Friday, December 24, 2010
It's the end of December, and that means it's time to discuss the results of this year's John Edwards Award for Biggest Douche.
Congratulations are in order for all participants of this year's close race, but Levi Johnston, making a valiant effort to clinch the title in the waning months of 2010, has pushed himself on to victory.
Levi Johnston first made a name for himself in the race by abandoning the girl he knocked up, Bristol Palin, after she gave birth to their child- with absolutely no regard for public opinion. This was definitely a power-play, but some questioned whether he was just another one-trick pony. Airing Palin family secrets in public along with rumors that he was shopping around a tell-all book with his time with Bristol helped his candidacy a little, but many still questioned his resolve. Could he stand up to contestants with real douche-stamina like John Mayer, or would he cave under withering public disgust?
To quiet the naysayers, Johnston decided to use his fame-by-association and pose for Playgirl magazine. This finally shook up the established front-runners. When Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino from the show "Jersey Shore" was asked for his reaction, he said something retarded, of course, but he was also visibly shaken.
While some undoubtedly would have coasted on these extraordinary achievements until crunch time, Johnston has shown himself to be made of tougher stuff. In July of this year, he went out of his way to rescind a public apology for airing Palin secrets, saying the apology was a lie, and the only thing he has done that he is ashamed of.
At this point, most speculators considered him a shoe-in until an old favorite announced his candidacy. Just a month later, Mel Gibson responded by unleashing a verbal assault unheard of in in public record. Judges ruled that according to the new laws drafted in 2009, although Gibson had entered previous competitions, his past achievements could be counted again this year since he did not actually win the title.
If you thought a heavyweight like Gibson would scare Johnston, you would be wrong. Just one month later, the 20 year old Johnston decided to run for mayor in Wasilla, Alaska, the state wherein he is the single most unpopular person, as part of a reality show. (His 6 percent approval rating stands 9 points lower than John Edwards' 15.) This brought him neck-and-neck with Gibson. By November though, with months of inactivity, polling showed him to be trailing the more popular Gibson by 11 points. It seemed like Johnston was beat.
Then came December. In an astonishing turn of events, results of extensive polling secretly conducted by Johnston's staff were produced to show that Gibson actually qualified for the title of "Craziest Person Outside of a Mental Institute". According to an obscure rule in the Douchebag Handbook dating back to 1896, no person may hold two awards in the same year. As all the other contestants had already lost in the semi-finals to Gibson and Johnston, the judges were forced to acquiesce to this douchey maneuver by Johnston and hand him the award.
As Johnston was too cool to attend the awards ceremony, his manager Tank Jones (real name) accepted the award for him saying, "People questioned Jesus Christ, so I definitely don't care about these mere mortals questioning Levi Johnston." Douchey words indeed, from another big fat douchebag.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Everybody knows that good advertising attempts to tap into existing emotions and associate a certain product with it. Thus the old adage, "Sex sells". That works fine with coke, cars, and the like; things that naturally appeal to you. Then it's only a matter of elevating this specific brand by associating it with another need. I'm anyways gonna drink soda, why not spend a few cents more to get the one that might make me more sexually desirable. The problem advertisers sometimes face is taking a boring product and trying to associate it with those same deeper needs.
Take Excedrin. Their tagline is: "For life's headaches". Their commercial shows people in otherwise happy families bogged down by headaches. The connection trying to be built here is that headaches are the impediment to your otherwise happy life, and Excedrin is your friend. That's overreaching. Nobody today thinks that curing headaches will cure all their problems. They need to aim a little lower.
Here's one for Gillete: A 20 second scene of kids seeing only a smooth-shaven Dad (close-up on the shiny chin) amidst a large group of people at their game/play. The tagline? "Show em how much you care, with gillette fusion proglide". If you can't even figure this association out, your not alone. The best I can come up with is that your kids are judging how much you care by how presentable you make yourself. Gillete has always had sexual commercials. Here they are trying to shamelessly branch out. In my opinion, the oedipal basis of this commercial points more to the disturbed psyche of the ad designer than the demographic Gillete is trying to attract. Or at least I'd like to hope.
Finally, Chase bank makes a notable contribution in their "Chase what matters" commercials. Here we have the same pattern over and over. A mother or father trying to help out in the family, and being able to do so by Chase taking care of the finances. Here Chase is trying to score from behind the 8-ball. Being concerned about your money makes you Scrooge in the zeitgeist. Chase is taking over the burden of your guilt to allow you to still feel good about yourself. We'll sell our soul to keep yours pure. We recognize that we've damned ourselves by chasing money, but you can save us, if only a little. We are weak and have trapped ourselves in evil. But by doing this we allow you, the good one, to chase what matters.
After much research, I present some of the most difficult questions I've come across. Got any answers?
1. Why are there no bathrooms in the Clue mansion?
2. What caused so many butlers in the early 1900's to become ingenious murderers?
3. Why do the Howells have suitcases of clothes and money if they went for a three-hour tour?
4. If Gandalf can kill a huge fiery demon with magic- after which he becomes much more powerful - how come he only fights the armies of Mordor with a stick and a sword?
5. If objects can be thrown at wizards and knock them out when they can't see them fast enough to block them with a spell, why doesn't Harry Potter buy a machine gun?
And 6. Why are we here?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Bored and looking for fun stuff to watch? As always, you've come to the right place:
Water Balloon Time Warp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90VyvOhPmA0
Harry Potter Think Tank: http://www.cracked.com/video_
Wall Animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGaqLT-gO4
Everyday Normal Guy rap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PsnxDQvQpw
Greg Giraldo clip: http://comedians.jokes.com/greg-giraldo/videos/greg-giraldo---homeless-guy
Photoshop art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYMRepK_aqw
And of course something from Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnvicCLfkqo&feature=related
Monday, December 20, 2010
This is a public service announcement. Some people don't seem to realize, but painted sharpie eyebrows went whore years ago. And as everyone knows, once that industry has gotten a hold of something, it never goes back. If you aren't in that line of work, you need to give them up.
I think some people don't understand the dynamic at work. They like the style and think they can still pull it off. Please let me explain why you can't.
All style, be it on clothes, makeup, cars, whatever, are there to get other people's attention. If you were the only person alive, you wouldn't dress up. You'd walk around naked in the summer, or in a heavy peasant coat in the winter. Now, people try to make a statement to others with their style for a variety of reasons, but the main one is to attract people they'd like to hang around. And usually the people they're trying to attract most are ones they'd like to have sex with. Your average middle-aged middle-class married person observes the basic dress codes that keep them from being ejected from society, and that's it. When they don't, you know something's up. Either they're divorced and looking, gay and looking, need approval, or just insane.
