Bunched Panties: "You're Not Gonna Read It, So I Might As Well Say It"

[benorbeen]

Seeing "It" As Behavior

... the resultant of information traveling through a synergism.

I wonder.

What fosters manic behavior? Is it a lack of connection?

The manic behavior may be an attempt to connect with others.

What fosters depressive behavior? Is it disconnection?

The depressive behavior may be the result of feeling disconnected from others.​

What fosters schizophrenic behavior? Is it a lack of approval?

The schizophrenic behavior may be an attempt to get approval from others.

What fosters paranoid behavior? Is it rejection?

The paranoid behavior maybe the result of feeling rejected by others.​

​

Note that these factors can connect.

A person can lack connection with others, and thus lack approval.

A person can lack connection with others, and get rejected.

A person can feel disconnected from others, and lack approval.

A person can feel disconnected from others, and get rejected.​

The mechanism between mania and depression I feel is self-esteem. Make a person feel bad, and you can put them into a depression. Make a person feel good, and you can trigger a mania.

The movement from mania to schizophrenia and the movement from depression to paranoia I feel is self-confidence. Decrease a person's limitations and trigger schizophrenia. Increase a person's limitations and trigger paranoia.

Self-esteem is also a factor between schizophrenia and paranoia. I see the dis-eases as related but different, just as mania and depression. If paranoia is a fear of everything both real and imagined, schizophrenia may be a love of everything both real and imagined. Feeling good can trigger the schizophrenic behavior; feeling bad can trigger the paranoid behavior.

I have a graph of this I made.

 

[benorbeen]

Sibet Bibbledybee

Or maybe it's the other way around:

The need for approval (given the lack of approval or the continued receipt of rejection) triggers bipolarity.

The need for connection (given the lack of connection or the continued receipt of disconnection) triggers paranoid-schizophrenia.

That seems to make more sense. Actors with bipolarity? Those strings that run across Nashian rooms?

The manic is on a quest for überapproval.

The schizophrenic is on a quest for überconnection.

The depressed has received rejection in the pursuit of überapproval.

The paranoid has disconnected in the pursuit of überconnection.

*

Disconnection leaves a person figuratively alone.

*

A person feels alone if he finds no one with his interests, esp. no one with similar passion about his interests.

*

I still think that schizophrenics could benefit from cooperating. I'm not sure about bipolars. It seemed to me that self-esteem was the mechanism--maybe feeling badly about oneself means rejecting oneself (probably). So when you get rejected, you reject the notion of rejecting yourself just because someone else did. That doesn't help you!

 

[benorbeen]

Synergizing

To me, improv scenes are about associating, players synergizing, characters also synergizing. It's easy to dissociate--to move away from the other. It's hard to come together.

Here are structural representations of associating. I've danced around these concepts for about a year, defining and redefining them. It's been a frustrating task--esp. so when I started to forget what I was talking about! But I think these are the best structural representations I have to date:

(Contextually or Behaviorally) Associating
Player ---> <--- Player

(Behaviorally) Dissociating
<--- Player Player --->

Emotionally Dissociating (with regards to me)
<--- I <--- You

Functionally Dissociating (with regards to me)
I ---> You --->​

In an improv scene, I feel that the players are behaviorally associating (I'm just preferring that word now rather than "contextually," which I'd used oft before). They're aligning their choices, their interests, etc. They're trying to do that, rather than the opposite, which is behavioral dissociation.

With behavioral association, the players are usually cooperating and trying to reach compromises. With behavioral dissociation, the players are usually competing and working toward endgame, much of their interaction rooted in deadlocks.

The terms emotional dissociation and functional dissociation, though actual terms, are ones I'm using probably differently than traditionally used. I think these terms are the basis of my game theory treatment of mental health.

With emotional dissociation, note that I am moving away from You. Given the direction of the arrows, it is assumed that I'm dissociating from you, while you're associating with me. A different way to say it is that I'm competing with you, even though you're a friend.

