Would you describe it as Icy?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Deep in the Abyss
- Thread starter LuxObscura
- Start date
fink
overthinking the unthinkable
The promise of ice in the void would be a welcome experience after eternity of nothing!
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
Maybe everyone is his own kind of void.
void is void of void 
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
Have I seen through myself?
Have I seen through the human being as such?
Was I ready to work on my own issues?
Something that feels like both Lego bricks and a minefield?
And by doing so, have I distanced myself too much from being human and being myself?
Have I seen through the human being as such?
Was I ready to work on my own issues?
Something that feels like both Lego bricks and a minefield?
And by doing so, have I distanced myself too much from being human and being myself?
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
In a world where one is so alone in being different, the greatest challenge is to become immune to psychological decomposition.
Alone and different, because the core values of the individual simply do not align with those of the masses.
Psychological decomposition, because even through the mere fact of being different, a dynamic emerges that, though initially unintended, takes on characteristics of psychological breakdown.
But it’s not that simple.
That would only work if one’s difference went unnoticed.
Yet if it went unnoticed, one would no longer be truly different, which nullifies the entire issue.
Thus, one gradually slips into dynamics of psychological decomposition, dynamics that eventually become baseline and normality, even consciously lived, despite knowing they are wrong.
Even if many people are unaware of it, drives and instincts still operate within them.
One can explore these mechanisms with psychedelics, but one can only work on oneself.
While one explores, the understanding of these mechanisms deepens, but at the same time, one risks drifting ever further away from what is considered "normal" within a given context.
But what, then, is the solution?
To become immune to psychological decomposition? Solipsism?
Every perspective changes one’s being, so does one truly want to internalize every trait and viewpoint?
Or can certain perspectives be used instrumentally and defensively, without letting them become part of oneself?
If so, then the crucial question is how long one can employ such perspectives before they unintentionally become part of one’s own essence.
The most difficult question is:
How can I solve this problem while staying true to myself, without having to abandon or alter my fundamental values?
Is resilience, and the ability to become immune to psychological decomposition, the answer to that?
And what effect does such resilience have on those who fail in their attempts to decompose others?
Are they themselves decomposed by their own inferior behavior as it collapses in on itself?
It’s all not that simple.
Yet I think at this point it becomes clear that my morality is not a slave morality.
Still, I should not casually adjust the moral screw that holds my being together.
Alone and different, because the core values of the individual simply do not align with those of the masses.
Psychological decomposition, because even through the mere fact of being different, a dynamic emerges that, though initially unintended, takes on characteristics of psychological breakdown.
But it’s not that simple.
That would only work if one’s difference went unnoticed.
Yet if it went unnoticed, one would no longer be truly different, which nullifies the entire issue.
Thus, one gradually slips into dynamics of psychological decomposition, dynamics that eventually become baseline and normality, even consciously lived, despite knowing they are wrong.
Even if many people are unaware of it, drives and instincts still operate within them.
One can explore these mechanisms with psychedelics, but one can only work on oneself.
While one explores, the understanding of these mechanisms deepens, but at the same time, one risks drifting ever further away from what is considered "normal" within a given context.
But what, then, is the solution?
To become immune to psychological decomposition? Solipsism?
Every perspective changes one’s being, so does one truly want to internalize every trait and viewpoint?
Or can certain perspectives be used instrumentally and defensively, without letting them become part of oneself?
If so, then the crucial question is how long one can employ such perspectives before they unintentionally become part of one’s own essence.
The most difficult question is:
How can I solve this problem while staying true to myself, without having to abandon or alter my fundamental values?
Is resilience, and the ability to become immune to psychological decomposition, the answer to that?
And what effect does such resilience have on those who fail in their attempts to decompose others?
Are they themselves decomposed by their own inferior behavior as it collapses in on itself?
It’s all not that simple.
Yet I think at this point it becomes clear that my morality is not a slave morality.
Still, I should not casually adjust the moral screw that holds my being together.
I feel you'd enjoy it very much
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
Thank you for the recommendation.
Did you read this book?
Are you interested in this kind of topics yourself?
Yes. It's a good one about human maturation. Bill has a new book out that I'm reading right now, but it's more like a summary of all his work. Soulcraft is a more fluid reading experience. It's a map of the territory with some ideas and tools for traversing it. The only thing I dislike is that his ideas work only if you're rooted in the culture. I'm an immigrant myself and couldn't settle in my present country. So, lots of stuff he proposes would work very differently for me. You need to be in a "tribe" to develop your relationship and mature. My view is more from an outside in. Still, I'm getting lots from his work and try to adapt it for myself.
Preach! Be with this process. Trust it.
Lean in my friend
Radiating love for your evolution.
One love
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
I didn’t know that therapeutic sessions could be extreme boundary experiences, like psychedelic trips or other intense overdose experiences with different substances.
The way the nervous system gets strained sometimes feels similar to an extreme situation.
But I also think that such sessions aren’t just boundary experiences for me.
The therapist probably thinks I’m a bit crazy, haha.
The way the nervous system gets strained sometimes feels similar to an extreme situation.
But I also think that such sessions aren’t just boundary experiences for me.
