Merkabah
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- N
[MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION]
Jacobi’s Inspirational Poster of the Week!!
Motherfucker. Imma go Garfield on 2016.
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
How Real Is Reality?
Each day when you wake up, the world is, for the most part, unchanged from the day before.
The sun rises again in the east.
Your underwear falls if you drop it.
The water in the sink spirals down the drain like always.
Just as important, your mattress won't turn into a sports car and you can't jump into the air and fly like Superman.
Reality, in other words, seems pretty stubborn, pretty fixed – and pretty much independent of whatever is going on in your head.
But is it?
Is it really all those things?
Now, you might think these are questions for philosophers pondering the imponderable alone in their ivory towers.
Certainly, these can't be questions for physicists who are supposed to describe what's happening right in front of us?
Remarkably, it turns out these kinds of questions are exactly what physicists have to confront when they seek to understand the best of their own handiwork – the domain of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics (or "quantum physics") is the body of knowledge related to the nanoworld of molecules, atoms and the component parts.
It's the most powerful and accurate theory human beings have ever, ever, ever developed.
The computer you're reading these words on now wouldn't be possible without quantum physics.
But beneath all that power is a remarkable paradox that should never be forgotten: No one knows what quantum mechanics is talking about.
Now, let me be clear what I mean by this statement.
Theories in physics are expressed in the language of mathematics.
Before quantum mechanics, the mathematics for a given theory (like Newton's mechanics or electromagnetism) might have been hard, but it was still readily interpreted.
That meant you could still create a "picture" in your head about what the math was describing: billiard balls colliding; planets moving in orbit; waves propagating through space.
But when physicists began probing the realm of the atom, the behavior they found was very weird and very different from what's observed for macro-scale objects like billiard balls and planets.
In response to this dilemma, the founders of quantum created a new kind of mathematical physics that could describe what was seen in experiments.
More importantly, this mathematics predicted the outcome of experiments with astonishing accuracy – basically the equivalent to firing a rifle bullet from New York City at a target in Los Angeles and nailing the bull's eye to within the width of a dime.
It was that good.
The only problem was that no one knew how to interpret the mathematics.
This meant there was no simple way for understanding what the mathematics was describing.
It couldn't tell us what, for example, an electron was – in-and-of-itself.
And if we couldn't picture the stuff making up reality (like electrons) then we must still be in the dark about reality itself.
One can, of course, ignore all the metaphysical questions and simply "shut up and calculate."
That approach works fine for creating computers and other powerful gadgets from quantum physics.
But, for a lot of us, ignoring reality was not why we got into this business.
So throughout the past 100 years, physicists have proposed a lot of different ways to interpret their mathematics and, in the process, explain what quantum theory tells us about the fundamental nature of "The Real."
These interpretations tend to fall into one of two camps.
For the first camp, the mathematics directly describes a reality that is independent and objective.
In this view, quantum mechanics is an ontological theory (ontology is the branch of philosophy dealing with what truly exists).
For the second camp, however, the mathematics of quantum mechanics describes only our knowledge of the world.
For these folks, quantum physics is an epistemological theory (epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with what human beings know and how they know it).
Ontology vs. Epistemology: the world in-and-of-itself vs. just our knowledge about the world.
The split between these camps can get pretty contentious.
That's because most physicists start off as ontologists.
When we're young we get excited about our equations.
We think they are so powerful they seem to be like "thoughts in the mind of God," pointing to a truth that lies beyond the daily concerns and limitations of human life.
But the encounter with quantum weirdness can shake that vision for some physicists.
Many of the founders of quantum theory were convinced that their new theory was telling them that ontology was no longer possible for physics.
For them, physics was the act of learning about our interactions with the world, not the world in-and-of-itself.
The problem with all these interpretations is that, in general, there remains no way to distinguish between them experimentally.
All anyone can do is argue philosophical positions based on, well, philosophy.
In a few cases, however, so-called "no-go" theorems have been proven – turning out to be enormously powerful.
A no-go theorem tells scientists when certain kinds of physical situations are fundamentally impossible to achieve given the laws we understand.
For example, in 1964 John Bell derived a set of relations (the Bell Inequalities) that could distinguish between true quantum weirdness and the possibility of a more classical "normal" reality hidden beneath what was seen in experiments.
Experiments using Bell's no-go theorem eventually showed that quantum weirdness ruled.
More recently there has been so-called PBR theorem (which has nothing to do with hipster beer but, instead, was named after its creators Matthew Pusey, Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph).
PBR is also a no-go theorem that appeared to eliminate an entire class of epistemological interpretations for quantum physics.
It was a very big deal – and its meaning is still being debated.
But the PBR theorem didn't eliminate the most epistemological of epistemological interpretations.
This is the so-called Copenhagen view that claims there is no way to talk about the world having any properties in-and-of-itself.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, electrons don't have intrinsic properties like position or spin.
It's only the act of measurement that makes the electrons take on specific values of these properties.
So which is it?
Does the world have an intrinsic ontology?
Is there something out there independent of us that has specific properties in-and-of-it?
Or is it all a mush of potential and possibility about which only our knowledge takes on a stable form?
The fundamental question remains.
How real is reality?
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
The Other Side:
Where do coincidences come from?
(CNN)
Royce Burton was teaching history at a New Jersey university when he decided to tell his class about a frightening experience he had as a young man.
He was a Texas Ranger, patrolling the Rio Grande in 1940, when he got lost in a canyon after dark.
He tried to climb out but lost his balance just as he neared the top of a cliff.
Suddenly Joe, a fellow Ranger, appeared and hoisted him up to safety with his rifle strap.
Burton thanked Joe for saving his life but lost contact with him after both men enlisted in the military during World War II.
Burton was in the middle of sharing his story when an elderly man appeared in the doorway.
It was Joe, the fellow Ranger.