With functional dissociation, note that I am moving toward You, but You are moving away from me. It is assumed that I'm trying to associate with you, but you're trying to dissociate from me. Another way of saying it is that I'm trying to get close to you, even though you're hurting me. I call it functional dissociation, because usually this kind of behavior is what we call "dysfunctional"--like staying in an abusive relationship, drinking to excess repeatedly, etc.

Note that emotional dissociation tends to lead to passive-aggressive behavior. As I move away from you but you move closer to me, I end up lying to you rather than just cutting ties completely. That's why I call it emotional dissociation--your feelings for the other person start to die, so you don't care about the other person as much and do more dishonest things, "dissociating from your true feelings."

Functional dissociation tends to lead to self-destructive behavior. If you "stay the course" with someone or something that is just trying to kill you, you very well may end up killed in the process.

The solution for both emotional and functional dissociation is for the most part endgame. Just stop playing with the other player. Find another player, who will associate with you.

Unless you can cooperate. Cooperation is the other solution. You find out what the other wants, and you give them what they want. That may help you associate, or it may help the other associate.

Relationships are like this. You want to find someone who will share your interests (wants) and make similar choices as you, or at least respect the choices you make and support them. Meanwhile, you want to share that person's interests and make similar choices as her. You try to reach compromises, rather than promote deadlock.

Oil.

 

[benorbeen]

For The Love of Flow

Flow liberates choice; structure restricts choice.

 

[benorbeen]

Long Island-Sized Antarctic Ice Berg

My living and impact seem smaller and smaller as the Earth goes about its living.​

 

[benorbeen]

Your-Pain

In a moment of inspiration that seemed almost channelled from somewhere else--they say "inspiration"'s root word is "spirit"--

--I thought that pain is perhaps never-if-ever to be separated from yourself.

That is, you can't talk about pain as if it's not a function of you.

You can only talk about your-pain. Yourself and your pain are inseparable.

*

Your-pain teaches you about what you want.

If you feel your-pain, you are not getting something you want.

So your-pain tells you that.

If you can figure out what your-pain is telling you, you're better for it. Your-pain, like a player eternally stuck inside you, communicates to you. You spend a lifetime figuring out the code.

*

The need for connection.

*

I saw a farewell kiss between two people who secretly loved each other.

I saw the connecting of two people on a railroad.

I saw the sleepy blue-haired something awaken in the car. Off to get a toothbrush rather than the rest of her nap.

I cried hard at each moment.

*

I screamed last night, over and over and over, "Why can't I see you." I don't have that answer. It was the closest I've felt to screaming to a god.

*

The need for connection.

*

Anger. Rage. Then tears. Your-pain. Associate with your-pain.

And then you will relax.

*

Perchance it is the opposite-by-design. That's going to make me feel bad. NO. Anger feels better than that.

 

[benorbeen]

Ducks

Bipolar Disorder rooted in self-esteem issues

... feel bad about self ... feel good about self ... feel bad about self ... feel good about self ...

Paranoid Schizophrenia rooted in self-confidence issues

... can't connect ... can connect ... can't connect ... can connect ...

 

[benorbeen]

3 Letters At A Time

If I look at triplets of letters in words when I'm typing, my speed and accuracy pick up tremendously. So it seems.

Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3.

 

[benorbeen]

Pass The Hot Potato

It seems to me, if a person has been humiliated, she will pass that humiliation onto others and try to humiliate them.

For the most part, the behavior is unconscious. If the person is conscious of these choices, she may be able to stop the pattern.

Be on the lookout, I wonder, for people who've been humiliated. I'm wondering whether the chances are high that they'll try to humiliate you.

By no means is this a rule. And just because someone's been humiliated, doesn't automatically mean they'll try to humiliate you. Just prepare yourself for the potential they could do that.