The therapist probably thinks I’m a bit crazy, haha.
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
With my moral calculus, I chain myself.
And with every situation where my shadow wants to emerge, I suppress it with that same calculus.
Each time I do, another link is forged.
A link I can loosen only through writing.
Yet it will never dissolve completely, because I don’t allow it to.
It’s a good thing I’ve found writing as a way to regulate myself.
And with every situation where my shadow wants to emerge, I suppress it with that same calculus.
Each time I do, another link is forged.
A link I can loosen only through writing.
Yet it will never dissolve completely, because I don’t allow it to.
It’s a good thing I’ve found writing as a way to regulate myself.
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
A Framework for detaching from the aspects of the abyss that no longer serve me:
It’s time for us to go our separate ways.
Even though you might seem, in the short term, like a loyal companion from my point of view, in the long run you’ve caused me more worry and sorrow than you ever should have.
I’ve thought a lot about how to write this letter and came to the conclusion that,
on one hand, I don’t want to make it a bigger deal than necessary,
but on the other hand, I do want to make clear how troublesome you actually are.
Yet, to truly express that, I’d have to write so much that it would end up making the whole thing bigger again than it needs to be.
I bury you together with the shovel I used to dig your hole.
I ask myself whether that’s enough for a final goodbye.
I know how much damage you cause.
But is knowing it, without writing it down, enough?
Is it enough that I’m aware of everything I would write, without actually putting it into words?
I want to say goodbye to you, but I shouldn’t bury the bad memories along with you.
Because it’s precisely the bad parts that I should carry with me, to remind me to stay away from you in the future.
If I bury the bad memories, will I then remember you in a positive light, even though you’ve caused more pain and worry than you were ever worth?
But maybe that’s not what matters most.
I think what truly matters is to bring this to an end, just as I reach the end of this post, it also comes to an end between you and me.
It’s time for us to go our separate ways.
Even though you might seem, in the short term, like a loyal companion from my point of view, in the long run you’ve caused me more worry and sorrow than you ever should have.
I’ve thought a lot about how to write this letter and came to the conclusion that,
on one hand, I don’t want to make it a bigger deal than necessary,
but on the other hand, I do want to make clear how troublesome you actually are.
Yet, to truly express that, I’d have to write so much that it would end up making the whole thing bigger again than it needs to be.
I bury you together with the shovel I used to dig your hole.
I ask myself whether that’s enough for a final goodbye.
I know how much damage you cause.
But is knowing it, without writing it down, enough?
Is it enough that I’m aware of everything I would write, without actually putting it into words?
I want to say goodbye to you, but I shouldn’t bury the bad memories along with you.
Because it’s precisely the bad parts that I should carry with me, to remind me to stay away from you in the future.
If I bury the bad memories, will I then remember you in a positive light, even though you’ve caused more pain and worry than you were ever worth?
But maybe that’s not what matters most.
I think what truly matters is to bring this to an end, just as I reach the end of this post, it also comes to an end between you and me.
Last edited:
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
It is an image that cannot merely be shown.
One that reveals the limits of communication.
You can offer all explanations, hints, or attempts at understanding.
But if the other person is not willing or not able to listen or understand,
then every effort is one that will never reach its goal.
You meet this with realism and composure.
Some energy is wasted when you invest it in people who are not open.
Yet becoming aware of this allows me to let go,
to let go of the feeling that I must be the only one responsible.
Responsibility in understanding lies between both parties,
in equal measure.
The responsibility for how one communicates lies with the one who speaks.
The responsibility for how one listens or understands lies with the one who receives.
Understanding is not always necessary.
Even from disagreement, one can gain insight, namely, that one simply does not understand each other.
But one can ask, why is that?
I think the fundamental values of both parties are simply too different.
Just as a dog cannot communicate with a cat and vice versa,
it is similar with humans, Aristotle might say.
But humans are far more complex.
If we reduced it to this alone, the image would remain incomplete.
Wittgenstein shows us on two different levels why this is the case:
The Tractatus demonstrates that representations are formally possible but limited.
The Philosophical Investigations show that meaning arises through use and that context is indispensable.
Considered together, both perspectives make it clear that every reduction offers only a partial picture of reality.
Even if the comparison with dogs and cats or with different cat breeds is only a partial picture,
it still helps illuminate certain aspects of human communication.
For even communication between two cats of the same breed can become difficult if one of them is blind.
Every attempt to correct a distortion introduces a new one.
Even the act of clarifying what a picture should show becomes part of the distortion itself.
This leads me to wonder whether reduction, by its very nature, undermines itself.
One that reveals the limits of communication.
You can offer all explanations, hints, or attempts at understanding.
But if the other person is not willing or not able to listen or understand,
then every effort is one that will never reach its goal.
You meet this with realism and composure.
Some energy is wasted when you invest it in people who are not open.
Yet becoming aware of this allows me to let go,
to let go of the feeling that I must be the only one responsible.
Responsibility in understanding lies between both parties,
in equal measure.
The responsibility for how one communicates lies with the one who speaks.
The responsibility for how one listens or understands lies with the one who receives.
Understanding is not always necessary.
