This is something that I hope helps some people, because it's

File: Harry_Tuttle_Meme.jpg (34KB, 484x482px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 484x482px

>>18591248

They may be, sometimes - for brief moments, perhaps longer if you're really lucky - but never forever. The probability of someone literally existing who matches your conception of ideal so perfectly is so low as to break universal limits. It's why humans have invented ideas like Tulpas (check /x/ for more on that shit... it gets deep). It's hard not to do, but you'll find that once you try to really completely listen to and experience the people you are around - just try to experience the universe through their eyes - that you find yourself having to adapt your internal audience to fit the experienced world. There is a dialectic, and it is liminal, and there is an equilibrium. It's so hard to do; it may be enlightenment itself, but it exists. I guess it's the root of compassion, and ultimately leads to ego-death because you realize that you don't actually exist outside of the sum-total of the identities that others construct of you outside of a solipsistic bubble, but that's also okay. It's how you build a universe. You are eternal in your own universe, and quantum-immortal. So it's worth exploring, ya' know? Okay, rant over, /adv/. I'm curious to hear thoughts on this.

(2/2)

K

File: ec9.gif (1MB, 170x180px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 170x180px

You are deeply troubled and should seek psychiatric help.

Sometimes I think I'm pretty autistic, but then I read posts like these and realize I'm not that bad of a case.

>>18591254
>perfection is a myth
Get outta here I'm trying to get over my 95% perfect ex by telling myself I'll find someone better.

>>18591271
Dude, literally why though? Is this delusional thinking? Because I said it was a metaphor, and I find it extremely useful and resonant with a lot of Jungian theory I've been encountering recently. I'm actually extremely well-educated, with a real actual graduate degree (MA in Composition, so I know - weak "social science" - but the academic rigor is no fucking joke even there). Why do you just automatically go straight to the "crazy" trope? It seems like you might actually be doing exactly what I'm suggesting you fight, if you even read the whole thing.

tl;dr: come at me, bro

>>18591276
Oh, I'm fully convinced that if I were born 10 or 15 years later, I'd have been placed on the spectrum. Maybe your automatic dismissal of writing that seems "autistic" is creating a sort of confirmation-bias where you're never challenged to question your worldview, though - have you considered that.... biyotch?

This is quantum-dumb.

>>18591298
>resonant with a lot of Jungian theory
I'm gonna need you to disclose the amount of pot you've smoked in your lifetime, along with any other psychedelic medication

>>18591248
>Everyone has an "Internal Audience." This is the crowd we imagine around us when we recognize we are in a position for which we might be judged
Didn't read that shit but when i'm judging my self it's only my inner voice vs my realself who discuss that shit

I think there's more happiness to gain from being your authentic self. Too many people are trying to be something they're not. They make friends who gravitate to their false persona and never make any real connections.

I have no audience in my head, I don't care if people like me. I didn't live like this for a long tine and I was miserable.

Now I have friends who love me for me, we all stopped caring about cultivating a persona to fit in long ago.Resulting in us gravitating towards each other.

My empathy allows me to see through others eyes and understand them. I must have some natural highly tuned behaviour analysis abilities, because my intuition about a person is scary accurate.

You're ideas are nonsense and don't really go together you keep jumping from one topic to another with a very thin connection between each. What are you trying to explain exactly and why is it so hard to dum it down to something simple?

OP you're schizo.

>>18591283
Yo dawg - just ended a 15 year marriage, bro. This is literally how I'm getting through it. Here's the thing: just because you can't find 100% perfection through a single person (95% is fucking unrealistic, desu - you might want to check for nostalgia-bias and cherry-picking, there... I know from experience), that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy the times when the people you're with *are* your ideal. You just have to step back and think in the long-term. No, the *really* long-term. If you were exclusive (I'm assuming you were), then even having a 95%-perfect ex is a recipe for perseverating and obsessing over that 5%. It warps, it, magnetizes it - grants it mass and gives it gravity. If this is a person who demands faithfulness, and you are forever tortured by the possibilities of having a better relationship - then guess what? It's not the perfect relationship. You don't actually know that it's not out there, but the reality is that it's extremely unlikely... so just have lots of relationships with people until you decide that it's time to move on. There's nothing wrong with this. This is how life works. Once you have burst the bubble and seen your mate in the cold light of objective reality, the "work" of the relationship comes in building up an ignorance of the things they do which detract from your ideal, and focusing on that which confirms your expectations of them being some sort of "soulmate" or other completion of self. This is not worthwhile work. This is delusion. Um, yeah. I hope this is helpful.

