It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Novocaine for the Soul

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
So a few moments back I was reading a book Symmetry in the Rearview Mirror by the Drexler physicist Dave Goldberg (it's a pleasant lighthearted read) and I passed the part where (to my constant annoyance) the physicist explores the "multiple wolrds interpretation" of quantum mechanics created by the physicist Hugh Everett. The author mentions that Everett was working at the pentagon when he created this interpretation, and, being the enactive cognitive scientist philosopher with an abiding interest in developmental and psychodynamic psychological processes, I could not help but see this idea of Everret's as the natural fruition of functioning with such an elitist context. As a function of ecology, therefore, it is not surprising that the super-smart physicist working at the Pentagon landed on an interpretation of the collapse of the wave function that relativized the nature of reality to a degree that had never been done before. Everett, no doubt guided by gnostic theories and luciferian habits of interpretation, interpreted quantum physics in such a way as to restore "meaninglessness" to the reality we actually function and exist within.

While the majority of physicists trust empirical reality and the capacity of things to be tested before they are taken to be ontologically real, people who believe "math" i.e. numbers, as more real, skirt the whole 'scientific' part of the process and basically function and argue within the accepted category that numbers are ontologically real and determinative forces within reality. Again, most scientists and clear-minded people think empirical investigation of claims should be the benchmark for making truth claims about reality: if its not objectively accessible to everyone i.e. is something which can be tested against a set of objective reference points, then its mysticism i.e. subjectivist, and solipsistic, and from a systems chemistry and systems biological framework, utterly out of touch with how physical living objects actually function i.e. with reference to the events which act upon them, and how they adapt in terms of correlating its states at a teleological level to the situation being imposed upon it.

Novocaine For the Soul



Not surprisingly, Hugh Everret had children, and in the process, seemed to do quite a number on their psyche i.e. against the genetic referents, which encode historical couplings between organism-environment, which maintained a care that was frankly absent in Everett's way of being in the world.

Everetts daughter committed suicide 14 years following her fathers death (she was presumably in her 20's or 30's) and left instructions as to what to do with her ashes (throw them in the trash, the same request made by her father at death) with the purpose of "ending up in the correct parallel universe to meet up with Daddy". She killed herself on the grounds that the claims made by her father were true, as opposed to a speculation, so clearly, Everret in his relationship with his children did not do much to discriminate between speculation (i.e. idealization of what is real, which essentially ignores the contradicting significance of the available evidence) and the reality humans collectively share. His concern and need to "be someone who knows" prevented him from relating in ways to his children that might give them an intrinsic commitment to living.

Unknown to me, however, was that a song I liked growing up was sung by Everett's own son, Mark Oliver Everett, who wrote this about his fathers death


I think about how angry I was that my dad didn't take better care of himself. How he never went to a doctor, let himself become grossly overweight, smoked three packs a day, drank like a fish and never exercised. But then I think about how his colleague mentioned that, days before dying, my dad had said he lived a good life and that he was satisfied. I realize that there is a certain value in my father's way of life. He ate, smoked and drank as he pleased, and one day he just suddenly and quickly died. Given some of the other choices I'd witnessed, it turns out that enjoying yourself and then dying quickly is not such a hard way to go.[17]
Wiki

What to make of this? Given that human beings are governed by dynamical cycles of energy transformation, this isn't too surprising. At 2 years of age, relational information from our immediate interactions with others shapes the neurological pathways that ultimately ground "how we feel", in terms of the affective quality and temporal pacing of our experience; movement, feeling, i.e. behavior expression, are hardwired with reference to the purely chemical cycles underlying biogenesis, which is why neuroscientists and developmental psychologists speak of this time as a "critical period" which more or less "locks in" the way, manner and style we interpret information from the environment.

