It's basically a truism that people tend to formulate their relations to the world in terms of what they feel they need in the moment i.e. in terms of
For instance, to want to say something that might offend someone, versus not saying it, puts someone in a situation of a) gaining by acting (or as it
is perceived in the moment of acting) by both asserting something that will bolster the persons self-esteem (because every positive assertion presents
oneself as a 'knower' even if its only with oneself) and b) resisting a corresponding urge to desist from acting - or not saying - that which the
person also feels, usually subsequent to the urge to speak.
A typical and common - or perhaps, the de facto mode of interpreting Self-experience in a capitalistic/competition valorizing culture
is to see
the "don't say it" self-state as emerging from a fear of what other people think. If you aren't bold ala in the model of a Mussolini, and are afraid
of the consequences, you are interpreted in the Nietzschean 'strong-man' mental dictionary as a "weakling".
Emotions are difficult to interpret, particularly if you are existing in an epistemological vacuum where the theory of evolution and the evolutiona of
organisms (and their nervous systems) isn't there to serve as an internal referent that allows you to recognize the essential polarity of the organism
- that which is generative and symmetrical, and that which is dissipative and symmetry breaking. These terms come from the physics of thermodynamics,
and the study of the physics of organisms, where symmetry (generative) dynamics exist side by side with dissipative (disequilibrated) dynamics,
generally termed 'metabolism'. In a certain sense, the gene-protein macro-molecular edifice that builds us into a real-physical structure can be
considered the 'symmetry' within us, whereas its tendency towards dissolution' (heat loss) puts it into constant interaction with small metabolites,
co-factors and the environment to keep itself alive.
The biologist and philosopher Jesper Hoffmeyer sees a 'dual code' here, with a "digital" code (symmetry) acting against an analogic code
(dissipative/dynamic), with the former needing to 'attune' to the latter if it wants to maintain its coherent structure, as well as stay alive.
With the evolution of Human beings, language./thought and feeling/body have come to recapitulate the dynamics of the cell, this time at the level of
mentality. The mind uses its digital and sequential representative capacities to better understand itself and the world. A correct approach mirrors
the analogic -> digital directionality with the former pre-existing the latter, forcing the latter to 'learn' the language of the former if it wants
to maximize its coherence, symmetry, and ultimately, sense of well being.
Therefore, understanding your feelings is not a sleight matter, since we cannot help but apply some narrative deriving from our developmental
canalization, a person who holds the wrong narrative - who represents the world through the digitizing prowess of language in the wrong way, scaffolds
a mental structure that carries feelings - and interpretations of those feelings - in very subpar ways.
Trauma is in itself a psychological set of experiences that push the brain-mind system sufficiently out-of-kilter - or comfort - so as to present a
way of knowing and being that is, from the perspective of the knower, terrifying.
Indeed, terror is itself an inchoate presence, pushing from 'behind' the mind, indicating a tremendously negative and confused sets of lived images -
yelling voices, crying faces, histrionic sounds, or, conversely, ones own relationship to such images - the habitual ways of interpreting to 'feel
stronger' than the affects which arise and terrify. But what happens - or what occurs, when the mind finds itself overwhelmed? What does it even mean,
in the first place, to be overwhelmed?
Informationally speaking, when primordial emotional images (incoherent, though infused with powerful numinous potential) enter a persons mind, the
cognitive part of the Self has a response to the feeling. It is here, in the response, where the "potential for trauma" arises. Usually, the Human
relies upon dissociation to 'push away' trauma, and indeed, dissociation can eventually become so extreme as to bring about a state of 'cataonia' - or
a permanent feeling of derealisation, depersonalization, and therefore, the absence of a 'forebrain' that is interested in exploring its affective
life - or stated differently, to live means to relate, and the traumatized mind can sometimes go the way of the mute: never talking or seeking to be
Another response, besides the dissociative one, is the anxiety one. Many people here probably no the power-of-anxiety on the Human body-mind, and its
persuasive power, yet few have explored the two ways anxiety tends to be handled. Besides those people who become channeled towards complete
depersonalization - an end state naturally associated with the "avoidant" attachment category, people with anxious, or ambivalent early-life
attachments can either a) learn from the anxiety, and recognize it as an assault from the world (or reality) on ones way of being, or, rather, you can
choose the Nietchean "strong man" route - which to me is just pure weakness masquerading as strength: kill yourself.
Suicide is always a function of egotism, that is to say, a complete self-absorption where the person cannot seem to conceive another way of living,
knowing, or being, that isn't about what the perceiver names and describes (to himself and others) as the 'problems' with reality. Such confusion
abounds in minds who fail to take seriously the dynamical nature of being: instead of recognizing their depression/fear/anxiety as a dysfunction of
their relational life, the problem becomes generalized and ontologized as "the way things are". Life and living becomes directed towards bitching
about life and living. As egotism wears the mind-away, the mind seeks to totalize the dysfunction: "its everything!" reality is horrible, it thinks,
as opposed to "it can be horrible if its structure isn't respected".
But for those who realize that the response of fear to an inchoate perception - and the rambunctious anxiety that results - is a call to recognize
ones vulnerability, and therefore, a beckoning of the Other that the Self recognize its fundamental "halfness" vis-à-vis the other's around him -
reality, love, and other Humans.
Trauma can teach and help "reset" a person's dysfunction. But it takes humility - indeed, that is it's only purpose, just as a feeling of burn forces
the body to retract from the cause of the burn, an immoral way of being SHOULD inasmuch as it indicates a lack-of-love for others, provoke a
"withdrawal" of ones 'moral hand', and admit ones mistakes - to oneself, or others, or to the universe.
edit on 11-5-2017 by Astrocyte
because: (no reason given)