Interestingly, men's styles usually incorporate a not-caring aspect (ruggedness, carefully messed-up hair). As men age, the style needs to become understated (expensive material with muted colors). This is also part of the message attempted to be displayed, albeit more subtly. It says to women, and to men you are in competition with, that you aren't trying too hard because you're confident in yourself. Women want that, and men fear it.
In higher classes of society, keeping up with fashion is still demanded, even as you get older. People generally keep a younger appearance versus working class society. (Before you jump on me, I wasn't the first to make this observation. See here.) That's because there's a constant competition going on, with money and power determining your place in the pecking order. The same is true with business professionals. They too need to keep up a business appearance to strike fear into rivals. Working-class people don't have too much money, and therefore usually prefer to take pride in traditional "Christian" values, like work and family. (In Western society, this is generally considered the loser's way out.)
By a similar token, gay men generally keep up their appearances longer because they aren't locked safely into marriage and a family unit. They need to keep themselves marketable. The opposite is true of old maids who've given up on the game.
Which brings us to prostitutes. As any good feminist knows, women's styles are heavily based on accentuating physical features to attract
Enter the whores. Hooking is a business based solely on sex appeal. Everyone knows it's just about sex. Ergo, their style represents this. Therefore once something, like clear heels or pencil eyebrows, is adopted by them, it's forever cheap and sluttish, and can only be worn by women who want to send that message. Maybe in the future sharpie eyebrows will be replaced by other styles, but until they hit their whore half-life, they're off-limits.
I just read an article by George Orwell about the "boys' weeklies" in his time which strikes an excellent parallel imho to my post on Harry Potter a week or two back. Read "Boys' Weeklies" here. Some highlights include the use of old stone schools in the boys weeklies since 1900 as a way of introducing privilege fantasy into the story. And that many boys read several 12-15,000 word fantasy stories every week, and didn't read anything but the newspaper later in life. I'll quote one paragraph from the essay, where Orwell describes the background to every story in the two most famous boys weeklies:
The mental world of the Gem and Magnet, therefore, is something like this:
The year is 1910 — or 1940, but it is all the same. You are at Greyfriars, a rosy-cheeked boy of fourteen in posh tailor-made clothes, sitting down to tea in your study on the Remove passage after an exciting game of football which was won by an odd goal in the last half-minute. There is a cosy fire in the study, and outside the wind is whistling. The ivy clusters thickly round the old grey stones. The King is on his throne and the pound is worth a pound. Over in Europe the comic foreigners are jabbering and gesticulating, but the grim grey battleships of the British Fleet are steaming up the Channel and at the outposts of Empire the monocled Englishmen are holding the niggers at bay. Lord Mauleverer has just got another fiver and we are all settling down to a tremendous tea of sausages, sardines, crumpets, potted meat, jam and doughnuts. After tea we shall sit round the study fire having a good laugh at Billy Bunter and discussing the team for next week's match against Rook-wood. Everything is safe, solid and unquestionable. Everything will be the same for ever and ever. That approximately is the atmosphere.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
This really hit home yesterday. But first, let me give a short recap of Narcissism as I understand it:
Pathological Narcissism is a condition where a person with low self-esteem tries to gain approval from others by showing off to them how special they are. The attention received is never enough to fix the problem because it's forced, conditional approval. There is always the understanding that if you stop producing, the approval will stop as well. (For more detail on how this develops, see #9).
I always thought that my blog was different though. I feel like I'm trying to help people navigate through the mess of their ideas about reality because of wrong childhood modeling, like I did (and still do), by offering whatever insights I've uncovered. But that all changed.
I started talking to this girl I met through another blog we both follow and for whatever reason, we became really close, really fast. I tried to be as honest as I could about my flaws, but still received validation from her. Not only didn't she reject me, but she really liked me too. Eventually she broke it off for whatever reason. The thing I realized about my blogging is this though: As our relationship grew stronger, my interest in writing this blog correspondingly waned. The acceptance that wasn't "bought", and was therefore immeasurably realer, dissolved any need for the other kind.
Well, that's over with now. So welcome back. If I send you some cheap flowers and take you to a bed-and-breakfast half an hour away, will you take me back?
(The picture is from the South Park episode "Creme Fraiche". )
Monday, December 13, 2010
This moronic ad is running now. You know, scare tactics aren't really supposed to make sense, but this false advertising disturbs me. Sylvania headlights are like 10 bucks a package. Making a replacement daughter costs nothing!
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Let's start with Balducci's. This is one of those upscale not-quite-super markets that cater to well-off suburban professionals (white folks). Their tagline is "Food Lover's Market". Obviously, the layout of the store and the word "market" are directed at the Starbucks-Apple crowd. This particular demographic faces a unique challenge when shopping: How do I consume like a typical American, while simultaneously holding onto my anti-capitalist, socially-conscious views? The answer to this seemingly unsolvable riddle is pretty sweet. Mass self-delusion.
It's pretty silly to think that buying more expensive Green food is somehow less capitalist, but when everyone participates in the delusion, the guilt disappears. No, you're not keeping up class warfare by buying rich man's food to feel superior; you're saving the planet. And those expensive cheeses? They're "artisan" and "organic", which everyone knows means "struggling small-businessman". But what about those imported wines and specialty meats? Well, you're a food connoisseur (a food lover, or even "foodie"). I mean, why shouldn't you enjoy yourself a little? It's imported from Europe, which Lord knows is made up of 90% small farmer socialists. And really, you have a sophisticated palate. So you know that this particular mass-produced item that this chain-store stocks all it's shelves with is infinitely superior to what's on display at ugh, Walmart.
Good for you. There's no reason why a person such as yourself should eat bread with preservatives. That's what the proletariat eat. And they hate food.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
I guess nobody really cares about Lewis Carroll, but after watching the new Alice in Wonderland, enjoying it, and then reading the book (annotated by Martin Gardner) for the first time, I became very interested to learn about what kind of man wrote this craziness - in 1865 England.
Lewis Carroll (not his real name, but who really gives a damn?) was a very eccentric (that's respectful for weird) man. He grew up strictly Anglican Christian and actually studied to enter the priesthood, before rejecting it in favor of becoming a mathematics teacher. He had a slight stammer, which he was profoundly aware of, and thought himself unworthy for the priesthood because of what he saw as his "vile and worthless" sinful nature. As a child, he writes that he was happy, until he went to the Rugby school from ages 14-17, when he was terribly depressed. Afterward, he seems to have regained his love of life.