>>18591317
Have you been holding on to that one for a long time, or is it something you throw at any post that mentions quantum theory? It's sort of almost clever, but I wouldn't stick to it as a habit or anything.

>>18591283
No such thing as perfect person. Perfection is a process not a state. People close to perfection would have to have the quality of always striving to better themselves.

File: 1446452990990.jpg (8KB, 226x166px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 226x166px

>>18591248
I get what you're saying. But I find something objectively off about your analogy. Let me simplify it for everyone what I think you're trying to convey with a quote by an unknown author that is often wrongly attributed to dr. suess: "those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind".

>>18591319
a) Fuck off.
b) A lot. Like, you can't imagine. Shit tons of pot. Other drugs include a brief stint with meth, one acid trip that triggered ego-death in a most unexpected and jarring fashion, a jaunty experience with Salvia that confirmed my suspicion of the falsity of the mind-body duality, and a number of prescription antipsychotics, including Olanzapine, Latuda, Lamictal (technically not necessarily an antispychotic), mood stabilizers such as Lithium, Klonopin (again, may not count as much as sedative, and it's not long-term, but I think that's how it was prescribed), and I think Klonopin for a brief spell. When I was 18 and fell asleep in the sun, my mother gave me codeine, which she had obtained for her recent hysterectomy (this means the sunburn was at least second-degree burn level, not that my mom was a pill-pusher). I have also been prescribed Norco for a broken rib (I should've tipped him for that one, right?). I believe that is my entire drug history, unless you count nicotine and alcohol, both of which I have consumed to greater degrees than I feel like attempting to calculate at the moment. I'm drinking a 32 of King Cobra right now, actually.
c) You really shouldn't write off Jung. While limited in his scope, he developed a fuckload of useful metaphors for describing the human experience, so unless you want to start describing how we exist as a species with a shared history that has developed a number of common psychological constructions of reality that, when compared, might suggest more of a concrete past to our imaginations than we might think (which has recently been confirmed to a large degree by research in epigenetics), then maybe you should engage in the conversation instead of just picking off low-hanging fruit.

>>18591323
But do you really have only one "inner-voice?" Isn't it more a collection of the people who you have known and the voices you have learned and acquired? Like, I might be legit crazy for experiencing this, I don't really know - okay, I sort of do - I am legit crazy, but I don't fully understand how I'm crazy, so it would be really useful to know how much of a stretch this metaphor is, because it relies on a shared experience that actually might legitimately only fit to a small percentage of the population. Do you really think that's the case, or is it just that people don't explore their "inner-voice" enough, and think about where it comes from? I literally don't know.

File: ByKHqgtIEAAlmfk.jpg (58KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x495px

>>18591248
>There's also this thing we do where we attach that Internal Audience to the external world, and map them to the actual human beings around us

So it's like a crush - where our brains take incomplete, often scanty knowledge of a person, fill in knowledge gaps with ideals, and then attach the person's face to the construct [and then get imprint on it]

..Except with this, the brain creates completely original constructs (no partial templates), which you then project onto people you experience?

> just try to experience the universe through their eyes - that you find yourself having to adapt your internal audience to fit the experienced world.

So.. in other words, "People are never what you think they are, so try as hard as you can to truly understand them and see the world from their points of view, and you'll develop your perception of the world [in ways you couldn't do by sticking to your own perspective]?"

>I guess it's the root of compassion, and ultimately leads to ego-death because you realize that you don't actually exist outside of the sum-total of the identities that others construct of you outside of a solipsistic bubble, but that's also okay.

"You stop judging people and learn that we're all on the same team"..?

>>18591324
Yass, queen, yass: you resolved the dilemma by abandoning your dreams completely! That's a valid way to experience people "authentically," and there is definitely some level of objectivity we can all achieve within the empirical limits of our bodies... but even this that you describe is an iteration. Each of you, your group of friends, is an individual universe unto yourselves. I've gone through many of these groups, and after long enough, it really does seem that people can't help themselves from falling into tropes and memes to a certain extent. But then you reconcile it after meeting even more people, and you resolve into a gel of a group, and then it happens again. It's all part of the process, and if you're comfortable being "you," then that's really all that matters.

>>18591248
Any recommended reading, OP? Would love to get more into this subject and dissociate from 'egoistic', draining, false desires.

