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

[benorbeen]

What We CALL Self-Confident

Remember, Ben, it's not that self-confidence is something tangible ... there is behavior we label as self-confident. That is, what does a person do that leads us to call her self-confident?

The self-confident person knows.

Especially, she knows what she wants.

When you've found out what you want, your body gathers confidence. You stand taller. You associate better. You concede more readily. As long as you keep in touch with what you want.

 

[benorbeen]

"Safe"

He whom we call "safe" is he who will not cheat.

He's unsafe the man who just might cheat.

 

[benorbeen]

Birth

Where did cooperation come from? Competition.

Where did competition come from?

Information overwhelming a synergism.

What is information?

It is one or more ideas.

So, if the universe started from a single point, how it exploded is when an idea overwhelmed it. A piece of information.

What idea overwhelmed it?

*

People "go crazy" because an idea overwhelms them. They are fairly synergized before that idea touches them. If you can find that idea, and correct it (assuming it's not-true), you can bring the person back down.

Schizophrenic behavior can become more adjusted. You have to learn what the person is trying to say, behind their delusions of grandeur and scattered-sounding speech. The thing is, what they're saying is all connected, you just may not see the connections. They are Z's springing from A's, when you're just used to B's and C's springing from A's.

They want connection so, so badly. And they are doing it and doing it and doing it again. "I know I can connect ideas." The paranoia comes whenever they concede to the belief "I don't know if I can connect ideas." They see things that are keeping them from connecting--cameras, government pursuit, etc.--even if they are not there. So they try to connect ideas more and more, because they are "being pursued." Which exacerbates their schizophrenia.

RAND.

We can achieve a schizophrenic state in doing improv.

*

Each idea connecting with another idea births at least one new idea.

1 + 1 = 2 + n,
n = new ideas, n > 0

 

[benorbeen]

Or...

Maybe something like this:

1 + 1 + n = 2 + n;
n always exists

n = the surprise variable

n can be present-perceived or present-concealed ... "concealed" is a relative term, meaning "imperceptible to the viewer but not necessarily all viewers."

 

[benorbeen]

Or......

Maybe something like this:

1 + 1 + m = 2 + n

m = the surprise variable
n = the surprise variable evolved in time
m never equals n

m & n can be present-perceived or present-concealed ... "concealed" is a relative term, meaning "imperceptible to the viewer but not necessarily all viewers."

Each side of the equation (1+1+m) and (2+n) are different in space-time. The change from m to n reflects that neither side of the equation equals the other, but in fact differs by some amount. If that amount is present-perceived, it likely can be plugged into the equation, but if it's present-concealed, it can't.

I would hypothesize that there's always a present-concealed variable. I don't know if that's true, but hey, we are limited by our senses--we can't know everything that is going on in one moment throughout the universe.

 

[benorbeen]

Wonderful, Wonderful Rehearsal & Mathematizing

I coached improv again last night, and it went so beautifully. I told them I wanted to make it so fear was rarely a factor when it came to performing, that it was more just excitement a person had when it came to a show. I taught my new, slightly revised game-theory definition of game to them, and with that slight adjustment came amazing, amazing changes in their onstage behavior. Truly remarkable scenes that I loved as well as those watching loved. Also, some other aspects of game dynamics started to get clearer to me, like playing selfishly, playing sympathetically, and coalition theory. They really impressed me in how well they took to the adjusted ideas. Actually, they probably were the ideas I introduced over a year ago, I've just clarified them in my head again.

*

Mathematizing, I saw this potential relationship:

the need for rejection = 1/the need for connection​

That is, the need for connection and the need to reject others are inversely proportional. If you've experienced undersatisfaction, your need for connection will increase. If you've experience a lot of oversatisfaction, your need for rejection will increase. (Under- and over- are relative terms, but measured in the sense of "How many interactions did you have that ended in win-lose rather than win-win?")

With your need for connection high, your need for rejection will decrease. That is, you'll likely reject less people, likely including some people who aren't healthy for you.

And with a lot of oversatisfaction you have a high need for rejection, so your need for connection will decrease. You'll push people out. Or at least pick up people less often.

Oversatisfaction is generally created by playing selfishly; you go for outcomes in which you win and the other person loses. You're rejecting people in essence; even if you don't realize it, they're likely feeling rejection.

So,

Someone rejects others noticeably. What does that say? That says that person has been oversatisfied somehow. He's acted selfishly. Selfish actions lead to harsh rejections.