With this context in mind, the lead singer of the band Eels, and son of Hugh Everett, is enormously limited in his interpretation of his fathers behavior, inasmuch as he has grown up in the context of a world and culture which would have guided him, or attracted him (in both the psychological and biodynamical sense) to ways of being that were consistent and 'complementary' to those sorts of conditions his father subjected him to. We say 'like father, like son' because mimesis is a secondary 'cycle' that emerges from basic biological cycles, which is only to point out that affective experience forms the ground of all interpretation, so that narrative experience forms 'atop' the affective early-life conditioning as an "interpretive rationale" for what is felt. It is here at the level of narrative where lies or misrepresentations masquerade as truth; but it is at the affective-motivational level that a person is motivated into "recognizing the truth" of a narrative claim, such as the one made by Everett and forced upon his children.




In any case, and at a purely psychological level, one can empathize with the creation of Mark Oliver Everett's lifeworld, so long as one honestly recognize that human beings are adaptive systems, which means we cannot but be inclined in the absence of any serious intervention but take on the same semiotic strategies others in our environment have assumed to 'make coherent' the meaning of their experiences in the world.

Note the greyness (no meaning), the floatiness (the chronic dissociation) which forms the background imagery of the video. Some words:

Life is hard
And so am i
You'd better give me something
So i don't die

- Indeed; being exposed to hardened people forces similar dissociation processes in developing human nervous systems; life is experienced as 'hard' because the resources used by other people - i.e. healthy, supporting, and caring relationships, have been denied to them. Something is needed to get away, to "dissociate' mind from reality.

Novocaine for the soul
Before i sputter out

- Fairly clear, but the logic of dissociation is literally for the purpose of defending against "sputtering out" i.e. fragmentation.

Life is good
And i feel great
'cause mother says i was
A great mistake

An ugly, sadomasochistic paradox. Many people with major abuse think sadomasochism is a way out, unfortunately.




posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Hi Astrocyte,

I'm responding now partly to bookmark a spot,to make it easier to find this in the morning.

I am currently living through a traumatic life event and have been spending nights reading about abuse and the trauma it produces. As a woman who experienced abuse from a very early age, I have also had abusive relationships as an adult. I've learned a lot, mostly from reading stories of other victims/survivors (as opposed to medical sites/blogs that slap a label of mental illness on individuals reacting to trauma).

It's not that abused people think in terms of sadomasochism...it's more about how their first/earliest attachment through love came with abuse or abandonment...and that is the only kind of love they know. Tragic really.

Great thread, very interesting (S&F). I hope I come back here to find a discussion.
jacy



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Hmmm .. .Hugh Everett was likely guided more by maths than anything else when developing his Many World's interpretation... big fan... and without him, no Rick and Morty, for instance.

Strange that we generally think redundancy reduces the value of somethings. Don't we usually make copies of things we value highly?

But yeah, I agree that 'multiplicity' was another blow to human self esteem, but am positive most versions of humanity will get over it, assuming it's truth, just like we got over not being the center of the universe (or are we?).

But I love Eels, too.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Without any real specific and physical evidence to support your point, I really do not see any wisdom offered that is no different than believing otherwise. Sincerely, reality does not have to give as crap what you think is going on and perhaps you feel it is important to argue otherwise?.


Myself I would consider that what you are potentially incompetent.

Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Hello everyone
...


I have made a decision that I feel is very important for all of you to know because, I have decided that if you do not agree with me, because there is something wrong with all of you. Lets face it. I know so much about what is going on that it would be really stupid to disagree with me because, despite any ideas that I am wrong, in all sincerity is obviously the result of some mental aberration. Now I an certain there are serval of who want to tell me and with all due respect. that I am full of #. Due take into consideration that despite the fact that I am presenting myself with simple English it does not mean that I am really a lot better educated than you so I know better.

Lets be clear, obviously there are people who cannot have paranormal experiences and clearly they are obviously suffering from an, as of yet undiagnosed psychiatric disorder. Now it is important to show such persons, and in relation to decorum some degree of patients, as in fact. it is possible we are observing some degree of retardation.

Again your cooperation is appreciated.

edit on 8-10-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

You sure use a lot of fancy words. Do you ever think maybe you lose touch with reality with all your multi-layered abstractions and deep esoteric terminology?