But really anyone could do that to you at any time, so putting up a wall isn't an efficacious life choice, I should think. You probably need to expose what you like to receive pleasure. When you have a suspicion there's humiliation a brewin', instead of attacking, just watch. Prepare yourself with the refusal to feel badly about yourself. That might be one of the best armaments.

If humiliation is a constant threat, perhaps you should considering leaving. Or just outright permanently go.

 

[benorbeen]

Defection Sparks Fear

In the Prisoner's Dilemma game, you have two tactics: cooperate or defect.

I see this game played out as a "flawed" improv scene in which a character says he wants to do something, but when it comes down to doing it, the player won't follow through. He'd rather force the scene into deadlock than have the other character get what he wants.

That may not make any sense to you. No matter.

Defection, as I see it, is a change from a cooperative dynamic to a competitive dynamic.

When people have a belief, particularly one that seems to suggest the world is working with YOU, and then the world doesn't work as you expected it to, you get surprised. And if that surprise scares you, making your future "uncertain" or unknown, you develop a fear.

Now, it seems to me, if you then change your belief and make it completely opposite of the original belief, aligning it exactly with the scary thing that happened to you, you've likely just created for yourself a small phobia.

For example, say you had the strong, strong belief that air travel was safe. And that nothing bad could ever happen to you on a plane.

If you encounter an uncertain situation of turbulence, one that leads to the pilot's saying they have to make an emergency landing, and the flight feels very scary to you, you're having quite the contrary experience to what you thought could happen.

You land, you live. If you decide to change your belief from "air travel is safe and nothing bad could ever happen to me" to the opposite--"air travel is not safe and something very bad could happen to me"--you've created for yourself a phobia!

Of course, this new belief is no more adjusted than your prior belief. It seems to me a more realistic belief is along the lines of "For the most part, air travel is safe. I could get hurt in it, but the likelihood is so low and the pilot expertise so high that I think I'll chance it." That new belief allows room for countergrain expectations--you still might experience anxiety if you encounter surprises, but you at least have room for surprises.

Maybe those prone to phobias are those also prone to black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking. That is, they have strong beliefs about the way things "are," so when things contradict the way things "are," their brains now have to process this completely unexpected, unprepared-for information!

I just kinda came up with this formula/description a few minutes ago after researching fear. I'm taking an interesting turn at the moment in my work. I invented a new symbol for mathematizing feelings--let's see how it plays out!

 

[benorbeen]

False Beliefs

Mood disorders (primarily bipolar) sparked by false beliefs about self?

Perceptual disorders (primarily paranoid schizophrenia) sparked by false beliefs about others?

"Others" can really mean anything in the environment, not just other people. I probably mean by it anything-not-the-self.

Now, a person may reject her arm or brain or even her whole self, making her self an other. That gets a little tricky.

The thought for now is that mood disorders come from instable self-esteem, likely sparked by others' not-liking you. And perceptual disorders come from instable self-confidence, likely sparked by others' not-trusting you.

Someone's not-liking you might lead to your not liking yourself. And someone's not-trusting you might lead to your not trusting yourself.

If you so decide not to like yourself, you lower your self-esteem. And if you so decide not to trust yourself, you lower your self-confidence.

(They're decisions. No one forces you not to like yourself or not to trust yourself. Someone may trick you into believing x, or convince you into into believing x, but it's your choice to believe x. You can refuse to believe x.)

As you dislike more and more of yourself, your mood worsens. You don't-feel-well. You get depressed, you feel less and less, you hurt more and more.

As you distrust more and more of yourself, your perception worsens. You don't-feel-right. You get paranoid, you sense less and less, you fear more and more.

I'm suggesting "mental illnesses" are mostly spiralled from issues of self-esteem and self-confidence, and the interaction of those beliefs-about-self.

We sometimes have false beliefs about ourselves.

It is from those false beliefs spin dissociating behaviors.

Change those false beliefs, you open the potential for more associating behaviors.