Or, someone connects with others a lot. What does that say? That says that person has been frustrated/undersatisfied somehow. She's acted selflessly or cooperatively-and-gotten-burnt. Selfless actions lead to strong needs for connection.

These harsh and strong displays are intense displays of emotion that stand out from the "norm" emotions a person feels. If a person usually has a strong need for connection, there's nothing really "wrong" per se with the person all the time--but when they're frustrated their displays will likely appear more vividly, strongly, harshly, than say the person who has not experienced much frustration in her life.

Likewise, the overly selfish person will have such strong needs for rejection that his rejections of others will be harsher than others would seem necessary. This person has not learned how to cooperate with others and somehow thinks the game of life is "every man for himself," a win-lose game, and make losers of other people.

PM me if this makes sense to you. I can think of a few good examples offhand.

 

[benorbeen]

I'm Not Crazy

I say the lightheartedly.

I think I'm going to go back to more traditional modes of research today. Taking notes, etc. I think that might help out detangling my brain and give me things to latch onto. For much of this time, I've been relying on myself, my memory, my pads, and my rehearsals. It'd be nice to look at notes every once and awhile!

I wanted to say that I'm not crazy because I looked over one of my diagrams from the summer and saw how I described mental illness--it is certain ways we game with information. Information flows and stops in our minds. If we acknowledge the information and it stops, we've associated. We've dissociated if we ignore it and it stops, if we ignore it and it continues, and if we acknowledge it and it continues. The respective behavioral expressions are fear, anger, and excitation.

I really like the excitation one because I identify with that most. I have a ton of information flowing through my synergism. I think hypomanics, manics, and schizophrenics do as well.

 

[benorbeen]

Note To Self

Criticizing involves playing level-lowering metagames that are pretty much just agreeing-on-words. They seem to be about lowering self-esteem. They are kinda pointless because a) no one has to feel bad about what s/he did, and b) people can use whatever words they want to label things, even if they're not the words you'd use.

Doubts involve playing level-lowering metagames as well; they're pretty much just agreeing-on-pending-consequences or agreeing-on-words-about-consequences. They seem to be about lowering self-confidence. They are also kinda pointless because a) no one has to doubt what they feel will happen, and b) no one can be absolutely certain about any consequence--something could potentially get in the way of B's happening after A.

Metagames in this context are games appearing inside a greater game; they're usually tangential in nature.

 

[benorbeen]

The Nucleus

Is the electron angry at the proton? Does the neutron take the proton's side? Maybe it's not a force that binds protons together, but instead that they really care about each other, so much so that if you break their bonds, you release unimaginable energy?

Maybe the electrons are pissy with everyone, even themselves, but when it comes down to it, they can only get away so far ... then end up coming back to familiar territory around a nucleus.

 

[benorbeen]

The Universe Does Not Judge

Careful not to read meaning into this that I did not intend.

So I was at a group last night and shared what I had been doing (again) of late--removing judgments from my speech--by saying things as "I like this" or "I don't like that" rather than saying "This is good" or "That is bad." I explained the difference is that in the first examples, you're talking about your own personal experience of something, wherease with the latter, you're removing your own personal experience of something (taking out the "I," in other words).

The people in the group suddenly got very excited by what I had to say. I did not expect that reaction. I must admit, that felt really cool.

If you know me well, you probably realize that I really, really like to help people to help themselves, rather than having to rely on others. Not that I say I'm discounting the notion of interdependence, but I'm trying to help people not become dependent--on other people's ideas, notions, beliefs, on medication, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I got a shock when people in the group, including the group leader, seemed to have an epiphany.

At the very end of the group, I had a revelation. I realize that I feel misunderstood a lot. And thus to compensate for that feeling, I try to explain more. Sometimes, not all the time. And I try to explain more, even when others refuse to understand me or my perspective. There's probably no amount of explanation that will help a person who refuses to understand me, understand me. My frustration grew as that thread built up over the two days--I was told that I didn't make any sense, that people "got me" when they weren't articulating my intentions and meanings accurately, etc. That doesn't help my self-confidence when it comes to communicating.

Just because I practice and use and have an understanding of general-semantics and how language works "scientifically," doesn't mean that others will care to hear, be able to hear at this point in their lives, or will want to hear. I don't have to try to explain until they understand, even though I want to. I can decide, "Tough. Look over what I'm saying and figure out what I mean. I've told you once, I've told you twice; if you want to keep discussing, work harder at figuring me out because I don't want to do any more work."