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


Astrocyte is obviously guilty of Heresy and given how really intelligent I really am. I have decided that the only rational decision to make at this point is to Castrate him. Now some of you may disagree but obviously it is because those of you who do, lack my education and ability to use words that you must check a dictionary to see what they mean..


Astrocyte cannot possibly understand anything because I know, I know. That I what I am telling you is more important because I am really, really intelligent and that is very important for all of you to understand.

Now do not worry those of you who choose not to believe in God will all not be Castrated.

I promise.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte


Here is a thought.

Perhaps it is wrong for persons who are educated to objectify something that is obviously and Ideology (as in your case),without actually having objective evidence



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Might he have been autistic? His ideas of "meaninglessness" perhaps a function of his own difficulty with connecting to what he could quantify as meaningful? Obviously an extremely intelligent and possibly living in his own world of numbers, maybe he wasn't able to step out of his own box to actually observe how the greater world around him functioned. His poor children, for whatever reason, seemed to have endured an upbringing of unimaginable conditioning and abuse.

I wonder constantly lately what will become of the ever growing population of people registering somewhere on the spectrum of asd. The numbers are growing so rapidly. I want to know the how and why.

In this man's day mild forms of the condition may not have been as easily recognised. Where was his spouse and extended family during the raising of these children I wonder? Did they all subscribe to his particular method of "training"?



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl


Beautiful response.




It's not that abused people think in terms of sadomasochism...it's more about how their first/earliest attachment through love came with abuse or abandonment...and that is the only kind of love they know. Tragic really.


Very true, and very sad. I think its very important to think of the "attractor space", or the dynamical external situations of self-with-other, and how these external relationships become dynamically coupled in and AS the brain.

So, as you said, people with dissociative disorders have sadomasochistic tendencies because both qualities had become associated with one another; and typically speaking, this is because the person who related with them had a dissociative disorder - typically borderline personality disorder, but sometimes more serious/extensive conditions like a dissociative identity disorder.

In any case, having both these qualities linked to the same object forces the evolution of a nervous system that is able to 'accommodate the other' in just the ways the other needs.

I, too, btw, know sadomasochistic feelings, as most people with a serious trauma may know as well. The most important thing in my mind is to realize that you can talk about these things, and that being able to 'air out' the facts your mental and affective experience is in itself a way of therapeutically regulating what you feel.

On the other hand, if the other party is not willing, able, or aware enough to respond with tolerance, acceptance and compassion, they'll actually do you harm by instigating a shame response that will tend to kick start all these defense mechanisms in your mental process, which of course, for the traumatized mind, is something largely beyond its control to 'stop'; it can only tolerate what is felt - and indeed, learning to bear is paradoxically the only way to relax the body back into a relaxed state i.e. you have to become, and identify with, that 'point' which holds and cares for a broken and injured self: this idea is universally recognized, but unfortunately, has taken quite some time to make its way into the mainstream, nowadays via the mindfulness movement (which is secular enough to appeal to most people).

This is the problem. Psychological problems require interpersonal solutions. We can't feel at ease in a world where others "don't want to hear your problems". That's not how we evolved, and according to the dynamics which govern our biology, it is bad for us when we prefer to live on these terms rather than come to know and accept the 'weak' parts of ourselves i.e. our fears, our discomfort with shame, anxiety, or basically any emotion where we experience ourselves as 'bad' - and for me, at least, I've come to think that shame - inasmuch as it is a socially mediated emotion - is profoundly strong, and more than able to cause the most 'enlightened' of us to act in defensive ways.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Thank you Astrocyte, I appreciate that.
I also agreed with everything you wrote.

When you speak of our "dynamical external situations of self-with-other"...I can't help but wonder how many of us are somewhat psychologically damaged as infants or small children, and how the varying degrees of damage play out over time. Abandonment is a huge issue for babies as it's been proven that lack of nurturing leads to a failure to thrive. So how does a very young human cope with atrocities like abuse?