Carroll had a knack for abstract math, and loved mathematical puzzles. He also liked telling stories, doing magic tricks, and playing charades and was reputed to be pretty decent at mimicking voices. This probably endeared him to children, which was good because those were the sort of people he liked to hang around the most. Specifically the female sort. He was a life-long bachelor and feared little boys, but could not get enough of prepubescent girls. He played with them, wrote to them, and drew and photographed them in the nude, though he did not seem to have had any sexual contact with them. However, there is evidence of him falling in love with at least one of them (Alice Liddell, on whom the character of Alice is said to be loosely based). An odd and disturbing trait, to say the least. What to make of him?
I believe the best explanation of his life comes from 3 paragraphs near the beginning of the 2nd chapter of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Alice is following the Rabbit, and out of nowhere, characteristically starts philosophizing to herself:
Alice took up the fan and gloves, and, as the hall was very hot, she kept fanning herself all the time she went on talking: 'Dear, dear! How queer everything is to-day! And yesterday things went on just as usual. I wonder if I've been changed in the night? Let me think: was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I'm not the same, the next question is, Who in the world am I? Ah, THAT'S the great puzzle!' And she began thinking over all the children she knew that were of the same age as herself, to see if she could have been changed for any of them. 'I'm sure I'm not Ada,' she said, 'for her hair goes in such long ringlets, and mine doesn't go in ringlets at all; and I'm sure I can't be Mabel, for I know all sorts of things, and she, oh! she knows such a very little! Besides, SHE'S she, and I'm I, and--oh dear, how puzzling it all is! I'll try if I know all the things I used to know....I'll try
and say "How doth the little--"' and she crossed her hands on her lap as if she were saying lessons, and began to repeat it, but her voice sounded hoarse and strange, and the words did not come the same as they used to do:--
'How doth the little crocodile Improve his shining tail, And pour the waters of the Nile On every golden scale! 'How cheerfully he seems to grin, How neatly spread his claws, And welcome little fishes in With gently smiling jaws!'
'I'm sure those are not the right words,' said poor Alice, and her eyes filled with tears again as she went on, 'I must be Mabel after all, and I shall have to go and live in that poky little house, and have next to no toys to play with, and oh! ever so many lessons to learn! No, I've made up my mind about it; if I'm Mabel, I'll stay down here! It'll be no use their putting their heads down and saying "Come up again, dear!" I shall only look up and say "Who am I then? Tell me that first, and then, if I like being that person, I'll come up: if not, I'll stay down here till I'm somebody else"--but, oh dear!' cried Alice, with a sudden burst of tears, 'I do wish they WOULD put their heads down! I am so VERY tired of being all alone here!' (Bold added for emphasis)
I think it's obvious Carroll is struggling with his own identity. He doesn't want people to tell him what he should do, but he wants their attention because he is "so VERY tired of being all alone". (He could be the emo posterboy.) I think it makes sense to say that he felt threatened and isolated from adults, but comfortable with children. Not with male children though. Apparently they also threatened him. He had a life-long devotion to the religion of his fathers, but also seemingly felt stifled by it. His Alice books are filled with fantasy along with "child-empowerment" morals, but, extremely odd for a super-religious 19th century Englishman, no (intentionally) Christian ones. He is against forcing children to learn too much, and mocks children's religious poems designed to instill Christian virtues into them.*
Another strange fact: Carroll may seem to have been a lonely, depressed man, but he wasn't. Although he does admit to being lonely in his diary, he also writes about his exquisite, unique happiness. It seems to me then, that his trauma, which I submit there was, didn't occur in early childhood, and therefore wasn't so devastating. One passage he writes about his 3 bad years in the Rugby school may shed some light on this:
"I cannot say ... that any earthly considerations would induce me to go through my three years again ... I can honestly say that if I could have been ... secure from annoyance at night, the hardships of the daily life would have been comparative trifles to bear."(Wikipedia)
Based on many sources uncovered (see "DeMause, L. (2001). The evolution of childrearing" for a list), 19th century, British, all-male schools were rife with sexual abuse. Carroll's statement seems to hint to this abuse happening to him. At the very least, he suffered from some type of abuse at night during those years). It seems to fit the facts, as these (14-17) are transitioning years between childhood and adulthood and are crucial in developing the adult identity. Sexual abuse seems the most likely, given the trouble he had forming adult sexual relationships.
Although he seemed quite conservative to most people on the ouside, Lewis Carroll was actually bubbling with oddities and fantasies internally. It seems likely that he dreamed up his fantastic worlds of danger and fun to be a safe place to escape to. A place where a child (he himself) could face his unconscious fears and overcome them, and where life was full of mystery, excitement, new friends, and, odd as it may be, purpose.
PS: If you want to enjoy Alice in Wonderland with much of it's secret meanings revealed, pick up a copy of "The Annotated Alice", by Martin Gardner.
*The original "How doth" poem goes:
How doth the little busy Bee
Improve each shining Hour,
And gather Honey all the day
From every opening Flower!
Improve each shining Hour,
And gather Honey all the day
From every opening Flower!
How skilfully she builds her Cell!
How neat she spreads the Wax!
And labours hard to store it well
With the sweet Food she makes.
How neat she spreads the Wax!
And labours hard to store it well
With the sweet Food she makes.
In Works of Labour or of Skill
I would be busy too:
For Satan finds some Mischief still
For idle Hands to do.
I would be busy too:
For Satan finds some Mischief still
For idle Hands to do.
In Books, or Work, or healthful Play
Let my first Years be past,
That I may give for every Day
Some good Account at last. ["How doth the little busy bee", Isaac Watts, 1715]
Let my first Years be past,
That I may give for every Day
Some good Account at last. ["How doth the little busy bee", Isaac Watts, 1715]
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
I watched Harry Potter number 7 with family today and noticed I didn't have the same fervor I had for it in High School. I had to force myself to get into that old mindset to sit through the 2 1/2 hour movie. In retrospect, that wasn't a good idea. Reality seemed so bleak afterwards. I'm still not fully back.
When the Harry Potter books first came onto the scene, parents and educational experts were stunned by their popularity. Reading had been on the decline for years, losing ground steadily to visual media. Suddenly though, kids were reading again. It was nothing short of a miracle. Theories were advanced to explain it, from the most silly to the most scientific sounding. "J.K. Rowling has created a witchcraft cult!" "Don't be ridiculous, children's brains have their visual centers much more developed than previously, Ms. Rowling's visually imaginative writing taps into that. Writers need to start to copy this style to engage kids." Well, if I had to choose one, I'd say it has more to do with the first reason than with the second.