And more associating with others.

"I should get what I want."
"Others should get what they want, too."
"I can see things."
"Others can see things, too."​

 

[benorbeen]

Googling My Name, I Have My Own Porn Pages

<a href=http://www.celebspulse.com/Ben-Hauck.html onmousedown="return clk(this,'res',128)"><b>Ben</b> <b>Hauck</b> nude, gallery, contact, wallpapers, biography <b>...</b></a><table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr><td class=j><font size=-1><b>...</b> posters and photos Contact your favorities celebrity Wanna <b>Ben</b> <b>Hauck</b> posters and
postcards Click for <b>Ben</b> <b>Hauck</b> memorabilia, videos, photos, CDs, DVDs and books. <b>...</b>
<br><font color=#008000>www.celebspulse.com/Ben-Hauck.html - 16k - Supplemental Result - </font><nobr> <a class=fl href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:2BV76-EwB_kJ:www.celebspulse.com/Ben-Hauck.html+%22ben+hauck%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8">Cached</a> - <a class=fl href="/search?complete=1&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=related:www.celebspulse.com/Ben-Hauck.html">Similar&nbsp;pages</a></td></tr></table>

 

[benorbeen]

Question

Does reciprocity build equality?

That is, if you tit someone's tat, do you help that someone see you as an equal rather than an inferior?

 

[benorbeen]

Try It For One Day

Instead of saying something is "good," say "I like it."

Instead of saying something is "bad," say "I don't like it." Or even "I hate it."

Instead of saying something is "cool," say why you like it.

Instead of saying something "ain't cool," say why you didn't like it.

Why?

When you say thing "is good" or "is bad," you are judging it.

But when you say "I like it" or "I hate it," you are reporting how you feel.

When you judge something, you are not reporting how you feel. Instead, you are trying to influence people to think the way you think.

If you say you like something or hate something, other people can make their own decisions whether they like that something or hate that something. When you give them your judgments, very subtly, you try to get them to skip that step, you try to keep them from making their own decisions.

You are thus competing with the other person.

To cooperate with the other person, let them make their own decisions.

Try it for just a day. Or even just an hour.

I think you will like doing it.

 

[benorbeen]

The Orgasm

So, ultimately, do you want me to come?

*

If you do, at least in that sense, you want me to achieve satisfaction.

And if you don't want me to come, you don't want me to achieve satisfaction, and by default you want me to achieve (greater) frustration.

Let's assume from the beginning I want you to orgasm. Over and over again. That is to say, I want you to achieve satisfaction. Again and again and again.

This might be the base of much of it.

I want to find someone who wants me to orgasm. For me to let my insides come out. For me to release what's pent up inside. For me to experience so much satisfaction, I have to just lie there supine breathing in and breathing out heavily. My arms are dead, my legs are dead, my neck, just there.

Why would you want me not to achieve satisfaction.

Notice that is not a question.

Tell me.

*

Love me, or leave me alone.

Love my coming.

I love yours.

 

[benorbeen]

Okay, Let's Make This The New Agenda

I decided I'd thrust myself into those feelings of loneliness and try to tackle them as if there's a choice I'm making that's leading to those feelings. Much as I tackled mania and depression, and I hypothesize about schizophrenia and paranoia.

So, it seems that loneliness comes as a symptom of not-communicating-something-specific-to-someone-specific.

That is, you want to say something to someone, and you are not able to for some reason--those reasons being that the person's not available, dead, not ready, not around, etc.--but more than likely just not present in your company.

The thing is, you can say these things. You are able to say these things. You can pick up the phone and call. But maybe not get that connection right then. And THAT's maybe when you feel lonely--you want that specific connection, and you're not getting it at the time you want it. Loneliness as connection-frustration.

