a reply to: LightSpeedDriver
Sociopathy depends on trauma. Trauma results from situations of asymmetry between how one self represents another self. The word - or the face - or a
body which violently attacks you, is traumatic.
People need to dispell this myth that sociopaths exist independently of interpersonal abuse. Yes - can someone be born with tendencies toward
sociopathy? Of course, even the existence of such tendencies are the elaboration of already existing functions transmitted by the semen and egg, and
so, are non-random. That is, the direction taken by the zygote, fetus, up until birth, is a function of semen/egg plus the experiences the mother is
having with her environment.
Her affective state is a continuous stream of information for the developing system in her tummy. Feeling state communicates 'threat-safety'
parameters, and hence, adjusts a whole lot other factors with that basic fact. Neotony, or the preserving of childlike features, is itself a function
of a more nurturing social surround (see the Russian silver foxes for an example of how 20 generations of breeding for socializing with humans created
By adulthood, the tendentious mind of the psychopath - a snake that eats its own tail indeed - warps reality for its extremely polarized ends: what it
wants, crystallized in the worship of principles, taken to the extreme in the romanticization of the will, whether it be in germanic myth or
Nietzsche. Since knowledge of reality is based on a coherent representation of cause and effect, a mind which focuses simply on its own will to power
comes to dissociate the injustice of many of its willed actions. There is a whole world of other mind-bodies which its behavior is semiotically linked
with - yet, because they never interact with these persons, they naively assume that the 'counterpoint' of their existence, and the consequences
they're exposed to, and where those consequences originate, don't matter.
In any case, we need to always remind ourselves of this duality: the psychopath is very much "what he seems to be". He is scary, threatening, and at
an autonomic level, not "pretending" to be a psychopath. On the other hand, he is a myth-builder - indulges in his own self-myth, and tries to bully
other people into believing the same myth about himself. Indeed, his ability to effectively regulate himself entails the other persons affective
adjulation of his prowess - a point which makes the 'incestuous' and 'homosexual' aspects of self-worship better captured by a being that is eating
its own being - the ouroboros - a symbol which radically entails a romanticized awareness of ones own incoherence.
Buried within any psychopath is a history of trauma. There are 'fear' elements which constitute the semiotic undercurrent, or 'ontological attractor',
which makes logical why the self acts the way it does, for instance a) why is he is wired to be insensitive to other peoples cues? Is it merely, as
biologists assume, a function of 'random variance'? Or is it, as the developmental biology justifies, a function of a biosemiotic continuum which
links one generation to the next, and hence, transmits non-random traits to the next generation as a function of what a present (and previous)
This is the truth - the final truth, the whole truth, and hence, anyone who understands this needn't be too perturbed by the opinion of the
uninformed, but at the same time, since this situation has to change, the elements which cause us to act this way - especially shame -> fear of shame
-> anger at feeling shame -> dynamics need to be recognized as those elements which trigger self-state switches, and so, until people get a semiotic
sense of how their identity states form, this pretentious showcase of idiocy were subject to will continue on.