Western society, with all it's psychological breakthroughs in parenting is just as competitive as ever. In fact, with religious observance down (and with it, it's so-called "slave values"), and increasing sources of media streaming visions of so many other people's fantastic monetary success and excess, I'd say competition is ratcheting itself up every year. However, unlike in previous generations, it is easy to gain temporary relief from this stress: Television. TV shows transport the viewer into a fantasy universe where they are free from their daily stresses. They have supporting friends and family, they have control over their lives, they can make a real difference in the world. [To a child, reliance on this escape can be very detrimental in learning to cope with the natural stresses of life. They haven't learned how to deal with more basic challenges, so they have immense difficulty coping with ones that compound those stressors with others. Add to this that they first have to unlearn the old coping strategy and you can imagine the magnitude of the problem.]
What J.K. Rowling did was create a fantasy world fitted exactly to children. Like Dr. Seuss in his time, this world did not exist anywhere else before she thought it up. The escape was so much richer than anything in books or on TV. As Harry Potter, you are powerful, even though you're just a kid. You have supporting friends. You used to be abused and treated horribly, but now there is an entire hidden world that respects and adores you. And all because of an inborn specialness; you didn't have to earn it. All you have to do is have fun at cool classes, play a sport that you're the Best at, and have girls lining up for you. Mysterious fun things await you at every turn.
A common mistake is that books actually create a more real environment because they involve the mind more. That's incorrect. Books involve different parts of the brain than TV. They cost the mind's imaginative and rational faculties more energy to create the illusion they are going for in whatever story they are trying to portray. While that may be beneficial in that it develops those aspects of the brain, it detracts from the 'submersive' element of the story portrayed. Audio-visual media immediately transports it's viewers into it's world. To the person, it is more similar to reality than a novel because it doesn't rely on the brain to provide thoughts to stimulate the two main senses, sight and sound. Since the point is escape from the anxiety of reality and not learning, Television is usually preferred by people. However, if the book provides the fuller escape, as in the case of Harry Potter, it is preferred.
It's no matter if the books reach over 800 pages. The purpose is escape from anxiety; a more realized escape from pain is worth infinitely more than a lesser escape. And the longer the escape lasts, the better.
Make no mistake: this isn't a revolution in reading, it's a 'revolution' only in tapping into modern children's psychology. Now that the zeitgeist has been explored, expect TV and movies to follow. What? Is my prophecy too late? Oh well. I guess you can just call me Professor Hindsight.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
(According to "traditional media" it's, "all over the internet". I don't know what exactly happened. Maybe when you get over like 40,000,000 views, your spot on the Youtube server hard-drive ruptures and leaks all over the internet.)
Friday, December 3, 2010
Obligatory God-Discussion Disclaimer: I'm not trying to convince anyone of God, I'm trying to explain my belief in the face of overwhelming public opinion, which claims a basis in science.
Evolutionary theory posits that existence as we know it was caused by mutation. Complex organisms evolved from simple as a result of many mutations, simple organisms evolved from molecules, molecules from atoms, atoms from sub-atomic particles. But what kept everything moving towards evolution instead of staying at level one, status quo, was movement because of the natural attractions in energy. Evolutionary accidents happened only because of this movement. But what causes these fundamental interactions to exist? What created the existence and nature of energy? These questions can be answered when we assume some "other" thing was the first cause. A thinking cause with a specific will. A cause that created it's creation with an inborn attraction and then forced a separation. Why? Judaism would have us believe that it was created so that an intelligent being (the human kind), by tapping into his innate will, should overcome the Cause-imposed separation and connect itself, and the rest of creation, to itself. This intelligent being overcomes this separation by using matter in divinely mandated ways. By ways only known to the Cause, these actions unite creation i.e. matter/energy (and all other parts of creation, hidden from our perception, but connected to the physical universe).
[As far as I understand, the reason given for this whole exercise, this game, is that God wanted to do good. So, He created a being similar to Himself -similar in all ways besides for not existing off it's own power (since this is impossible by definition, as God is the only existence, and the only possible source of existence. He is the only actual reality.) To compensate for this, He allowed this creation to earn it's right to exist by helping God in this game. This would allow it to exist through it's own efforts. In God's reality, this makes it totally Godlike. (This being is actually part of God, as is all of creation, just that ultimate reality is filtered out from the creations' perception by God Himself. In the created (virtual) reality, this being sees itself as a separate entity- a whole other discussion).] It's a complex and phenomenally creative notion, which feels like a fitting way of explaining the complex phenomenon of creation.
Anyhow, have a happy Chanukah!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Lincoln Thinkin. Date Unknown.
To begin with, I think it's important to note that it's impossible to know the zeitgeist of the period these men, 300 years ago and on a different continent, lived in. Nor is it possible to claim knowledge of the individualized thought patterns of these brilliant, reclusive men. However, to the best of our abilities, we can try to draw parallels with cause-and-effect occurrences similar to those in our world and hope we can isolate particular motivations to construct a very basic, even skeletal, mindset.
The cause of the Kotzker's depression can be gleaned from the literature available. His father was overly critical and demanding of him. This would have, despite his intelligence, formed a low self concept, which would explain his drive for self-perfection, and complete truthfulness. I.e. since he was not allowed to practice and establish his own identity, he considered himself a fraud and was allergic to this fraud in himself - and others because of Projection. We do not know what the behavior of Nietzsche's parents were towards him so it is impossible to draw any parallels. However, it is noteworthy that he shared these traits with the Kotzker.
As it turned out, there was a lot of corruption and falsehood in "Litvish" and Chassidic Judaism in Poland at that time for the young Menachem Mendel to focus on as the general cause for his- and what he perceived as everyone else's- problem. Unfortunately, there was no place for individual dissent among religious Jewry at the time, especially from someone so young. As a young adolescent, however, he traveled to other communities to find more authentic, real Judaism. He ended up becoming a Chassid first of the "Seer of Lublin", then of his student, the "The Holy Jew", and finally of his student, R'Simcha Bunim, before starting his own Chassidus.
He chose only the sincerest, brightest young men to follow him, eschewing all physical pleasures, and focusing on authenticity, scholarship and bonding with God. He wrote no books, and in fact burned all of his personal writings. He wanted to lead by example, the most effective way in his opinion. As much as he felt he could impart of his ethos, this could be the only way. However, being in a position to instruct others as to the correct way of service to God did not make him happy. He and his students could never be perfect, though, and this inflamed his original trauma to the point of locking himself away because he couldn't take, in his words, "the stench" of falsehood in the world. In a poignant phrase uttered close to the time he locked himself away, he said, "Soon they will proclaim me to be a deity, but I am a broken and imperfect man."
Friedrich Nietzsche's situation allowed for a different turn of events. Through his schooling, he was shown an alternative to his small town, enclosed Christian-value life. He discovered respected thinkers, writers, and a whole world interested in iconoclastic thought. His Nihilistic ideas, unlike R' Menachem Mendel's rebellion against the status quo Judaism, although not followed, were respected. His Ubermensch idea was similar to R' M.M. idea for a free-thinking, rational, individual (granted the endgame of such a creature was totally different), but while his was considered the sign of a prodigious, creative mind, R' M.M.'s was dismissed by most as lunacy, and worse, heresy.