I am familiar with dissociative disorders and don't really like the 'labels'. Many people have symptoms of multiple 'disorders' but when the reason behind their behaviour/feelings is abuse...I don't think the professionals are taking the right approach. Yes a narcissist parent can in turn raise a narcissistic child, it doesn't tend to work that way.

The response that is evoked in the child can be more along the lines of 'borderline personality' because they were too young to ever process what they were dealing with and are likely to grow up and then partner up with a narcissist because that kind of love is familiar.

Some children grow up to emulate their parents' behaviour, others consciously choose to be different (particularly with parenting styles). But any person who has grown up with a distorted experience of parental love is no doubt going to exhibit different emotional responses than someone who was loved and nurtured.

Many adults who are deeply empathic and kind had to learn at a young age to "walk on eggshells" or worse. They become so hyper-sensitive to the moods of others that they can be anxious and very aware. I can identify with this. When your survival is at stake you learn to behave in a way that doesn't create friction...and your feelings of fear are stifled (along with most of your other emotions). As you said, "...accommodate the other' in just the ways the other needs."

I can tell that you know what you're talking about, and I'm sorry that you have also experienced trauma.
There is much more that I could write, just in response to your reply...but I'm going to stop here and perhaps finish later. I am glad you started this thread, this topic is what I've been reading and researching lately.
jacy



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl





When you speak of our "dynamical external situations of self-with-other"...I can't help but wonder how many of us are somewhat psychologically damaged as infants or small children, and how the varying degrees of damage play out over time. Abandonment is a huge issue for babies as it's been proven that lack of nurturing leads to a failure to thrive. So how does a very young human cope with atrocities like abuse?


Most of us are damaged. You can tell by how they sit; whether or not they speak to other people. Normal people, or healthy people, are essentially social, tend to act/function from a state of enthusiasm/enlivenment, and, depending on the complexity of their cultural context, go-with-the-flow and are easily adaptive, or, ideally, have been raised by parents who offered them the mixture of support and distance to, to use psychoanalytic language, promote 'ego' development, but in terms of the larger self-other dynamic where every self is understood to be equally vulnerable and equally needing positive recognition.

I imagine very few people exist in this world where that sort of psychological sophistication. Most people fail at parenting because the social environment simply fails to afford them the necessary knowledge to influence development in the right ways i.e. in the ways that scientific investigation of development indicate are relevant to the growth of consciousness, feelings of enlivenment, and a sense of wellbeing.




I am familiar with dissociative disorders and don't really like the 'labels'. Many people have symptoms of multiple 'disorders' but when the reason behind their behaviour/feelings is abuse...I don't think the professionals are taking the right approach. Yes a narcissist parent can in turn raise a narcissistic child, it doesn't tend to work that way.


I don't like 'labels' either, but its also useful to know which sort of 'conditions', or 'end-states', human beings come to deal with i.e. it is basically true that some of us become more "rigid" i.e. dissociative, or "schizoid", while others become more 'chaotic" - hyperactive, adventure-seeking, etc. Human personality has potential on both sides, but once development gets going and the brain begins to "lock-in" certain networks and pathways, we begin to see relevant patterns in personality and behavior, which is what all the 'disorders' are about. Its basically a practical guide to thinking about the stereotypical ways human personality development goes awry.

That said, I completely understand the hatred of labels - because people label, and oftentimes, unfortunately, are dumb and insensitive when they talk about other people under an impersonal term. I think about it like this: its bad enough to be a certain way. Do I need the additional constraint of having someone talk about me in a way that almost seems singularly focused on the abstract "label", and not the human person who you're currently interacting with?