It's weird: I had a nice day yesterday, a rewarding one at that, and when I got home to an empty apartment and an internet connection with a few nice emails, I started to feel alone. It's that I want to say something specific to someone specific, I think; I start to think about this person, being close to this person, these times alone, these times alone at home. The connecting other people did with me via email did help, yet when that ended, I was back for the pining. It's a sucky feeling. I tried to nap it off and I wasn't falling asleep for some reason, I even went to bed early to stop the pain. I got insomnia this morning, though, awakening around 5am, hhhhorny and wanting. It would be nicer if there were that somebody there to share the feeling!

Ah, nuts. So there. Loneliness may mean a number of things, but I hypothesize that it has to do with frustrated connection, namely communication, and namely wanting-to-communicate-something-specific-to-someone-specific. Now's the investigation period. Now I try to say that specific something to that specific someone. And get the response. And decide. Or at least drift along.

Watch out, you. I might just share my true feelings!

Actually, I do it almost as a policy these days. I've surprised myself (and perhaps others) with my honesty. It's usually been a turn-on and a respect-builder. :love:

 

[benorbeen]

Fuck You (Politely), Chemistry

So, Mister Chemist, why don't you say loneliness is chemical?

You already say that depression is chemical, as is mania, and paranoid schizophrenia.

You pretty much rule out that these conditions are the result of choices people make. You instead say they might sometimes be induced by tragic events or "some kind of situation," but you more think these are about biochemistry and genetic predisposition.

Well, Mister Chemist, would you please consider me as genetically predisposed to loneliness? Would you please deny that it's not choices I made in my life some time ago that led me to these feelings, and keeps me struggling to connect? That would make it easier for me not to take responsibility for my situation. I can then throw some money toward some pills and then not-pick up the phone, not-try to get out and see people, not-connect, and just have a good reason to sleep and stay lonely, only except with the pills, I can be ignorant of my feelings of loneliness.

Of course you won't go that far. You'll stop short; you'll say loneliness is "obviously" the result of a social situation, not something chemical, and I just need to get out and see people. That will happen soon enough.

Have you ever felt alone, actually had no one in your apartment, in the dark, and none of your friends returning your calls or out on their own, in different states? And you've wanted to go out and prepared to go out on this night for some days?

Yeah. You're married and you have a horde of people you call "problemmed" paying your mortgage.

Once "loneliness is chemical" is the buzzword, you'll take me in and diagnose me as that, and have me pay for your daughter's college education.

But the thing is, I won't let you. Loneliness is the result of choices I've made. And that affects my chemistry. And that makes me feel lonely. And if I want to change my chemistry, I have to learn the beliefs I have that are false, make different choices to align with truer beliefs, and sure enough, steadily, my chemistry will change. If I pop a pill, I don't get that growth. I don't feel the pain of growth. And I have more potential to slide back, denied of the pain that taught me it's worse to have a false belief than a true belief.

Mister Chemist, thanks for making my opinion diminutive to your degree from college. You ever take an acting class? An improv class? People want things, people make choices to get those things, sometimes those choices don't align with those wants. Life is about learning what you want, what you truly, truly want. When you mute people's feelings with counterchemicals, in some sense you deny them of the experience of learning what they want and their truly good feelings. I grant you this: You sometimes keep people in check who are out to destroy themselves. But you also more often than not rob a person of her self-confidence--you teach her that you know how to live life better than she does, so she should obey you and your meds. That makes me want to spit at you.

I've argued with you once before. It felt so good. I want to do it again. Can you tell? I have a growing amount of friends whose self-confidence you're lowering. I found these friends when combating my loneliness. Perhaps this means an uprising. Perhaps there will be a bunch of bipolars without their meds roaming the streets, taking down your practices and taking away your certificates because your approach to helping their problems bathes in ignorance rather than knowledge.

I don't like seeing my friends get hurt disguised as getting better.

Sincerely,
Ben

 

[benorbeen]

So Do I Put Something Tragic, Something Cathartic, Or A Question?

Well, the phrase "Kiss me" is an effective command for finding an answer you want to know.