The reason for all this is that R' M.M. lived in a totally religious environment, where accepting a different interpretation for serving God meant having to change your life. Since R' M.M.'s ideas were so extremely ascetic and morally exacting, most people could not bear to seriously consider them. Nietzsche, on the other hand, published his ideas for an intellectual community; his word was not binding on anyone. As such, his ideas were studied by anyone with an intellectual bent, his brilliance became apparent, and his ideas gained respectability. This could be why R' M.M. didn't write, while Nietzsche did. R' M.M. was operating under a divine mandate to fix things now to bring the Messiah as soon as he could. (He constantly spoke of his role in relation to the Messiah. A few even claimed he thought of himself as it.) Nietzsche, however, could allow people to take their time to accept his ideas. He'd personally work towards his goal in the meantime, but there was no rush for others. The Overhuman can be thought of as an individualized Messiah, but not a communal one. It is possible that he realized that no matter how hard he tried, this ultimate salvation was unattainable for him, and suffered a mental breakdown. In both cases, unfortunately, the underlying problem of low self-esteem was never dealt with, resulting in tragedy.
Postscript: I understand that for some, breaking this down to somewhat utilitarian motivation would seem to denigrate the greatness of these people. But how can we ignore facts we are aware of? What use is it to pretend to learn false lessons from these great exemplars of humanity- both of them champions of truth? What lessons in humanity would we then actually be learning? While we are diminishing the importance of the role that free choice plays in all life, even great ones, we are by no means erasing it entirely. I think it is better to examine the facts thoroughly, and if the hallowed images fixed in our minds are shattered, it's no cause for worry. Other, more relatable images will take their places, and different, usually more practical, life lessons can be learned from them.
One good lesson we can learn is the effect people have without even knowing or acknowledging it. Life isn't going to go perfectly, but great things can be accomplished through gradual change as long as you keep at it, day after day. Another important lesson is that no matter how honest and intelligent you are, depression cannot be overcome through analysis alone. Therapy/ies are needed to erase or ease the childhood trauma. Another lesson is that gaining external validation, through followers or fame, also doesn't alleviate the problem of low self-esteem caused by childhood trauma.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Note: Due to it's length, this is going to be a two-part post. The first will deal with background, the second with my analysis.
I think we can learn a lot by analyzing the lives of great people. Two such people are Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1859), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Both led held strikingly similar revolutionary views, and had similar upbringings. Their divergence in thought was more a product of their environment than any intrinsic difference.
Nietzsche and the Kotzer were both mentally head and shoulders above their peers. R' Menachem Mendel grew up in a religious environment, under a father who was overly critical, demanding,and authoritarian. His first Talmud teacher, from whom he learned the methods of Torah study, was of the same bent. Known as "Black Mendel", he was, in the words of his most well-known modern biographer Dr. Joseph Fox, a "self-assured, serious-minded, lonely boy" who mastered the Talmud and Jewish Codes at an early age. He had an early drive towards self-perfection which stayed with him, as far as we can tell, throughout his life. He suffered from terrible depression, and for the last 20 years of his life shut himself up in his private room, only allowing rare visitors. He felt that he was alone in his dedication to truth and said he could not take the stink of falsehood prevailing in the world.
Friedrich Nietzsche came from a religious background as well, with his father and both grandfathers having been Pastors. Again, he is described as being a loner, a voracious reader, and driven towards self-perfection. When he was 5, his father died and, left without money, the family was forced to move to a village where his mother had some friends This, along with the deaths of his younger brother, grandmother and aunt- all of whom lived with Nietzsche's family- would shape and foreshadow a life of suffering for the brilliant young man. He, too, suffered terrible lifelong depression along with various other painful physical ailments, and was similarly obsessed with exposing the truth, however uncomfortable. 11 years before his death, he suffered a mental/emotional breakdown and stayed shut up in his sister's house for the remainder of his life.
Thus ends the important similarities between the two. In their adult life, the Rebbe of Kotzk would go on to become one of the greatest religious Jewish leaders, leaving his personal stamp in Jewish thought and practice by emphasizing internal motivation over external action, while Nietzsche would go on to revolutionize secular intellectual thought by declaring the Judeo-Christian God to be effectually dead, unimportant, and, in fact, destructive to humanity. Both were upset with their religious environments. What led to the divergence in their reactions to it? Why did the Rebbe, fed up with Jewish practice, try to change it from within it's own confines, and Nietzsche leave it completely to establish his own moral ideology?
While we're on the subject of great dead comedians, I need to mention Greg Geraldo. For some reason, not too many people have even heard of him. (If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's because he's just too defeated for most people to relate to.) Whatever. Greg Geraldo was the epitome of a professional comedian. And I mean that in all possible ways, mostly good.
He was an astute observer of human behavior, had an excellent imagination along with the vocabulary to express it, and, just as importantly, the deep despair to not give a damn about anything. He was easily the top roaster on Comedy Central, but couldn't quite create a persona to distinguish himself enough to gain a real following. The affectations he did have - the battered leather jacket, the t-shirt, the 3-day beard growth- weren't flashy at all, but seemed cheesy nonetheless. They didn't fit his personality or style of humor. He wasn't some tough dude who didn't care. He was a nice guy who gave up early in life, but kept on hoping for something.
His humor, while often dark, was always on pulse with the times, even ahead of it. (At one of his last roasts, David Hasselhoff's, one of his lines to Hasselhoff was, "Your liver is so shriveled, black and dead, if you put your ear to your side, you can hear it go, 'What you talking 'bout Willis'?". This was right after Gary Coleman had passed away.)
Like many of the most astute comics, he grew up religious and had a life-long attraction and aversion to authority. He couldn't keep up relationships, and had little self-control. And while he had no trouble pointing out other people's flaws, he was as just as quick in exposing and ridiculing his own.
Punching in day in, day out, to roast other, less talented people, while he plateaued at the relatively low level he did, must have really bothered him. So, I think it's only fitting to roast him for a change:
A big hand for Greg Geraldo!
You know, some people think Greg's just another 40-yr. old, bitter, depressed, jealous, insecure, dead-end, no-name comic... But they don't realize: Greg has a tatoo on his forearm.
Lemme see that tatoo, Greg. What is that, a ring of bullets? Very cool. Does each one represent a time you've gone to sleep without crying?
Ha Ha! Kidding. You know, I admire you. No, really. I really admire your work ethic. You must know by now that your career is going nowhere, yet you still come in every day, hoping it'll be all different. You got to admire that...that...child's sense of wonder.