Psychiatry has just completely mutilated the general publics idea of 'therapy', presenting what can almost feel like a parody of what real therapy should be. Think Freud and his assumption of the analyst being "impartial". This idea derives from the "Cartesian" influence in continental philosophy, which can equally be found in Jung. Both these guys were deeply disembodied with their understanding of human experience, because both of them got carried away with the power and cult-following that grew around their work. For the patient, this essentially amounted to being 'retraumatized' by a therapist/human being (who calls themselves an "analyst") who refused to respond to the embodied affects that controlled the other's behavior, and, unlike Pierre Janet (who was a much better psychologist, because he was a more realistic psychologist) who focused on real-life traumatic experience, Freud got lost in reinterpreting everything as some sort of sexual issue, and Jung, likewise, dissociated from the significance of the real-life event on brain-development and how the mind makes meaning, to focus on an abstract spirituality which, being transpersonal, took the person out of their body, and quite often, turned them into a haughty intellectualizing narcissist who depersonalizes others because they experience themselves as having "transcended" their own egohood.

An awesome book I just finished a moment ago (this is fresh on my mind!) is Marcus West's "Into the Darkest Places", which integrates Jungian, Relational, and Neurobiological approaches, critiques Jung's own early life relational trauma with a mother who barely interacted with him, and constantly rebuffed his infant calls for attachment, and shows that Jung often "hid behind" an overly intellectualized attitude to the world, and in the process traumatized his own wife Emma, whose frustration with Jung's extramarital affairs had her, obviously, less time to be with him, while he, quite idealistically, splitting his time with a bunch of different women, not realizing how his wife experienced this not as he did (he is a male, after all) but as embodied human woman, a woman sensitive to attachment, affiliation, and closeness - not just sexuality, lust and adventure. Jung, in effect, couldn't "know" the inner nature of his wife because he was overly identified in his mind with his father, his ego, and his "intellectualist" disembodied relation to others.

This doesn't mean, of course, that Jung didn't open up new ground; they both did. But neither of them properly recognized the signficiance and power of relationships and society to create and shape the mind. Neuroscience has forced these questions on us, and in the process, has made the world - and ourselves in the world - appear much more interesting!





Many adults who are deeply empathic and kind had to learn at a young age to "walk on eggshells" or worse. They become so hyper-sensitive to the moods of others that they can be anxious and very aware. I can identify with this. When your survival is at stake you learn to behave in a way that doesn't create friction...and your feelings of fear are stifled (along with most of your other emotions). As you said, "...accommodate the other' in just the ways the other needs."


Very well said.




I can tell that you know what you're talking about, and I'm sorry that you have also experienced trauma.


You have to know your traumas in order to know what you're talking about. No?
edit on 10-10-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte



I, too, btw, know sadomasochistic feelings, as most people with a serious trauma may know as well. The most important thing in my mind is to realize that you can talk about these things, and that being able to 'air out' the facts your mental and affective experience is in itself a way of therapeutically regulating what you feel.



So to you its normal for people to people to mistreat you and otherwise for you to mistreat people. And in your evaluation of others this behavior is effectively normal because, and in your opinion everyone goes through things like that?


NO.

edit on 10-10-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   


Materialism Cannot Explain Consciousness


It is very easy to demonstrate that materialism cannot explain consciousness. First, show that none of the materialist explanations for consciousness are valid:


(A fundamental failing of the materialist explanation of consciousness is that there is no way to explain through physics why red looks like red, why happy feels happy. You can't go from wavelength and frequency to explain what the subjective experience of seeing the color red is like. You can't explain why certain chemical reactions cause the subjective experience of feeling what happiness feels like. There is something fundamental about consciousness which cannot be explained by materialist science.)


ncu9nc.blogspot.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

'Enabling' the abuser is the word used for putting up with crap from people and excusing their sh*tty behavior.
edit on 11-10-2017 by PillarOfFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PillarOfFire


From the OP..



So a few moments back I was reading a book Symmetry in the Rearview Mirror by the Drexler physicist Dave Goldberg (it's a pleasant lighthearted read) and I passed the part where (to my constant annoyance) the physicist explores the "multiple worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics created by the physicist Hugh Everett.


Astrocyte then makes the claim that such thinking is related to "an elitist context", which by the way is complete Bull#.

Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Basically speaking yes. People who disagree with how others think are just closed minded to the reality that they're not always right. And their opinions of what ,they think is an elitist concept are in fact, elitist themselves.




top topics



 
8

log in

join