The revelation came when someone said she wrote lots of lists and then goes over them and over them. I don't do that, but I do something very similar. It's actually beneficial, but also sometimes crippling--I've lost days "researching" when I've diagrammed what amounted to nothing substantial. (Granted, it's all part of the journey.) I think if I just say, "Fuck it, I can explain in an understandable way, and it's okay to leave it to the reader to think for himself/herself--I don't have to spell everything out and make every connection for him/her," I might have more progress. I want to spellitallout, but as absolutes don't exist, it's an impossible goal.

Play ahead-of-your-time.

 

[benorbeen]

Yeah, What If??

Yeah, what if it does happen? What if you do get screwed? What if you get rejected and hurt and you experience pain? What if you can't do what you said you'd do? What if I don't do what I said I'd do? What if you don't get paid and you were told you'd get paid? What if the ceiling fell on your head while you were asleep? What if you got hit by a car and couldn't walk the rest of your life? What if life deals you lemons? What if life deals you feces? What if life deals you a tsunami with a side order of salmonella? What if you what if? What if you what if you what if? What if you what if you what if you what if?

What if you shut up and decided to deal with things rather than try to make other people worry with you?

You say what if, as if I should do something about something that hasn't happened, only you're worried. Well, fuck you, I'm going to fight you on that. For I'm not going to let you make me worry, I'm not going to let you take away my confidence. I'll deal. You deal. It's not my problem anyway--you're the one who decided to break the ********.

 

[benorbeen]

Hypomania

Trigger: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSAPPR.html

 

[benorbeen]

On Poodles & Cheesecake

To what degree can one truthfully say that what-one-has is what-one-wants?

Let me argue that such is never-true.

For example, cancer. Cancer may be something hardly anyone could wish upon herself.

Yet, if she "knows" that smoking causes cancer, and she smokes, it would seem that she wants cancer, or at least wants to flirt with the possibility of getting cancer. Right?

No. I disagree. She may want a cancer-free life but a life with smoking in it. She may want the goods without the bads. So that's not to say that should she develop cancer, she wanted cancer. Instead, she wanted to smoke. Just smoke and smoke and smoke and not have anything tumorous to develop.

What if we just assumed, though, for sake of entertainment, that what-one-has to a large degree corresponds to what-one-wants. Like, think of it as 90% of what-one-has is what-one-wanted. And 10% is accidentally received, not-wanted. Might we think of life differently?

I think we would. I think we would start to change our behavior. We would see that "Oh, I have this!," and "Oh, hell if I want this!," and "Oh, I want something different!," and "Oh, I'd best go after that something rather than this something instead!"

You have a toxic relationship? As long as you have it, maybe you want it. "You like the toxic feelings." But you don't. It's against your nature. It tears you apart. It may make you stronger, but it also tears you apart. How much tearing are you willing to tolerate? Perhaps some, but not to the point there's separation inside you, actual gaps developing, skin ripping, arms falling off.

Maybe you don't want it. But you have it. So you wake up. And you shed it. And you go after something else. That you want. And you get it. Eventually.

Maintain. Sustain. Let it reign.

 

[benorbeen]

On Cocker Spaniels & Jujubes

"I will" ~ "I want to"

"I will not" = "I won't" ~ "I do not want to"

"I won't" ~ "I do not want to" ~ "I refuse to"

C --> association
Sf --> dissociation

Dissociating can preserve the self.
And it can protect the self unnecessarily.

 

[benorbeen]

Rack of Steel

This song just finished playing. I'd never heard it. It's by Dolly Parton. It's called "I Don't Want To Throw Rice." I love it.

She married the one i love today
When my back was turned she took him away
Now while they're all outside, waiting to throw rice
What i want to throw will surely black her eyes
'cause i don't want to throw rice
I want to throw rocks at her
She took the only love i had
No, i don't want to throw rice
I want to throw rocks at her
It would be a way to hurt her 'cause she hurt me so bad

Well i never stole nothin' in my life
But if i get the chance i'll steal him from his wife
'cause all is fair in love and war, maybe i'm carryin' this too far
But i feel like tying dynamite to her side of the car

No i don't want to throw rice
I want to throw rocks at her
She took the only love i had
No, i don't want to throw rice
I want to throw rocks at her
It would be a way to hurt her 'cause she hurt me so bad

 

[benorbeen]

Machia

With mania, there's a little belief that everyone's supporting you. You may be lying to yourself--others may not be supporting what you're doing. You may come up against people who don't support what you're doing, but you champion onward.

With schizophrenia, it's extended further ... not only is everyone supporting you, but these everyones are cooperating with you! They are helping you get what you want, rather just encouraging you.