>>18591330
I hope they're not nonsense. Surely, they'll be nonsense to some. But I'm really trying to explain a fundamental principal of human existence and perception, and that's really hard to do. We've been trying to find the right metaphor since the first words were spoken, and whenever there seems to be a good one, I feel the need to share it. It might make references that you aren't familiar with, but I promise that if you research these ideas, they do tie together. I've had a lot of time to think about and make connections between seemingly disparate ideas. I am curious as to where you would find any particular logical leaps or over-stretching of reason. Things aren't simple. Anything you think is simple is something you haven't spend enough time with.

>>18591331
Not specifically. I have family a couple generations back with that diagnosis, but I've only ever gotten Bipolar Disorder (I) with Psychotic Features. It's like the Cadillac of mental diagnoses, trust me. And honestly fuck anyone who thinks this would threaten my credibility as a thinker. Take most any philosopher and dig into their biography and you'll find all sorts of behaviors that, given contemporary diagnostic standards (per the DSM V), would fit any number of disorders. But sure, shit on the "nutjob." That's nice.

>>18591345
>People close to perfection would have to have the quality of always striving to better themselves.

Well, this runs into a classic paradox (a la Zeno): if you move halfway toward something every time you move, then how do you ever get there? Any ideal is beyond human limits. The trap is that we're tricked into thinking that we are capable of being perfect, which triggers the struggle of which you speak. But to resolve the paradox, recognize this: you already *are* perfect. You are the product of an environment for which you are fittest, because you're still fucking alive. Nobody knows what the "next step" is. It may not be corporeal. We don't really have the capability to understand posthumanism yet. Because we're human. But if I read your vibe correctly, you sound like you're on the way to the breakdown where you recognize that self-improvement is an eternal striving for a concept that only exists in your mind... that will suck for you, but run toward it. Run with reckless abandon. Become your own Adonis, your very own Tyler Durden. You'll get there if you sacrifice everything. And then you'll be there. And you will find that those questions that you've been swiping away like epistemic gnats do not ever leave you. They wait. They wait until you are perfect, and then all at once, they swarm. They are relentless. They will destroy you. Be destroyed, for after that, there is nothing more they can take from you. Wow, that seems sort of dark in retrospect... my bad, homie. You're probably a cool dude, so I just wish you the best. We'll all get to where we need to be.

>>18591368
Let me help: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/12/04/those-who-mind/

This is sort of a weird way to gloss what I was saying. I mean, I guess you could take some predeterministic approach and argue that human agency is null and void in a universe where the controlling forces have already prevailed, but what good would that do us? Where would our presence be? We'd either mind or not matter. That's a classic false dilemma, my friend: deny the binary. We might just mind so much *because* we fucking matter. We do. We underestimate our sphere of influence every day - every person we walk past is an opportunity to try and remind others that they matter, and we all matter, because none of us really know the "objective" reality of it all... if they did, how would they describe it anyway? Math? Physics? These, too, are artificial metaphors of human construction, and even if we can tap into the eternal, we can never communicate it well enough to get others there. Think about it: if there were a surefire method for enlightenment, wouldn't everyone already be there? If there were some way to tap into unlimited omniscience, it's not "us" who have it - it's something else. All we have is the limited capability to express our perspective and aid our fellow meat-bags in this bizarre and seemingly uncaring universe that keeps us around for unknown reasons... But dude - I fucking love Space Ghost. That's old-school.

>>18591384
>So it's like a crush - where our brains take incomplete, often scanty knowledge of a person, fill in knowledge gaps with ideals, and then attach the person's face to the construct [and then get imprint on it]...Except with this, the brain creates completely original constructs (no partial templates), which you then project onto people you experience?

I think sort of yes? I imagine its more of a borg-like assimilation, where we construct ideals from early perceptions and then run an iterative analysis of similarity to said ideals? It does explain the "crush," though, as a sort of algorithmic construct of what we imagine we do/should find attractive (that slash is probably the most important question in all of humankind, btw, but yeah).

>People are never what you think they are, so try as hard as you can to truly understand them and see the world from their points of view, and you'll develop your perception of the world [in ways you couldn't do by sticking to your own perspective]?

Well, yeah - that's a super-efficient way of synthesizing the argument.