Even from disagreement, one can gain insight, namely, that one simply does not understand each other.
But one can ask, why is that?
I think the fundamental values of both parties are simply too different.
Just as a dog cannot communicate with a cat and vice versa,
it is similar with humans, Aristotle might say.
But humans are far more complex.
If we reduced it to this alone, the image would remain incomplete.
Wittgenstein shows us on two different levels why this is the case:
The Tractatus demonstrates that representations are formally possible but limited.
The Philosophical Investigations show that meaning arises through use and that context is indispensable.
Considered together, both perspectives make it clear that every reduction offers only a partial picture of reality.
Even if the comparison with dogs and cats or with different cat breeds is only a partial picture,
it still helps illuminate certain aspects of human communication.
For even communication between two cats of the same breed can become difficult if one of them is blind.
Every attempt to correct a distortion introduces a new one.
Even the act of clarifying what a picture should show becomes part of the distortion itself.
This leads me to wonder whether reduction, by its very nature, undermines itself.
Last edited:
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
"It hurts when you have to stay away from what the heart desires."
- Unknown
https://forum.dmt-nexus.me/threads/the-quote-room.306244/page-30#post-3976220
Yet sometimes what the heart desires isn't what truly benefits you.
And while abstaining from what the heart wants, one suffers just as much as if one didn't stay away.
A dilemma where both premises lead to the same negative conclusion.
Is this really all the heart wants?
Sometimes, yes. But why?
Is there nothing else the heart could possibly desire instead?
Could one then substitute it?
Would one have to settle for something of lesser value?
Perhaps one simply hasn't yet discovered what the heart could want even more.
But how do you find what you don't know, if it's equally or even more fulfilling?
Or is the "problem" that one wants, or wants to want?
Is the "solution" to detach oneself from one's desires?
Detaching from all desires would more likely lead to a dead end.
If one desires nothing at all, would one then also fail to desire what is necessary for survival?
It should rather be about selective desiring.
Not wanting anything at all doesn't make sense.
Then only the second or higher level remains as a parameter:
deciding what one wants to want.
Thus, it wouldn't make sense to say, 'I don't want my heart to want.'
More sensibly, one could say, 'I don't want my heart to want "the one thing" that it desires.'
But what does "the one thing" mean here?
Is a deductive approach really the solution for "the one thing"?
Deduction in the sense of liking/disliking?
Couldn't an inductive approach also be included?
That is, 'I don't want my heart to want "the one thing" in this way that it desires.'
And here we approach a perspective that allows me to come to terms with it somewhat better.
Even the thought of wishing that the heart desired less makes the situation slightly more bearable.
Yet the problem isn't truly solved, if it can even work practically this way.
The problem remains, it still hurts what the heart wants.
But it has improved somewhat.
At least now it hurts a little less.
And does lowering the standards make it easier to find a substitute?
- Unknown
https://forum.dmt-nexus.me/threads/the-quote-room.306244/page-30#post-3976220
Yet sometimes what the heart desires isn't what truly benefits you.
And while abstaining from what the heart wants, one suffers just as much as if one didn't stay away.
A dilemma where both premises lead to the same negative conclusion.
Is this really all the heart wants?
Sometimes, yes. But why?
Is there nothing else the heart could possibly desire instead?
Could one then substitute it?
Would one have to settle for something of lesser value?
Perhaps one simply hasn't yet discovered what the heart could want even more.
But how do you find what you don't know, if it's equally or even more fulfilling?
Or is the "problem" that one wants, or wants to want?
Is the "solution" to detach oneself from one's desires?
Detaching from all desires would more likely lead to a dead end.
If one desires nothing at all, would one then also fail to desire what is necessary for survival?
It should rather be about selective desiring.
Not wanting anything at all doesn't make sense.
Then only the second or higher level remains as a parameter:
deciding what one wants to want.
Thus, it wouldn't make sense to say, 'I don't want my heart to want.'
More sensibly, one could say, 'I don't want my heart to want "the one thing" that it desires.'
But what does "the one thing" mean here?
Is a deductive approach really the solution for "the one thing"?
Deduction in the sense of liking/disliking?
Couldn't an inductive approach also be included?
That is, 'I don't want my heart to want "the one thing" in this way that it desires.'
And here we approach a perspective that allows me to come to terms with it somewhat better.
Even the thought of wishing that the heart desired less makes the situation slightly more bearable.
Yet the problem isn't truly solved, if it can even work practically this way.
The problem remains, it still hurts what the heart wants.
But it has improved somewhat.
At least now it hurts a little less.
And does lowering the standards make it easier to find a substitute?
Last edited:
There is a difference between what the heart desires and what we think the heart desires. When it comes to a genuine heart desire, fulfilling it usually leads to suffering. However, that's a cleansing kind of suffering that changes you inside out and leads to a more authentic future. It's not that your life is going to be better or that you yourself are going to be a better human; instead, it's all about maturation. Following through with the cosmic program would lead to a true adulthood, not the social substitute that we are fed nowadays. We have no choice in the matter, actually. If not now, the leap will come later on. Although the longer we wait, the harder it gets.
Oṃ Namaḥ Śivāya