On the flipside

With depression, no one supports you. And with paranoia, not only does no one support you, but those no-one's are out to get you. Everyone is competing with you when you're extremely paranoid.

Now,

What if the illness is not so much that other people are behaving this way. We could say that it's "normal" to get manic if a lot of people support you and cooperate with you, and "normal" to get depressed if a lot of people don't support you or compete with you.

But what if the illness is that you're not gaming with other people but instead you're gaming with yourself??

That is, with mania, you're supporting yourself, and with schizophrenia, you're supporting yourself and cooperating with yourself--every little idea you come up with. So you come up with an idea, support it, then work with it. You insist it's the most genius thing in the world that Bear + Chicano = Gladys Knight, so you roll that equation over and Over and oVer and ovEr and oveR and over in your head, insistent that you'll find a new, equally powerful surprise to work with.

And with depression, you're not supporting yourself, and with paranoia you're not supporting yourself plus you're competing with yourself. Almost as if another person can "see" the inner conflict you're having: you want to do something, you say to yourself NO, YOU CAN'T, YOU'RE HORRID, and after enough times, you actually try to go against those voices and they start to frustrate you with SEE, I TOLD YOU YOU CAN'T DO THAT, THEY THINK YOU'RE STUPID, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE YOU FEEL INSIGNIFICANT AND IDIOTIC, THEY'RE GOING TO HURT YOU.

How do you break out?

Well, interesting, looking at these four dis-eases, you see that these people are dissociated internally in their games. Instead of playing games with other players, they're playing games with themselves when they're around other people. You might think the things they're saying are to you, but they're more like comments they're making to themselves. Their saying "I'm such a bad person" is not so much a statement of "fact" to you, but that person's talking to herself and you happen to be around to hear it.

Their saying "I'm such a bad person" is not so much a statement of "fact" to you, but that person's talking to herself and you happen to be around to hear it.

The illness is only "illness" insofar as the person wants to connect with others, to associate with them. It's not an illness if they're content. I mean, we may believe they'll have more contentedness when they interact with others, but if they don't believe it, who's to argue with them?

The law gets in the way. It says suicide is illegal. So at some point, psychology legally must intervene and determine a person's satisfaction for them--a person is not "allowed" to decide that suicide will provide more satisfaction than living. That doesn't mean that can't be true per se, it just means that a governing body makes making that choice against the laws and principles upheld by the state.

 

[benorbeen]

Connection Frustration

Promise of Connection
Defection
Superfrustration
Accomplishment
Aloneness
"Can't Talk About Anger"
Excitation Without Communication
Brain Orgasm

Heightened Need for Connection

 

[benorbeen]

Commitment

Lack of commitment brings lack of connection.

That is, if you say you're going to do something, you set up an expectation inside the other person. When you don't follow through, there is a "gap" between what you say and what actually happens.

If you've set the person's expectations high and you don't follow through, you frustrate the person proportionally (if we assume the other person only listens to you and doesn't think for himself--which is not exactly true in real-life). Let's call that discrepancy between what's expected and what happens the "disconnect":

Expectations - Reality = Actuality

If Actuality = 0, then there is "connection." Expectations and Reality match.

If Actuality < 0, then there is "overconnection." Reality exceeds Expectations.

If Actuality > 0, then there is a "disconnection." Reality falls short of Expectations.

Cool.

 

[benorbeen]

Commitment Revised

Maybe the other way around:

Expectations - Actuality = Reality

It's basically the same equation.

Only I'm saying that Reality is the difference between What You Expect and What Actually Happens. It's not something you experience directly, then ...

If you expect nothing ...

?

 

[benorbeen]

The Strategy of Conflict

Living, perhaps, is about finding the best strategy--the best plan of moves--for coping with what it throws at you.

You have a choice over the strategies you use in living life. You can cooperate, or you can compete. There are a few other ways to see the strategies you have, but those are the basic ones.

But I think basically it's this: You can seek out those who complement your satisfaction, or you can seek out those who frustrate your satisfaction. (It's not a true either-or--please allow my oversimplification.)

No one in the universe requires you to go with one strategy or another. I mean, we choose to listen to the government, a parent, a teacher, a webmaster. But we are not universally bound to listen to them. We can do whatever we damn well please.

We might get jailed, banned, killed in the process. But nothing in the universe physically disallows these things--that is, these things don't contradict the "laws" we understand the universe thrives on.

We can choose to compete, and make losers of people.

Or we can choose to cooperate, and make winners of people.

... all the while as we pursue our own satisfaction.