>You stop judging people and learn that we're all on the same team

Now I feel like you're trying to boil down my argument into a series of home-spun aphorisms. I mean, if that's useful to you, then yeah - I guess sort of. But the devil is in the details, and I don't know if "on the same team" is particularly useful, because it implies a divide between "us" and "them," which creates a framework that historically has resulted in humans constantly pitting themselves into binary groups. I think this might cut to the core of "self" versus "other" in binary oppositions, and I'm sort of hoping to break past the sort of surface-level Reader's Digest stuff... but yeah; I wouldn't argue with any of what you've said in the most general sense.

>>18591248
OP is a nuanced thinker, idk why people are shitting.

>>18591397
Oh, man. Like, everything? Specifically regarding ego-death, I'd recommend a heavy dose of Alan Watts lectures. The Freudian construction of "ego" as a tripartite self with "id" and "superego" can be useful, but tends to create a certain inaccessibility within the framework of self to reconcile all three. I think the Buddhist construction of self as an inverse relationship with attachments to the physical world provides a more useful framework, and Watts is particularly good at breaking this down. "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki (son of D.T. Suzuki, who is largely credited with "bringing Buddhism to the West," as admittedly Orientalist and colonialist as it is) comes to mind for reading (Watts also wrote, but his lectures are where he really comes through the most).

>>18591484
Also, Claude Levi-Strauss is a good place to start for the language component of "binary opposition." This ties deeply into post-structuralist language theory, so you may want to brush up on your Saussure for the semiotic framework of "sign, signifier, and signified" as a primer.

>>18591470
yeah, nuance thinker... like a 16 year old stoner

OP took 40 years to realize not to give into social anxiety. My heart bleeds for him, it really does.

>>18591511
Naw, man - I didn't hit "stoner" until 18. I mean "not giving in to social anxiety" isn't the worst way to describe it, but look at what assumptions are made: "giving in" is presented as a framework of competition between larger and lesser forces; "social anxiety" is presented as a stable construct of thought-patterns, and even the earlier "realize" frames the statement as something one can "learn" instead of practice and accept as a way of seeing things. What kind of social anxiety we talking, here? The kind where you feel isolated among a group of people? The kind where you can't possibly enter the "outside world" because the faces are too much, and you can just see the disapproval in peoples' eyes too clearly? The kind where you're having a great time, and then you say something after which there is a protracted silence, and you start to internally become increasingly convinced that you've done something unspeakable, and will surely be shunned from society for it, and you probably deserve it because you're so weird, and you should probably be locked away forever? There's a myriad social anxieties, my friend, and your glib manner suggests that you may want to explore the topic a bit more before weighing in on such matters. The false sympathy at the end really sells it, though.

>>18591336
Yeah it did. And I know exactly what you mean by those 5%, there were always minor things that made me think I was missing out on something. It was still really great while it lasted and I wish I had focused more on the positive things.

>>18591345
She did so your point is mood. But yeah, perfection is a concept. I used to tell her she might not be perfect, but perfect for me. Then I started letting all these negative thoughts creep in and things went downhill.

>>18591542
>Yeah it did. And I know exactly what you mean by those 5%, there were always minor things that made me think I was missing out on something. It was still really great while it lasted and I wish I had focused more on the positive things.

It's an important moment when you or the person you're in a relationship begins referring to it in the past-tense. I remember the moment my wife did. It triggered a Whisper post, it was so emotional... lol. But yeah, seriously - those things don't ever go away which make you think you're "missing out" on something - at least, not for me. They may be cyclical, and you may have a number of months or years with the person while being capable of ignoring the degree to which you're unhappy, but it's not like you realize that bliss-point where the person magically transforms into the person you've always imagined. Again, at least not in my experience: I'm not holding out hope of the possibility...

>>18591564
Yeah this is why I can't blame her for moving on. But for me, letting go of the past is really hard.

>>18591248
yeah I noticed somehow, but never really got to a point where I felt like I had an 'audience'. But I noticed, that I always think that people think about me the way I actually think of myself, even if they don't know me. And the way I thought of myself is influenced a lot by how other people think of me... For example a good friend, a parent or maybe even some person in your social circe that is cooler than you and makes you feel insecure (bad case). So maybe your right. It seems like an endless circle, if you don't start thinking about your self differently by yourself. You'll always be your own victim.

I am 20. I have no hope in life. I have certain reams and want my life ahead to be reasonable and okay to live. Everything happening now in my life is kind off making me feel hopeless and even more hopeless. How do I fight this? How can the OP help me? I'm confused.

>>18591248
Is this like saying don't be a delusional idiot but you can be delusional at the very slightest?

>>18591484
>>18591496
Thanks, mate. Really appreciate it!