In all seriousness though, here's to an honest, very funny man. A good man. Your mother would be proud. Greg Geraldo everybody!
P.S. If you want to listen to something funny, get your hands on a copy of Greg Geraldo's 'Good Day to Cross a River'.
It's odd. I just wrote a random post about parodies, and Leslie Nielsen up and dies on us. I think it's only fitting we talk about him.
Even if you've never seen Airplane for reasons unfathomable, you've almost definitely been affected by Leslie Nielsen. If you've enjoyed Scary Movie or any of the spinoffs, an SNL commercial parody, or MadTV, you've been affected by the white-haired monster of spoof comedy. His deadpan delivery, overt horniness, and general cluelessness created a new genre of comedy, formed in his likeness. Despite his sometimes risque material, since my father was a big fan of his, Leslie was allowed to corrupt my brain at a young age. I'll probably be suffering from it for the rest of my life. Rest in peace old boy.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
People are making a big deal about the SNL TSA commercial. I thought it was pretty funny, but not in the same league as some classic SNL parodies, like 'Oops I crapped my pants', 'Uncle Jemima', and 'ShakeWeight'. On the subject, though, I think these would make great commercial parodies:
1. The scene is focused on a garbage can in a New York City subway. A businessman walks by from the right and drops a half-eaten sandwich into it. A homeless guy scurries in and fishes it out. He takes a big bite, smiles widely at the camera, and flashes a big thumbs-up. The voice-over says "Subway. Eat fresh." (With the whole Subway logo imposed over the screen.)
2. Follow up to last one. Show stock footage of zombies in the subway. One zombie bites into someone's neck. "Subway. Eat flesh."
3. Copy of one of those ad-council commercials decrying the misuse of the word "gay". Two guys are looking at guitars at a store. One says to the other, "How do you like this one?" The other guy says "That's gay." A stereotypical gay guy jumps into the screen and yells in an overly gay way, "You shouldn't say that!"
"Wh-what? What shouldn't we say?"
"Uh! Don't say 'gay' when you don't like something."
"What should we say instead?"
"Just say, 'That's so silly!" or something."
"Yeah, that's just gay." And they walk off.
There's something appealing about old Jewish jokes. Who wants to hear some?
-Guy's sitting in the exam room waiting for his test results. Doctor comes in and says, "Well Mr. Rudin-". The guy cuts him off. "How much time do I have left Doc? Just give it to me." Doctor says "10-". The guy cuts in again, "I can live with that". Doctor finishes, "9...8...7...".
-In the locker room:
"How long have you been wearing a bra, Harry?"
"Since my wife found it in the glove compartment."
-A guy gets home pissed drunk from the bar and falls into bed, mumbling about golden toilets. The next morning his wife says, "You know, Joe, you kept saying 'golden toilets' last nights. It was pretty funny."
The guy says, "No, no. It was really true. I had the most wonderful time in a bar with beautiful golden toilets." His wife just says, "Uhuh".
Now he's on a mission to find the beautiful golden toilets. He calls one bar after another with no luck. After two hours, he finally calls up an upscale club far outside of town. "Hello, do you have golden toilets?" The woman on the other end says, "Yes, come on in." She hangs up and calls down the hall, "Jerry, I found the guy who peed in your sax."
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Here's an underexplored phenomenon. Why do depressed people love Thanksgiving? My take on this is that it's the one holiday that allows connection to others (family and society), without any (religious) preconditions. And especially because it's done over food (free home cooked food = unconditional love). To explain the problem depressed people have with other, religious, holidays, I think we need to explain the problem depressed people have with religion in general.
Belief in Judaism/Christianity, and acceptance of Jewish or Christian ideals, means believing in a higher purpose to our lives. If you feel empowered to take on this challenge, because of a healthy self-esteem, each step is looked at as a sublime mission only you can fulfill. This creates a feeling of supreme accomplishment, which creates a positive feedback system ("One Mitzvah causes another Mitzvah", in Rabbinic terminology).
If you feel deficient (low self-esteem), the "challenge" is usually seen as something completely different. It is something you must do to gain God's (because of Transference) approval and acceptance. You are resentful that you aren't accepted as you are and must do x, y, and z to gain approval, while simultaneously fearful for your eternal soul if you don't. Since religion necessarily posits itself as the point of existence, yours has become a living hell. So, enjoy Thanksgiving while you can!
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
In time for the American holidays of Thanksgiving and Black Friday, here's a toast to the start of a great new American tradition: shopping addiction. I really like purely behavioral addictions like Compulsive Buying Disorder. Shopping is not an inborn desire. It's not psychoactive, like alcohol. But it's as real as a repo man's kick in the teeth. It's the kind of thing that makes narrow-minded pop evolutionary psychologists come up with the most ridiculous (though very creative) theories. But I digress...
To the point of this post: While most people aren't "shopaholics", low self-esteem often leads to the development of similar tendencies. A low self-concept (self-esteem) as I've mentioned before, causes depression. It is most often caused by a parent's negation of their child's individuality (not the best word, but it'll have to do), which, in the West today, is usually done by being overly-critical. Getting something you want shows that another person recognizes and validates your desires and, therefore, you. Buying something that is "just so you", also provides this external validation -just like listening to certain music, eating certain foods, following less standard religions, etc. (Congratulations! You are now part of the Narcissistic personality type. You do have an identity after all!)
Of course, as I've said ad nauseum, this doesn't fix your problem of a low self concept, the root of all your other problems. Though it quiets your anxiety for a while, as long as you keep feeding it money. And how bad could some invisible baggage really be?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
In his controversial article, "Why women aren't funny", Christopher Hitchens quotes Nietzsche as saying, "A witticism is an epitaph on the death of a feeling". Regardless of the rest of the article, I think this definition of humor resonates with me more than any other. (It's interesting to note that Nietzsche was notoriously depressed.)
Humor attracts depressed people to the relatively large extent it does for it's capacity to be used as a defense mechanism. Most depressed people, as I've mentioned before, see the world in a competitive, zero-sum-game hue. Nietzsche's depression sheds light on his own philosophy and outlook on life, his "weltanschauung", as it's known. He is famous for saying:
"What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself.
What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness."
His philosophically original ideas on necessary self-loathing, Nihilism, Man and Ubermensch, etc., all point to his general self-centered, competitive outlook on life.