Exclusivity is something I want. I lost track of that somehow--I've most of my life just assumed exclusivity. Pretty much kiss-->girlfriend. With therapy, I rewrote that to kiss-/->girlfriend ("does not equal"). But I just this weekend realized how I rewrote it was that I somehow dropped the idea of exclusivity. As if people don't want to be exclusive with others.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself, and if faced with a choice between exclusivity and non-exclusivity, I choose exclusivity. It's what afforded me so much freedom, love, comfort, joy, and just happiness, assuming exclusivity.

What I've learned that exclusivity allows for is clearer focus on the person you're with. Exclusivity-/->girlfriend either--it's more like that temp-to-perm phase ... you're getting to know the person without considering other people, to see if you'd like to do something "greater" with this person.

In looking at exclusivity, I could understand the feeling of jealousy better. Not that I experienced that, but jealousy is a feeling that the partner you're with is not exclusive with you. That s/he's "cheating" on you ... interesting choice of words, "cheating." As if the rule of a relationship is that you behave exclusively, if not in the character-game (the outward appearance), at the very least in the player-game (the innermost intentions).

I actually wanted to write this entry about feelings. Feelings are messages you send to yourself. They can in most cases get represented somehow--verbally, artistically, via gesture, whatever.

Take the jealous feeling. There is a belief that you have, and you send it to yourself. You believe that your girlfriend is cheating on you. And you send yourself that message, and that sending causes that feeling. As long as you're jealous, you are "actively" sending yourself that message.

The problem is that we can send ourselves true and false messages. True messages we send ourselves aren't a problem, as far as I can think. But false messages--they're hell.

If you're sending yourself messages that your girlfriend is cheating on you, and she's not, your false-belief is causing you problems. Likely you behave toward your girlfriend in ways inappropriate with respect to how she treats you (I'm assuming lovingly).

So to change your feelings, you have to figure out what belief is underlying the feelings, and then whether that belief is true or false, and if it's false, do something about it, and if it's true, do something about your situation.

I think there are three basic, basic games. There's the Chicken Game, the Called Bluff, and the Prisoner's Dilemma. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the ultimate of games. If you say each player has two tactics--to satisfy the other or frustrate the other--the Prisoner's Dilemma grows when both players choose to frustrate each other. The PD "mixes" when one player decides to satisfy the other--this makes for a Called Bluff. And when both players decide to satisfy each other, a Chicken Game ensues.

Of course I feel sad today. Who wouldn't. The thing is, when I'm quiet, I hear myself giving myself "I can't" messages. That lowers my self-confidence. Interesting. I'm still not sure of the mechanism's start, but it seems that frustration lowers self-esteem, which can lower self-confidence. If I feel satisfied, my self-esteem increases, which can boost my self-confidence.

Keep playing rationally; keep seeking satisfaction. When you look backwards, you trip as you descend the stairs. But when you look forward, you skip steps. I realized this this morning as I almost tripped going down the stairs. But remember, it's not "bad" that I feel bad--I'll feel bad in my life--such is the nature of frustration. But is it unhealthy to make myself feel worse for feeling bad? I think so. At least to some degree. I'm not sure to what degree. Maybe the degree to which your self-confidence starts to lower. If your self-confidence starts to lower, you start to seek answers in other people, and not yourself. Which is fine, but if you depart your self, you let others take control of you.

Love,
Star Jones

 

[benorbeen]

>, <, =

What does the lack of exclusivity do?

It seems to lower confidence.

If you suspect your partner is not faithful, your confidence in him lowers. You may start to compete with him.

Separately,

If your partner limits your behavior, your self-confidence lowers. You may start to compete with him this way, too, to remove limitations from yourself.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[benorbeen]

Thank You, Improvanuse

Got this idea while going back and forth with you, just now:

Self-confidence potentiates;
Self-esteem motivates.

For my later cudchewing. op: