on top of the world, except the highest alpha predator, who doesn’t have any dreams or hopes, who exists alone only to write himself an ending, then he will stop wandering and not knowing eternally his unbelievably mysterious soul, ignorant of boundaries and fears, but constantly fighting within itself. The realization, that you cannot become “a fake somebody”, but you can become “a true nobody”, the last prophet of the nihilistic truth of the universe. The wind became stronger, its screeching howl louder, and the air colder, as the demiurge’s eyes ached, while he was smiling into the Void.
Question: What is meaning of the story? Answer: No meaning. The worthlessness of efforts. To acquire, what is wanted, but to understand, that it doesn’t mean anything. To see, that there is no difference between good and evil, well and bad. Finally, a man can become anything he wants according to his wishes. He doesn’t have to take the walked-out road. He has a freedom of choice… People are like dice, they throw themselves in the direction of their own choosing.
Moral: If you admit your ontological uniqueness, identity becomes unimportant.
Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood Pabaisa.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Sociopathic children

I always want to ask concerned parents -- would it really be so bad if your son or daughter was a sociopath? Sure, they might not be able to ever love you the way a meek little thing would, but the kid will take care of himself, even do very well for himself. As one blogger puts it:
Given that lack of conscience is a great benefit in getting on in the worlds of business, politics and everyday life, won't many neuro typicals actually *want* a sociopathic child as charm and social status are so highly valued by them?
Assuming you do have a sociopathic child and would rather not, what would you be willing to try to get your child to act normal? Would you be willing to do as this author suggests and encourage fear within your child?
Do not work too hard to discourage him from being fearful. Especially avoid placing him in situations where he has to face and conquer his fears on his own. For example, some people like to teach kids to swim by throwing them in deep water where they will either "sink or swim." A bold, athletic child would likely learn to conquer is fear of deep water and swim if placed in this situation. He would also receive training in being tough and ignoring his fears. This is not a good lesson for the at-risk child.
The author goes on to describe how her sociopathic child developed a fear of the dark and how that was used to curb his behavior:

One evening, when my son was 31 months old, he played with a motorized toy he really liked. It was time for dinner, and I told him he had to put the toy down and sit to eat. I gave him a chance to put the toy down on his own and go to the table. When he refused, I took the toy, picked him up and put him in his high chair for dinner. He threw an enormous tantrum and could not be consoled, even though I told him he could have the toy back after dinner. My usual strategy is to ignore these tantrums and allow them to burn themselves out. This time though, the crying and screaming was very loud and showed no signs of abating. His sisters complained that they could not enjoy the meal because of his behavior. I got up and moved the high chair, with the thought of just moving it far enough away to allow us to eat in some peace. Well, my son thought I was going to move him in the DREADED DARK PLACE! He said, "No mommy, no, I scared dark!" I said, " If you don't want me to move you away form the table, you will have to quiet, and eat your dinner." Miraculously, the tantrum stopped. Not only did the tantrum stop, but also he was so happy at not being banished to the dark place that he started to play and laugh with his sisters. He ate very well at dinner that night. He also completely forgot about the beloved motorized toy.
Parents of sociopath children, is this something that you would do with your child?

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Caught red handed

A reader wrote:

I was reading the comments of this post and I found this comment: "Q) Can a sociopath genuinely cry?" That was interesting to read, because one of the reasons why I sometimes feel like I am not a sociopath is because I do cry, I do feel lonely, I do feel pain and sorrow, and sometimes I feel guilt as well. It is strange, because I know that I can feel other people's pain, for example if someone has been rejected I can remember what that feels like and feel sorry for them, or imagine pain and feel sorry for someone. I can also turn this off, and just pretend to feel for them, console them externally and on the inside I will be working out some problem, or observing the interaction. I question whether my guilt is sincere as well, because often I will only feel guilty if I am caught for something, and if I am not caught or the action is not traced back to me, I walk free.
I thought, this must be common among all sociopaths, but how often do normal people feel this as well? Would empaths feel bad about something even if there was no chance that they could be caught? Do they keep experiencing only this sort of shame until they're socialized into a conscience? I really am curious.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Mass manipulation (part 4)

I am manipulative and intentional about the way I write the blog. I never respond to comments or questions in the comments. Part of it is the Taylor Swift tactic of not trying to defend yourself but rather allowing others to make your arguments for you. Taylor Swift didn't have to confront Kanye West--people rushed to her defense to do it for her and it was infinitely more effective that way. Similarly, I never feel like I have to defend or justify myself or anything I say. People frequently defend my positions, or if they don't it doesn't matter. It costs too much to try to defend yourself (or even clarify something you've said), and there is no point I would want to make or image of myself that I would want to project that would be worth the potential fallout.

Another part of not replying in the comments (or anywhere publicly) is that I want to be able to speak to individuals how they want to be spoken to, without fear of alienating others in the process. I can be very friendly or very mean in email exchanges with people--from sycophantic to menacing. I don't want side effects of those conversations spilling over into other interactions because it will limit my future ability to convincingly be whatever I want in any particular situation.

Finally, I don't reply in the comments because I feel like it chills discussion. If I was active in my own comments section, fewer people would comment. They would be waiting for someone else (me) to say their thoughts for them. Some might be afraid to say something and have me contradict them or disagree. If I have something to say, I say it in a post. Otherwise I don't want anybody waiting around to hear my opinion on something. As it is, other sociopaths are ruthless with the people who (they think) put too much stock in things I say. It would be much worse if I interfered with the comments section as well. I don't want issues I discuss on the blog to always degrade into a war of personalities. Plus, I have found that silence is one of the best ways to elicit information. And I think part of the reason the blog is appealing is the diversity of very freely expressed opinion.

I selectively disclose information about myself for strategic reasons. For instance, I never talk about my gender or even strictly about my ethnicity or other demarcating personal characteristics. I hope by doing so that I will be a blank slate and people will be able to project their own ideas onto me. I want to be like Kim Jong-Il or Obama, a figurehead, a receptacle for people's hopes, dreams, fears. I want people to directly relate to the blog--to think of the sociopaths they love in their lives or the sociopaths they hate. If I got too specific about anything, the illusion would be broken. Instead I stick to generalities (like Kim Jong-Il and Obama) and let people fill in the blanks in whatever manner they feel inclined. When people write to me and say that I seem to describe perfectly their own experiences, either as a sociopath or as someone who has known a sociopath, I know I have been successful.

I am pretty good at choosing a particular featured photo for each post to set the mood. Sometimes they have an underlying meaning or reference to the blog post, sometimes they're random but I use them anyway to give the illusion of something deep but unstated.

I know people like to criticize or rally so sometimes I publish something for the sole purpose of galvanizing readers or provoking discussion/fights/ridicule. It keeps people blood thirsty and/or engaged.

As anyone noticed anything else?

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Mass manipulation (part 3)

From Vice Magazine, Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu about the trade off between having power and giving up power to a "trusted" entity, and how many (most?) would rather give up power than have the responsibility that comes with that power.


It would be foolish to assume that anything is unbiased, that anyone can operate without some conflict of interest. The problem now, as our tools become ever more essential to everyday life, ever more pervasive, and ever more complex, is being able to even detect those biases.

But here’s another conundrum to punch into your question-answering sites: do we even care about this? As long as we’re able to make our cheap phone calls, send our free emails, watch our free videos, and get our free content, why should we bother? Why regulate for “network neutrality” if the system works fine the way it is?

The question is hard to answer because we don’t have a way of calculating how much “free” really costs. And, as Wu argues, as much as we like to talk about freedom, we also really like other things like convenience, speed, and comfort. Our technologies and the companies that make them are really good at providing the latter. It’s not so clear, he says, where the former fits in.
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.