But coming back to the original point, humor allows us to pretend to be superior to, or at the very least, capable of dealing with, an adversarial experience, situation, or person. By making fun of this thing that dominates and/or scares us, or hearing it being made fun of, we can focus on it's shortcomings and take away some or all of the fear, if just for the moment. Comedy not followed by an action to stand up to the adversary however, is, of course, empty. Joking among friends, therefore, is especially important in this context because we get to show them that we are unaffected by whatever thing we truly fear. This outside approval can help bolster the case for the fraud we are committing in our minds, the main objective of which, i.e. the removal of the adversary or the fear-based stress, was never really achieved (i.e. the denial does not rid us of the fear, contrary to our demonstrations to the opposite).
That's what Nietzche means. Reducing a serious subject (like the feeling of inadequacy at something) into a witticism allows us to deny the uncomfortable feelings it brings up by finding something about it to laugh at, since we feel unequipped to really deal with it. Unfortunately, acting in this denial state never allows us to deal with the feeling rationally.
This is similar to using coarse language to put on a show of bravado and uncaring to something we feel unable to deal with. Phrases like, "Making love: What my girlfriend does while I fuck her", pretend to deny feeling a basic human need by ridiculing it. It is therefore, a priori, stupid. Denying and repressing a part of ourselves, though, leaves us feeling stifled, stressed, and ultimately, depressed underneath. And like all defense mechanisms, it is unhealthy and unhelpful whatever form it takes. I hope you're not waiting for me to end with a joke now.
Monday, November 15, 2010
You may have noticed I've slowed down a bit with the writing. I guess I ran out of activities we have in common. (If anyone has another idea for one, let me know.) So for now, to keep you all entertained, I'm posting links to other people's stuff. There's a smart and funny piece here: Depressed not to do's (although it's aimed at women, men can relate to most of it). And here's a list of famous depressed people: Famous Depressed's. That one's very good, actually. Apparently, some of the most outstanding people in history have been depressed. (Of course, it may just be that I think they're cool because, as depressed people, they were into similar things as I am. Mindbending. I know.)
Just a sneak peak: Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, Drew Carey, Jim Carrey, Ellen Degeneres, Rodney Dangerfield, Emily Dickinson, Queen Elizabeth (Ok, she isn't as outstanding as Winston Churchill or Drew Carey, but she's famous), Harrison Ford, Jane Goodall (I know, a shocker), Andrew Jackson, frikkin Isaac Newton, the guy who started J.C. Penny, Mark Twain, Joan Rivers and George "the man" Washington.
Other famous depressed people who didn't make the list might be more familiar to Jews: King David, the 1st Lubavitcher Rebbe (the Baal Hatanya), Rabbi Nachman of Breslev, the Kotzker Rebbe, and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.
Hope this holds you over till next time.
Monday, November 8, 2010
I could probably just say, "See #5 Addictions" and get away with it, but that doesn't do sleep-addiction justice. One aspect is, of course, an addiction like any other. You know, escaping life and creating your own world. But sleep is a basic human function, and therefore able to be screwed up very early in development. An interesting (and pretty widely accepted) theory is that sleep reminds children of the womb. This makes it a natural place to escape to when faced with overwhelming hostility.
More importantly, though; since sleep, like eating, is an inborn desire (and, parenthetically, therefore the foundation of an individual's identity), it is also one of the earliest ways people exert their own control over their environment, i.e. by choosing when to sleep and eat, and when not to. When they are later denied control over their own life in other areas, they can revert to sleep - and food, and defecation - to exert their control and thereby relieve the anxiety. (A fun caveat here is that if these things are denied at an early age, for example by forcing a child to eat past when it denies food or by forcing it to stay up or go to sleep- with enough regularity to prove to the child that they are out of it's control- you can be successful in introducing a host of interesting neuroses). This over-dominance by parents is also very useful in developing poor impulse control- as delaying gratification now causes existential anxiety- Addictive personalities, and pathological Narcissism. On the plus side, dreams are pretty sweet. Except when they try to tell you things in a creepy way. Intrusive subconscious assholes.
Btw: I couldn't find any good sleeping pictures, but I did find this one, which I'm sure you'll admit, is awesome.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Now that we got #9 out of the way, this isn't going to be too hard. Just take all those same underlying problems and express them in fabulous new ways!
Perfectionism! You fear everyone finding out how truly despicable you are, so you kill yourself to look perfect doing all the 'right' things.
OCD: You take excessive control over (initially) small, controllable things to substitute for other, more important areas of your life you feel essentially deficient in and powerless to change. These things aren't logical at this point in your life, but at an early stage of your development they were.
Herman Hesse wrote, "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is a part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us."
A lot of things bother us. The more we learn about the world, the more things we are aware of to be critical of. The most talented (and lucky?) among us become professional critics. But it seems to be de rigeur for most critics, even creative and brilliant ones, to not produce many, if any original works. Why should that be?
All the intellectualized hatred of other things obscures the underlying problem: we hate ourselves. Why?
Like most "phenomenal" things, this goes back to upbringing. If your parents (primary caregivers) were mostly critical of you, you adopt that warped view of yourself. To you, there is something essentially deficient with someone who, for example, doesn't eat with proper manners, isn't American enough, etc.
Even when you later learn how do do those actions, you view yourself as acting, but still deficient underneath (this ties in with the problems spelled out in post #1). You try as hard as you can to do these behaviors to fit in, but that does nothing to combat the rejection you felt, and internalized, from your parents. Usually, you become super-sensitive in perceiving these things. That allows you to detect it in others way before anyone else could, and even in minute quantities. (Some even become obsessed with this, adopting a belief that this is their 'mission'.)
But destroying others does nothing to build up your own sense of self worth, your 'self-esteem'. Eventually you realize this, hopefully before you waste too much time deluding yourself.
Friday, October 22, 2010
I like that song, 'Everything is everything'. I have no idea if this was the songwriter's intent, but to me, it sums up pretty well the state of public discourse in Western society today. The same words have different and opposite meanings depending on who uses them. Which brings me to the topic at hand.
"Always follow your dreams", we were all told as kids.
Along with, "Attitude is everything", "Believe in yourself", and myriad other watered down pop psychological phrases fed to us, we're chock-full of meaningless aphorisms. Can an elementary school kid trying to follow these timeless life lessons tell when 'always following your dreams', becomes plain old 'wishful thinking'? And does anybody seriously believe that these tidy amorphous psychological nuggets help any kid navigate through their problems?
"Hey, Mr. Donovan, my parents are getting divorced, the kids bully me, I can't get my work done on time."
"Well, did you try believing in yourself?"
"Yes, Mr. Donovan."
"Hmm. Are you following your dreams?"
"I think so."
"Well then, it seems obvious to me then that attitude isn't everything with you. Let's try to work on that. Ok, kid?"
"Uh, I'm actually thinking about saying YES to drugs instead."
The problem with just following your dreams is that if, to you, 'dream' means 'the narcissistic fantasy world I've created to escape from the harsh reality wherein I have no control over my own life', then following those dreams is really not going to end well. Are you going to kill your friends and family with a chainsaw while they beg for mercy? Or, is God going to turn you into Superman overnight? Will you win the lottery? Marry a dashing Prince Charming? Become a famous actor, spy, blogger?
If I were in Vegas, I'd probably bet my house against it. So, for us, it's actually better to crush all those dreams, burn them, wash away any traces and replace them ones that fit reality somewhat tighter. Though analyzing them objectively with a professional might also do the trick.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Yeah, you're unique. Don't like pop music, movies, food. Only hang out with certain types of people. Who do pretty much everything you do. Hmm...maybe it's not about being unique.
You have a problem with conforming to society's rules. Why? Because you feel inadequate to compete in regular society. And you're tired of earning acceptance by following their rules. You view normal society as hostile, so you decide to leave it entirely.
Of course, being a social animal, you need to belong. So you join a group of non-competers. The defining aspect of the group isn't anything that they do, but what they don't do. And you need to be careful not to be too successful here because that's seen as hostile. It's not a very healthy environment when getting a job is looked at as selling out. Eventually, you realize how unnatural this is, and leave this group too.
Now, you're really going to be unique. You don't need to be hampered by this group's insecurities. The problem is that everyone needs to give up some of their liberties (conform) somewhat, in order to create a functioning society. Most people are aware of this and don't view it as a personal attack. Too bad. We do.
Hey, some things make everybody cry. But commercials? What's going on?
You're not crying for the kid who falls down and is helped up by his old grandpa in the insurance commercial. You're crying for yourself. You don't think it'll help to cry for yourself, and you've found a way to repress it and go on with your life, but when a starkly presented situation, specifically designed to portray and elicit a certain emotion is thrust into your face - and it's not about you - you have no defenses built up to it. So it gets you thinking, for example, about your lack of love as a child, and those emotions come popping out of that suitcase you packed them into. Yeah, you're an emotional basket case.
Addictions start because, if you live in fear, these substances take the edge off (meaning, the anxiety and tension). Alcohol calms the brain. Drugs calm or transport your mind somewhere else. Food is thought to be associated in the brain with validation (as in Dr. Phil's "Food does not equal love", to a gigantic, morbidly obese and green Homer Simpson). Same with with sex. Work is validating if you have low self-esteem and feed off collecting accomplishments and victories to present a one-sided image to others and yourself. Addiction to TV, internet, and video games is based on the alternate realities they allow you to escape into. Your brain (the theory goes) develops a physical dependence on these substances to maintain the level attained initially. Tolerance happens...oh, go look it up somewhere.
On the surface, it would seem that we differ on this. Some of us have "co-dependent" relationships. Some are controlling. And some of them want to be abused. (Hey, they did a remake you know. I'm not that old.)
The common denominator here is relationships absent real love. True love, a giving relationship, makes relationships last. We had competitive role-modeling. If it's a dog-eat-dog world, it's every man for himself, and giving doesn't make sense. If you're in the relationship for sex, validation, or just looking for someone to take care of you, it's going to end badly. But you probably already know that.
Solution: Oy. See #1.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
This is usually presented in a logical argument form as if your school counselor is actually going to submit to your superior reasoning and give you the go-ahead for suicide. The funny thing is, even if someone would agree with your logic, it wouldn't give you any closure because you know you'll feel you just convinced an idiot. What your real issue is, is you feel trapped with no power over your own life. You're uncomfortable saying this because you live in a competitive paradigm and are uneasy showing weakness.
As before (in #1) you need to uncover whatever it is you fear that is making you feel powerless. Interestingly, the fact that you're asking permission to kill your own self betrays how deep this feeling of powerlessness is. On the flip side, you are conflicted. You have an instinctive feel for the falseness of your argument. Like all creatures, your primal instinct is self-preservation. No creature needs to rationalize their own existence to get on with life. You just feel you have no control over and nothing to gain from continuing to exist.
Solution: See #1
Nobody gets anybody. At least not your totality. Not with all your personal experiences, thoughts, dreams, skews, etc. The problem with you is that this bothers you to a larger extent than other people. Why?
Diagnosis: At one point, you felt nobody would accept you as you are, so you isolated yourself out of fear (not choice).You try to please others by presenting what you think they want to see so they won't reject you. [You fear this rejection because it's tied to a real consequence at an unconscious level (i.e. some early experience or experiences you've repressed ). Your developed brain, as it is today, could separate the rejection from the fear of physical pain if it was presented to it now. But you're not dealing with that. You're dealing with your child brain (primary process thinking).] This fear-based fraud causes you to be disconnected from society, and unable to get any real feedback about your true self. You are therefore only left with your underlying expectation of rejection. This becomes a vicious cycle.
Unfortunately, this post isn't going to end there. Because here's your biggest problem. Two emotions, in the vernacular "fear" and "love", are the root of all motivation. But they can't develop simultaneously. So, the more fear you felt growing up, and the more you followed that behavior model, the less loving motivation you have. A healthy person has a decent balance of both. Depressed people like us have a huge amount of fear-based motivation and very low love-based motivation. So when the fear is taken away, there's nothing left that we know, because love as a motivator in different aspects of daily life was modeled in such a small to nonexistent way.
Solution: Psychotherapy to uncover the root of your fear, followed by Behavioral therapy to fix it. Then more therapy to establish a healthy way of looking at life and practicing that until it motivates you. (Even after therapy, you'll need to work on this for a long time.)
So you're depressed.
Excellent, welcome to the club. Well, not exactly a club. I mean technically we do have membership of 5-13% of the population, but I think clubs do things. And usually get together according to some schedule.
But hey, at least we do a lot of the same activities. Like who here's edited Wikipedia? Be honest. And who here spends way too much time watching TV? Or still smokes? Or eats ice cream like you're gonna win something if you finish first? Like, look, I'm at the bottom of the Haagen Dasz and here's a coupon for a date! With somebody of the opposite sex!
Excuse me. What I'm trying to say is that, as a whole, us depressed's have a lot of "habits", if you will, in common. There are reasons for these. And, like any club, it's up to the senior members to show the newcomers the ropes, to guide them through the sometimes perplexing habits of depressed people, and to hopefully shed some light on life in general.
Personally, I only have about 96% figured out now, so feel free to join in at any time with your experiences or insights by commenting or emailing me.
Until next time, I remain your commander in crying at random commercials,
P.S. I'm just a regular guy, not a practicing psychological professional. My views are therefore lacking the diverse experience and systematic schooling of a professional. They're based off of personal experience, research, loads of therapy, and comparing notes with others in the club.