He had tracked Burton down 25 years later and walked into his classroom at precisely the moment Burton was recounting his rescue.
"I'll have Joe finish the rest of the story," Burton said, without missing a beat as the astonished classroom witnessed the two men's reunion.
You could call Burton's story an amazing coincidence, but James Hollis calls it something else: "synchronicity" -- a meaningful coincidence.
Synchronicity is a term coined by Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and mystic.
It is the occurrence of two events that have no apparent cause and effect relation but are nonetheless connected by meaning, often in profound ways.
Synchronicity is an odd term, but it's a familiar experience to many people.
Someone dreams of a childhood friend he hasn't heard from in years and gets a phone call from that friend the next day.
Another person loses his mother and hears her favorite song on the radio on the day of her funeral.
Someone facing a terrible personal crisis is the accidental recipient of a book that seems written just for him or her.
"We live in a haunted world where invisible energies are constantly at work."
Yet few people understand how synchronicities work.
Why do they happen, where do they come from, and does their existence suggest that everyone's life is somehow part of some cosmic drama shaped by unseen hands?
Or, as critics insist, is synchronicity simply psychological narcissism, the result of a person's desperate need to find meaning in odd connections that anyone would notice if he paid attention.
Those are the kind of questions that scientists, skeptics and psychologists have long asked about striking coincidences.
The concept of synchronicity, though, is moving mainstream.
Google the term and 5.4 million references pop up.
Facebook has a page devoted to synchronicity.
And there are people who collect synchronicity stories like kids used to collect baseball cards.
They catalog them in pieces such as "29 Mind-Blowing Coincidences You Won't Believe Happened" or "20 Amazing Coincidences."
Even those who have never heard of synchronicity are influenced by it, some say.
If you flip open the Bible and randomly pick out the first Scripture you see for guidance, or you pay attention to premonitions or astrology, you are relying to some degree on the principles of synchronicity.
"The interest in synchronicity is exploding," says Gibbs A. Williams, a psychoanalyst and author of the book "Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences."
"Many synchronicity disciples get off on this stuff as if they were junkies craving their next fix."
Of plum pudding and golden beetles
Synchronicity groupies have their favorite stories.
Some have been cited so much it's difficult to know if they're true or apocryphal -- or a combination of both.
Consider the infamous tale of Emile Deschamps and his plum pudding.
A decade later, Deschamps goes to a Paris restaurant and orders plum pudding again.
The waiter tells him the last dish has been served to someone else -- a Monsieur de Fortgibu.
The story gets odder.
In 1832, Deschamps goes to a diner where someone offers him plum pudding.
He jokingly tells his friends that the only thing missing is de Fortgibu -- and de Fortgibu, now an elderly man, promptly wobbles into the diner.
No wonder Jung was drawn to such stories of synchronicity.
He was fascinated by strange experiences.
He was a lifelong believer in the occult and claimed to have personal encounters with the paranormal.
Jung's belief in synchronicity was, in fact, reinforced by a synchronistic encounter that was as eerie as Deschamps' plum pudding story.
Jung was treating a highly educated young woman who he thought relied too much on her intellect.
He said she was "psychologically inaccessible" and concluded that a breakthrough could only come if something unexpected and irrational turned up during their sessions.
One day the woman told Jung she had a strange dream the night before in which someone had handed her an expensive piece of jewelry, a "golden scarab" shaped like a beetle. While the woman was sharing the dream, Jung heard a gentle tapping on an office window behind him.
It was a large insect trying to get into the darkened office.
Jung opened the window and caught the insect when it flew in.
It was a golden scarabaeid beetle, whose gold-green color resembled the color of the golden scarab jewelry.
"Here is your scarab," Jung said, handing it to the stunned woman.
The moment proved to be a breakthrough for the woman, Jung claimed.
His decision to use the synchronistic moment to forge a breakthrough with his patient would become a model for other Jungian therapists.
Their message: Synchronistic moments don't happen just to inspire wonder; they arrive to force people to reconsider their values.
Why synchronicity happens
Whenever an improbable coincidence occurs, says Hollis, the Jungian analyst, people should look for the possible message in that moment.
"Is there a task there that is corrective to my way of looking at things?"
In his book "Hauntings," Hollis explained the message behind the former Texas Ranger's improbable reunion.
Hollis befriended him when both taught at the same university.
"For my colleague, who is a sensate 'facts are facts kind of guy,' the incident helped expand his psychic life by bringing a bit of mystery into it,"
Hollis wrote. "After his sensibility enlarged, he was even more aware of the presence of invisible energies amid his tangible world."
Some believe that people can train themselves to summon synchronistic moments.
Alex Marcoux, author of "Lifesigns: Tapping the Power of Synchronicity, Serendipity and Miracles," says that the "Universe" sends synchronistic signs to help people live more fulfilling lives.
Marcoux, who insists that Universe be capitalized because of her spiritual beliefs, offers a five-step process on how to recognize and learn from synchronicity:
Ask with intention, sense life's experiences, unravel the Universe's clues, validate the answer and express gratitude.
Marcoux says she's relied on synchronistic moments to help her make decisions on everything from the plotlines of her novels to her finances and relationships.
When asked how she can discern if a coincidence is a message or just a random moment, she says there are three indicators: The event is meaningful, improbable and she's hit with a sudden realization.
The moment feels like an epiphany.
"The hair goes up on the back of your neck," she says.
Jung introduced the concept of synchronicity to Western audiences with the publication of his book "Synchronicity -- An Acausal Connecting Principle."
But the concept predates him by thousands of years.
As Jung pointed out, the concept forms the foundation for an ancient Chinese text used for divination called the I Ching, or the Book of Changes.
Jungians say advances in quantum physics and chaos theory also reinforced the principles of synchronicity.
Why synchronicity could be a hoax
Some critics say synchronicity is not the result of an otherworldly influence.
It's self-generated -- it's produced by people looking for answers to personal problems, says Williams, author of "Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences."
Williams says synchronicities are neither random events nor coded messages from a transcendent divinity.
Striking coincidences often occur when people are experiencing a psychological gridlock in their life.
A person who swears off drinking, for example, may turn on the television set the same day of their resolution and see a movie about Alcoholics Anonymous.
When one resolves to solve a personal problem, one will often see a "resonant message" embedded in a moment, he says.
"You're looking for patterns. It's like you're on your own psychological scavenger hunt. You look for pieces to fit the puzzle. The completed pattern is experienced as a synchronicity."
Some critics of synchronicity deny these events occur at all.
Skeptics cite one of the most frequently touted examples of synchronicity: the strange parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.
Both presidents had seven letters in their last names and were elected to office 100 years apart -- 1860 and 1960.
Both were assassinated on a Friday in the presence of their wives, Lincoln in Ford's Theatre and Kennedy in an automobile made by Ford.
Both were felled by assassins who went by three names, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald.
And both were succeeded by vice presidents who were Southern Democrats with the last name Johnson.
What does it mean?
Absolutely nothing, wrote Bruce Martin in an essay for Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
Mathematical probability ensures that some coincidences will occur, but people assign less probability to coincidences than they deserve.
Probability ensures that in a random selection of 23 people, he says, there is a 50% chance that at least two of those people celebrate the same birth date.
Synchronicity supporters also ignore facts that challenge the meaning of their coincidences, he says.
Take Lincoln and Kennedy: They shared similarities, but they were also born and died in different months, states and at different ages.
What about those differences?
"For any two people with reasonably eventful lives it is possible to find coincidences between them," Martin wrote in the essay "Coincidences: Remarkable or Random?"
"Two people meeting at a party often find some striking coincidence between them, but what it is -- birthdate, hometown, etc. -- is not predicted in advance."
Hollis, the Jungian analyst, readily concedes some coincidences exist apart from synchronicity.
But he says there are other odd coincidences that go beyond mathematical possibility.
You just can't explain them away.
He says these strange stories reveal "the spectral presence" of some kind of energy that deliberately infiltrates people's daily lives.
Consider one of the strangest synchronicity stories ever told:
In 1938, Joseph Figlock, a street sweeper, was cleaning an alley in Detroit when a baby fell from an open, fourth-floor window.
The baby hit Figlock in the head, the impact saving the child's life.
A year later, Figlock was sweeping another alley when another baby fell from a fourth-floor window -- onto Figlock.
Same fate.
Both Figlock and the baby were unharmed.
What does one make of such a story?
Time magazine matter-of-factly reported Figlock's story under the headline, "Coincidence in Detroit."
It did not include any interviews -- and the story is one the Internet loves to debate as truth or fiction.
This much appears to be sure: No one ever caught up with Figlock or either of the babies to see how their lives were shaped by those amazing moments.
Try to explain why these coincidences occur, and few agree.
Even Jung struggled to grasp the implication of synchronicity -- some say he had at least three different definitions of it, and his followers disagreed about its meaning.
Says Williams, the disbeliever: "I don't think anyone has had a bead on the absolute truth."
So what are we left with?
Puzzling stories of falling babies, plum pudding and odd coincidences that can shape people's lives -- and even haunt them.
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
Empathic People Are Natural Targets For Sociopaths — Protect Yourself
Dr Jane and Tim McGregor
Addiction Today
Dr Jane and Tim McGregor
Addiction Today
The empathy trap: therapists and counselors almost by definition are empathic, to facilitate clients’ recovery — but this quality can mean those carers are targets for sociopaths, aided by what Dr Jane & Tim McGregor call “apaths”.
The first UK article on this cruel sport shows how to identify and thus avoid it.
People targeted by a sociopath often respond with self-deprecating comments like “I was stupid”, “what was I thinking” of “I should’ve listened to my gut instinct”.
But being involved with a sociopath is like being brainwashed.
The sociopath’s superficial charm is usually the means by which s/he conditions people.
On initial contact, a sociopath will often test other people’s empathy, so questions geared towards discovering if you are highly empathic or not should ring alarm bells. People with a highly empathic disposition are often targeted.
Those with lower levels of empathy are often passed over, though they can be drawn in and used by sociopaths as part of their cruel entertainment.
Sociopaths make up 25% of the prison population, committing over twice as many aggressive acts as other criminals.
The reoffending rate of sociopaths is about double that of other offenders, and for violent crimes it is triple.
But not all sociopaths are found in prison.
There is the less-visible burden of sociopath-induced emotional trauma which, if left unchecked, can lead to anxiety disorders, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Chronically traumatized people often exhibit hyper-vigilant, anxious and agitated behavior, symptoms such as tension headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances, abdominal pain, back pain, tremors and nausea.
Exposure to and interaction with a sociopath in childhood can leave lifelong scars.
This can apply to people in therapy — and for those who in recovery trained as therapists, re-exposure as an adult can trigger old emotions and PTSD.
This article is not about sociopaths per se but about surviving the harm they cause.
Everyday sociopaths
Many sociopaths wreak havoc in a covert way, so that their underlying condition remains hidden for years.
They can possess a superficial charm, and this diverts attention from disturbing aspects of their nature.
The following case history illustrates how people can be systematically targeted until they feel they can barely trust their own sense of reality — what we call “gaslighting”. Sociopathic abuse is targeted abuse.
It can wreck lives.
Victims can become survivors, but at huge cost.
At school, ‘James’ took a dislike to a classmate, ‘Sam’, who was sensitive and popular.
He would mock him for auditioning for the school play or for getting upset over failing a test.
The situation deteriorated when it became known that Sam’s parents were separating.
Sam appeared to be taking it with fortitude, to the admiration of his peers.
He also got attention and sympathy from the school staff, especially James’ favourite teacher: ie, the one he manipulated most easily.
James decided on a plan of covert bullying.
He started a whispering campaign implying that Sam’s parents were not splitting up, that he had said they were in order to seek attention.
Sadly, this was all too successful and over the next few days Sam was met with silence and verbal bullying from his hitherto-supportive classmates.
James continued his campaign, targeting Sam’s close friends over the next few days.
They found themselves accused of misdemeanours such as sending offensive emails/texts.
Then the ‘favourite’ teacher went on “leave with immediate effect” after accusations of assaulting a pupil.
Where had the accusations come from?
Guess.
This case shows how deliberately sociopaths, from a young age, can target others.
Taking advantage of people’s credibility and goodwill, James exploited the situation.
With a more perceptive head teacher, this sociopath might have been found out, but he knew who to manipulate and how far he could go.
See the emperor/empress’s clothes
In The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson, two weavers promise the emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those who are stupid and unfit for their positions.
When the emperor parades before his subjects, all the adults, not wishing to be seen in a negative light, pretend they can see the clothes.
The only truthful person is a child who cries “But he isn’t wearing any clothes!”.
You, too, need to see sociopaths as they really are.
We are conditioned to keep quiet, which often means turning a blind eye to or putting up with abuse.
The boy in the tale represents those who see the problem behavior for what it is and find the courage of their convictions to make a stand.
Sight becomes insight, which turns into action.
Awareness is the first step in limiting the negative effects of contact with a sociopath.
Interactions of the sociopath
Let’s look at what we term the Socio-Empath-Apath Triad, or Seat.
Unremitting abuse of other people is an activity of the sociopath that stands out.
To win their games, sociopaths enlist the help of hangers-on: apaths.
The apath.
We call those who collude in the sport of the sociopath apathetic, or apaths.
In this situation, it means a lack of concern or being indifferent to the targeted person.
We have highlighted the importance of seeing the problem for what it is via the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes, which represents the collective denial and double standards which are often a feature of social life.
The apath in this context is someone who is willing to be blind: ie, not to see that the emperor/empress is naked.
Apaths are an integral part of the sociopath’s arsenal and contribute to sociopathic abuse.
Sociopaths have an uncanny knack of knowing who will assist them in bringing down the person they are targeting.
It is not necessarily easy to identify an apath; in other circumstances, an apath can show ample empathy and concern for others — just not in this case.
The one attribute an apath must have is a link to the target.
How apaths, who might otherwise be fair-minded people, become involved in such destructive business is not hard to understand, but it can be hard to accept.
The main qualifying attribute is poor judgment resulting from lack of insight.
They might be jealous of or angry at the target, and thus have something to gain from the evolving situation.
At other times, the apath might not want to see the ‘bad’ in someone, particularly if the sociopath is useful.
Or they might choose not to see because they have enough on their plate and do not possess the wherewithal or moral courage to help the targeted person at that time.
Usually, be it active or passive involvement, the apath’s conscience appears to fall asleep.
It is this scenario that causes people blindly to follow leaders motivated only by self-interest.
Readers might know of Yale University professor Stanley Milgram’s experiments to test the human propensity to obey orders, as participants gave increasingly large electric shocks to subjects.
Afterwards, he wrote an article, The Perils of Obedience: “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process“.
Apaths are often fearful people.
They are the ones most likely to go with the flow, to agree that the emperor/empress is wearing new clothes.
They might also fail to perceive the threat: a danger is of no importance if you deny its existence.
An apath’s response to a sociopath’s call to arms can then result from a state of ‘learned helplessness’.
Apaths behave defenselessly because they want to avoid unpleasant or harmful circumstances [including the sociopath turning on them].
Apathy is an avoidance strategy.
The empath.
Often, the person targeted by the sociopath is an empath.
Empaths are ordinary people who are highly perceptive and insightful and belong to the 40% of human beings who sense when something’s not right, who respond to their gut instinct.
In The Emperor’s New Clothes, the empath is the boy who mentions the unmentionable: that there are no clothes.
In the 1990s, researchers suggested that there was a positive relationship between empathy and emotional intelligence.
Since then, that term has been used interchangeably with emotional literacy.
What this means in practice is that empaths have the ability to understand their own emotions, to listen to other people and empathise with their emotions, to express emotions productively and to handle their emotions in such a way as to improve their personal power.
People are often attracted to empaths because of their compassionate nature.
A particular attribute is that they are sensitive to the emotional distress of others.
Conversely, they have trouble comprehending a closed mind and lack of compassion in others.
Very highly empathic people can find themselves helping others at the expense of their own needs, which can lead them to withdraw from the world at times.
It is odd.
Most of us enjoy watching films and reading books about heroes who refuse to go along with the crowd, which suggests there is something admirable about people who make a bold stand.
But in real life, watching someone raise their head above the parapet often makes the rest of us feel queasy.
Most — the 60% majority — prefer the easy life.
It was interesting to discover, when doing the research for this book, how often people see empaths in problematical terms.
Empaths use their ability to emphasize and to boost theirs and others’ well being and safety.
Problems arise for empaths, however, when there are apaths in the vicinity.
Empaths can be brought down, distressed and forced into the position of the lone fighter by the inaction of more apathetic types round them.
The sociopathic transaction
Often empaths are targeted by sociopaths because they pose the greatest threat.
The empath is usually the first to detect that something is not right and express what s/he senses.
As a consequence, the empath is both the sociopath’s number one foe and a source of attraction; the empath’s responses and actions provide excellent entertainment for sociopaths, who use and abuse people for sport.
The world of the empath is not for the faint-hearted.
In the context we are discussing, empaths often find themselves up against not only the sociopath but often a flock of apaths as well.
Apaths are afforded pole position in the sociopath’s intrigues.
But this prime spot comes at a price for, in what we call the “sociopathic transaction”, the apath makes an unspoken Faustian pact with the sociopath, then passively or otherwise participates in the cruel sport.
Sociopath-empath-apath triad
The usual set-up goes like this: the empath is forced to make a stand on seeing the sociopath say or do something underhand.
The empath challenges the sociopath, who straight away throws others off the scent and shifts the blame on to the empath.
The empath becomes an object of abuse when the apath corroborates the sociopath’s perspective.
The situation usually ends badly for the empath and sometimes also for the apath, if their conscience returns to haunt them or they later become an object of abuse themselves.
But, frustratingly, the sociopath often goes scot free.
Sociopaths rarely vary this tried-and-tested formula because it virtually guarantees them success.
Sociopaths draw in apaths by various means: flattery, bribery, disorienting them with lies.
A sociopath will go to any lengths to win her game.
The best way to illustrate the interplay, and the ease with which apaths are pulled in, is by another short story.
‘Steve and Robin’ were microbiologists at a prestigious university, collaborating on an important vaccine trial.
The department head, Ben, hoped to gain substantially; success could see his status in his field rise and prove the catalyst for a glittering career.
His colleagues worked relentlessly collecting data, then Ben drafted a paper for submission to a respected journal.
He decided that the outcome didn’t look tantalising, so falsified key results in order to present findings in the best light.
On completing the draft, he sent the paper for comment to his colleagues.
Steve replied by email that he was happy with the manuscript; he used the opportunity to suck up to his boss.
But Robin was aghast, noting colossal errors.
With great urgency, he rattled off an email to Ben.
Receiving no response to this or a phone call, Robin went to find Ben in person, discovering him in the cafeteria with Steve.
But he was too late.
Ben had poisoned Steve’s mind, saying that Robin had challenged him over the accuracy of the results, due to a longstanding grudge.
Ben said he had to pull Robin up about his own work several months back.
Steve was different, Ben implied.
He intimated Steve would be on course for promotion “especially if we get this paper out and secure funding for the next-stage trials”.
By the time Ben joined them, Steve, though initially shocked, had been won over by Ben’s swift flattery and insinuations
Robin crossed the cafeteria to them.
“Hi, you two got a moment?”
Briefly there was an awkward silence.
Steve exchanged a look with Ben, who gave a slight conspiratorial smile, now that the transaction was done and the sport under way.
“Yes, we were just talking about the paper. By the way, I did see your email, but if you look at the paper thoroughly, I think you’ll find that everything is correct.” Steve replied with a smug look that “I’m with Ben on this one”.
Robin was floored.
“You can’t be serious? You’re happy for it to go off to be reviewed with all these serious errors? Our reputations will be left in ruins.”
He decided to make a stand.
He asked for his name to be removed as a co-author but was exasperated to learn that it was sent off to the journal anyway.
More frustratingly, it was published.
Meanwhile, the workplace became a source of stress for Robin as he struggled to cope with the backlash from colleagues who saw his intervention as an attempt to sabotage their work.
People avoided him and, when they did talk to him, the conversation was stilted.
Eventually Robin arranged a meeting with Ben to have it out once and for all.
But Ben took control of the agenda.
“Robin, I have to be honest with you, many of your colleagues are unhappy about the way you handled things and some have made complaints. They don’t trust you to conduct yourself professionally after you attempted to sabotage their hard work. Mercifully the reviewers saw what a fine trial we’d conducted and didn’t get wind of your attempted slur.
“We can’t afford to have a saboteur on the team. So I’ve discussed this with the dean and he agrees there is no future for you here, and there’s no other way to deal with this. You’ve got to go.”
Any phase of this story sound familiar?
The gaslighting effect
In the story above, the actions of Ben and Steve have a ‘gaslighting’ effect on Robin.
Gaslighting is a systematic attempt by one person to erode another’s reality.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented in such a way as to make the target doubt his/her memory and perception.
Psychologists call this “the sociopath’s dance”.
It could involve denial or staging of strange events.
This is Machiavellian behaviour of the worst kind.
And anyone can become a victim of the sociopath’s gaslighting moves: parent and child, in-laws, friends, groups of people including work colleagues.
Psychotherapist Christine Louise de Canonville describes different phases that the abuser leads the relationship through:
- the idealisation stage, where the sociopath shows herself in the best possible light — but this phase is an illusion, to draw her target in
- the devaluation stage begins gradually so the target is not alert to the sociopath’s transformation to being cold and unfeeling, but will begin to feel devalued at every turn; the more distressed the target becomes, the more the sociopath enjoys her power, and her abuse can become more extreme
- the discarding stage — the target is reduced to an object to which the sociopath is indifferent, seeing the game as won; the sociopath rejects any connection, moving on to the next target.
Gaslighting does not happen all at once so, if you suspect in the early stages of a relationship that you are being gaslighted, you can protect yourself by walking away.
About the authors
Dr Jane McGregor is a freelance trainer and lecturer at the Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham. She holds a PhD in public health and worked in the NHS and voluntary sector, mostly in the field of addiction treatment.
Tim McGregor is freelance consultant and trainer, and a mental-health practitioner of many years’ standing. He has worked in the NHS and voluntary sector, most recently as a commissioning adviser.
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- N
Empathic People Are Natural Targets For Sociopaths – Protect Yourself
Dr Jane and Tim McGregor
Addiction Today
The empathy trap: therapists and counselors almost by definition are empathic, to facilitate clients’ recovery – but this quality can mean those carers are targets for sociopaths, aided by what Dr Jane & Tim McGregor call “apaths”.
The first UK article on this cruel sport shows how to identify and thus avoid it.
People targeted by a sociopath often respond with self-deprecating comments like “I was stupid”, “what was I thinking” of “I should’ve listened to my gut instinct”.
But being involved with a sociopath is like being brainwashed.
The sociopath’s superficial charm is usually the means by which s/he conditions people.
On initial contact, a sociopath will often test other people’s empathy, so questions geared towards discovering if you are highly empathic or not should ring alarm bells. People with a highly empathic disposition are often targeted.
Those with lower levels of empathy are often passed over, though they can be drawn in and used by sociopaths as part of their cruel entertainment.
Sociopaths make up 25% of the prison population, committing over twice as many aggressive acts as other criminals.
The reoffending rate of sociopaths is about double that of other offenders, and for violent crimes it is triple.
But not all sociopaths are found in prison.
There is the less-visible burden of sociopath-induced emotional trauma which, if left unchecked, can lead to anxiety disorders, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Chronically traumatized people often exhibit hyper-vigilant, anxious and agitated behavior, symptoms such as tension headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances, abdominal pain, back pain, tremors and nausea.
Exposure to and interaction with a sociopath in childhood can leave lifelong scars.
This can apply to people in therapy – and for those who in recovery trained as therapists, re-exposure as an adult can trigger old emotions and PTSD.
This article is not about sociopaths per se but about surviving the harm they cause.
Everyday sociopaths
Many sociopaths wreak havoc in a covert way, so that their underlying condition remains hidden for years.
They can possess a superficial charm, and this diverts attention from disturbing aspects of their nature.
The following case history illustrates how people can be systematically targeted until they feel they can barely trust their own sense of reality – what we call “gaslighting”. Sociopathic abuse is targeted abuse.
It can wreck lives.
Victims can become survivors, but at huge cost.
At school, ‘James’ took a dislike to a classmate, ‘Sam’, who was sensitive and popular.
He would mock him for auditioning for the school play or for getting upset over failing a test.
The situation deteriorated when it became known that Sam’s parents were separating.
Sam appeared to be taking it with fortitude, to the admiration of his peers.
He also got attention and sympathy from the school staff, especially James’ favourite teacher: ie, the one he manipulated most easily.
James decided on a plan of covert bullying.
He started a whispering campaign implying that Sam’s parents were not splitting up, that he had said they were in order to seek attention.
Sadly, this was all too successful and over the next few days Sam was met with silence and verbal bullying from his hitherto-supportive classmates.
James continued his campaign, targeting Sam’s close friends over the next few days.
They found themselves accused of misdemeanours such as sending offensive emails/texts.
Then the ‘favourite’ teacher went on “leave with immediate effect” after accusations of assaulting a pupil.
Where had the accusations come from?
Guess.
This case shows how deliberately sociopaths, from a young age, can target others.
Taking advantage of people’s credibility and goodwill, James exploited the situation.
With a more perceptive head teacher, this sociopath might have been found out, but he knew who to manipulate and how far he could go.
See the emperor/empress’s clothes
To deal with sociopaths effectively, you first need to open your eyes.
In The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson, two weavers promise the emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those who are stupid and unfit for their positions.
When the emperor parades before his subjects, all the adults, not wishing to be seen in a negative light, pretend they can see the clothes.
The only truthful person is a child who cries “But he isn’t wearing any clothes!”.
You, too, need to see sociopaths as they really are.
We are conditioned to keep quiet, which often means turning a blind eye to or putting up with abuse.
The boy in the tale represents those who see the problem behavior for what it is and find the courage of their convictions to make a stand.
Sight becomes insight, which turns into action.
Awareness is the first step in limiting the negative effects of contact with a sociopath.
Interactions of the sociopath
Let’s look at what we term the Socio-Empath-Apath Triad, or Seat.
Unremitting abuse of other people is an activity of the sociopath that stands out.
To win their games, sociopaths enlist the help of hangers-on: apaths.
The apath.
We call those who collude in the sport of the sociopath apathetic, or apaths.
In this situation, it means a lack of concern or being indifferent to the targeted person.
We have highlighted the importance of seeing the problem for what it is via the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes, which represents the collective denial and double standards which are often a feature of social life.
The apath in this context is someone who is willing to be blind: ie, not to see that the emperor/empress is naked.
Apaths are an integral part of the sociopath’s arsenal and contribute to sociopathic abuse.
Sociopaths have an uncanny knack of knowing who will assist them in bringing down the person they are targeting.
It is not necessarily easy to identify an apath; in other circumstances, an apath can show ample empathy and concern for others – just not in this case.
The one attribute an apath must have is a link to the target.
How apaths, who might otherwise be fair-minded people, become involved in such destructive business is not hard to understand, but it can be hard to accept.
The main qualifying attribute is poor judgment resulting from lack of insight.
They might be jealous of or angry at the target, and thus have something to gain from the evolving situation.
At other times, the apath might not want to see the ‘bad’ in someone, particularly if the sociopath is useful.
Or they might choose not to see because they have enough on their plate and do not possess the wherewithal or moral courage to help the targeted person at that time.
Usually, be it active or passive involvement, the apath’s conscience appears to fall asleep.
It is this scenario that causes people blindly to follow leaders motivated only by self-interest.
Readers might know of Yale University professor Stanley Milgram’s experiments to test the human propensity to obey orders, as participants gave increasingly large electric shocks to subjects.
Afterwards, he wrote an article, The Perils of Obedience: “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process“.
Apaths are often fearful people.
They are the ones most likely to go with the flow, to agree that the emperor/empress is wearing new clothes.
They might also fail to perceive the threat: a danger is of no importance if you deny its existence.
An apath’s response to a sociopath’s call to arms can then result from a state of ‘learned helplessness’.
Apaths behave defenselessly because they want to avoid unpleasant or harmful circumstances [including the sociopath turning on them].
Apathy is an avoidance strategy.
The empath.
Often, the person targeted by the sociopath is an empath.
Empaths are ordinary people who are highly perceptive and insightful and belong to the 40% of human beings who sense when something’s not right, who respond to their gut instinct.
In The Emperor’s New Clothes, the empath is the boy who mentions the unmentionable: that there are no clothes.
In the 1990s, researchers suggested that there was a positive relationship between empathy and emotional intelligence.
Since then, that term has been used interchangeably with emotional literacy.
What this means in practice is that empaths have the ability to understand their own emotions, to listen to other people and empathise with their emotions, to express emotions productively and to handle their emotions in such a way as to improve their personal power.
People are often attracted to empaths because of their compassionate nature.
A particular attribute is that they are sensitive to the emotional distress of others.
Conversely, they have trouble comprehending a closed mind and lack of compassion in others.
Very highly empathic people can find themselves helping others at the expense of their own needs, which can lead them to withdraw from the world at times.
It is odd.
Most of us enjoy watching films and reading books about heroes who refuse to go along with the crowd, which suggests there is something admirable about people who make a bold stand.
But in real life, watching someone raise their head above the parapet often makes the rest of us feel queasy.
Most – the 60% majority – prefer the easy life.
It was interesting to discover, when doing the research for this book, how often people see empaths in problematical terms.
Empaths use their ability to emphasize and to boost theirs and others’ well being and safety.
Problems arise for empaths, however, when there are apaths in the vicinity.
Empaths can be brought down, distressed and forced into the position of the lone fighter by the inaction of more apathetic types round them.
The sociopathic transaction
Often empaths are targeted by sociopaths because they pose the greatest threat.
The empath is usually the first to detect that something is not right and express what s/he senses.
As a consequence, the empath is both the sociopath’s number one foe and a source of attraction; the empath’s responses and actions provide excellent entertainment for sociopaths, who use and abuse people for sport.
The world of the empath is not for the faint-hearted.
In the context we are discussing, empaths often find themselves up against not only the sociopath but often a flock of apaths as well.
Apaths are afforded pole position in the sociopath’s intrigues.
But this prime spot comes at a price for, in what we call the “sociopathic transaction”, the apath makes an unspoken Faustian pact with the sociopath, then passively or otherwise participates in the cruel sport.
Sociopath-empath-apath triad
The usual set-up goes like this: the empath is forced to make a stand on seeing the sociopath say or do something underhand.
The empath challenges the sociopath, who straight away throws others off the scent and shifts the blame on to the empath.
The empath becomes an object of abuse when the apath corroborates the sociopath’s perspective.
The situation usually ends badly for the empath and sometimes also for the apath, if their conscience returns to haunt them or they later become an object of abuse themselves.
But, frustratingly, the sociopath often goes scot free.
Sociopaths rarely vary this tried-and-tested formula because it virtually guarantees them success.
Sociopaths draw in apaths by various means: flattery, bribery, disorienting them with lies.
A sociopath will go to any lengths to win her game.
The best way to illustrate the interplay, and the ease with which apaths are pulled in, is by another short story.
‘Steve and Robin’ were microbiologists at a prestigious university, collaborating on an important vaccine trial.
The department head, Ben, hoped to gain substantially; success could see his status in his field rise and prove the catalyst for a glittering career.
His colleagues worked relentlessly collecting data, then Ben drafted a paper for submission to a respected journal.
He decided that the outcome didn’t look tantalising, so falsified key results in order to present findings in the best light.
On completing the draft, he sent the paper for comment to his colleagues.
Steve replied by email that he was happy with the manuscript; he used the opportunity to suck up to his boss.
But Robin was aghast, noting colossal errors.
With great urgency, he rattled off an email to Ben.
Receiving no response to this or a phone call, Robin went to find Ben in person, discovering him in the cafeteria with Steve.
But he was too late.
Ben had poisoned Steve’s mind, saying that Robin had challenged him over the accuracy of the results, due to a longstanding grudge.
Ben said he had to pull Robin up about his own work several months back.
Steve was different, Ben implied.
He intimated Steve would be on course for promotion “especially if we get this paper out and secure funding for the next-stage trials”.
By the time Ben joined them, Steve, though initially shocked, had been won over by Ben’s swift flattery and insinuations
Robin crossed the cafeteria to them.
“Hi, you two got a moment?”
Briefly there was an awkward silence.
Steve exchanged a look with Ben, who gave a slight conspiratorial smile, now that the transaction was done and the sport under way.
“Yes, we were just talking about the paper. By the way, I did see your email, but if you look at the paper thoroughly, I think you’ll find that everything is correct.” Steve replied with a smug look that “I’m with Ben on this one”.
Robin was floored.
“You can’t be serious? You’re happy for it to go off to be reviewed with all these serious errors? Our reputations will be left in ruins.”
He decided to make a stand.
He asked for his name to be removed as a co-author but was exasperated to learn that it was sent off to the journal anyway.
More frustratingly, it was published.
Meanwhile, the workplace became a source of stress for Robin as he struggled to cope with the backlash from colleagues who saw his intervention as an attempt to sabotage their work.
People avoided him and, when they did talk to him, the conversation was stilted.
Eventually Robin arranged a meeting with Ben to have it out once and for all.
But Ben took control of the agenda.
“Robin, I have to be honest with you, many of your colleagues are unhappy about the way you handled things and some have made complaints. They don’t trust you to conduct yourself professionally after you attempted to sabotage their hard work. Mercifully the reviewers saw what a fine trial we’d conducted and didn’t get wind of your attempted slur.
“We can’t afford to have a saboteur on the team. So I’ve discussed this with the dean and he agrees there is no future for you here, and there’s no other way to deal with this. You’ve got to go.”
Any phase of this story sound familiar?
The gaslighting effect
In the story above, the actions of Ben and Steve have a ‘gaslighting’ effect on Robin.
Gaslighting is a systematic attempt by one person to erode another’s reality.
The syndrome gets its name from the play and films of the same name in which a murderer strives to make his wife doubt her sanity and get others to disbelieve her.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented in such a way as to make the target doubt his/her memory and perception.
Psychologists call this “the sociopath’s dance”.
It could involve denial or staging of strange events.
This is Machiavellian behaviour of the worst kind.
And anyone can become a victim of the sociopath’s gaslighting moves: parent and child, in-laws, friends, groups of people including work colleagues.
Psychotherapist Christine Louise de Canonville describes different phases that the abuser leads the relationship through:
- the idealisation stage, where the sociopath shows herself in the best possible light – but this phase is an illusion, to draw her target in
- the devaluation stage begins gradually so the target is not alert to the sociopath’s transformation to being cold and unfeeling, but will begin to feel devalued at every turn; the more distressed the target becomes, the more the sociopath enjoys her power, and her abuse can become more extreme
- the discarding stage – the target is reduced to an object to which the sociopath is indifferent, seeing the game as won; the sociopath rejects any connection, moving on to the next target.
Gaslighting does not happen all at once so, if you suspect in the early stages of a relationship that you are being gaslighted, you can protect yourself by walking away.
About the authors
Dr Jane McGregor is a freelance trainer and lecturer at the Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham. She holds a PhD in public health and worked in the NHS and voluntary sector, mostly in the field of addiction treatment.
Tim McGregor is freelance consultant and trainer, and a mental-health practitioner of many years’ standing. He has worked in the NHS and voluntary sector, most recently as a commissioning adviser.
Interesting, though it does come across a bit "Empaths are special snowflakes who alone see through sociopaths, while everyone else will just do what they say". There definitely is some truth there though. As someone who's been on the receiving end of a sociopath's attention, I've seen how they easily they can manipulate people into joining in on the abuse.
Still, I think it's better being on the receiving end, than being the person who's identity was eroded by the sociopath.
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
Vampire slaying kit from 1890s
"Cased vampire killing kit, in a rosewood and ebony case with inlaid silver stringing and mother-of-pearl inlaid plaque.
Contents include a black powder percussion 2-barrel pistol, a powder horn and bullet mold, bone handled dagger with crucifix, three small crucifixes, mallet and two wooden stakes, book of common prayer, two small framed portraits of Jesus, holy water and four glass vials with crystals."
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
We are special snowflakes just shut up okay.
(in sing-song voice) “We are all special snowflakes in one way or another Jacobi."
No I agree, but, it’s writers bias I suppose…you know I don’t drool on every word of everything I post here right?
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
When you understand the difference between religion and spirituality you will truly awaken and you will know the truth.
When the student is ready the Master will appear.
What is the Difference Between Religion and Spirituality?
Religion keep us from seeing ourselves as a manifestation of God the way a wave is an extension of an ocean.
Moving beyond religion leads us to the greatest freedom we can know: the freedom to be who we are – creative agents for justice and compassion.
Religion is often about who’s in and who’s out, creating a worldview steeped in “us against them.”
Spirituality rejects this dualism and speaks of us and them.
Religion is a man made device and is often about loyalty to institutions, clergy, and rules.
Spirituality is about loyalty to justice and compassion.
Religion talks about God.
Spirituality helps to make us godly.
The two need not be at odds.
However the religious folks often become radical.
More people have been killed over religious beliefs than any other reason in history.
I study all beliefs from all cultures and I utilize whatever does not insult my soul.
There is good and valuable knowledge and truth in all ancient texts.
I also prefer spirituality because it allows me to have a personal relationship with my creator vs religion forcing you to go thru pastors and clergy and relies more on the monetary system for support making it vulnerable to greed and quests for power by the leaders.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9 Mediator
@Kgal
Orders!?
This is a very interesting article…why such a rush I wonder…who is trying to save their own asses and from what?
Congress Orders NASA to Build a Deep Space Habitat by 2018,
is Insane
The plans are due by mid-2016 so you better believe people are scrambling in Houston.
Neel V. Patel
[*=center]December 30, 2015
[*=center]
[*=center]Link - https://www.inverse.com/article/970...ebook&utm_medium=inverse&utm_campaign=organic
Between finding liquid water on Mars, blue skies on Pluto, and other major discoveries, NASA had a pretty good 2015.
Congress noticed and rewarded the agency with a massive budget increase.
But, as the old saying goes, there is no such thing a free, freeze-dried lunch. Congress is now instructing NASA to use some of the extra money – roughly $55 million – to construct a prototype model of a deep space habitat.
The pols want the thing operational by 2018.
Lest there be confusion, the omnibus bill that stipulates how much NASA gets in the following year actually reads: “NASA shall develop a prototype deep space habitation module within the advanced exploration systems program no later than 2018.”
It also says that NASA needs to provide Congress a report within the first 180 days of 2016 detailing how those funds are being used to create the habitation module.
So, to sum up, NASA will have two years to create something that’s never been made before and is distinct from all other NASA projects currently underway.
And they’re already on deadline to know how to do this.
This project will totally not run into any problems whatsoever!
Of course, NASA has spent much of the last year voicing a desire to get humans to Mars within the next two decades or so, and has been going over several different ideas for how that could be accomplished.
A deep space habitat could fall in line with those plans – especially as they might relate to using the moon as a proving grounds for missions to Mars and beyond.
A habitation module sitting in cislunar space (between Earth and the moon) could be a useful spot for launching those types of missions.
But so far, instead of tackling the habitation module itself, NASA has elected to fund several other industry studies being run by private companies.
Congress’ new directive might force the agency to begin accelerating plans and take control of the wheel.
How likely is it that NASA will meet the 2018 deadline?
Pretty unlikely.
NASA sets deadlines for itself just like any other major government institution, but it does so with the understanding that a lot can go wrong.
Space exploration requires that everything needs to be operating at 100 percent before a launch can be green-lighted – and when that’s not possible, NASA has no problem scrapping the deadline. (Just last week, the agency indefinitely suspended the launch of the InSight Mars Lander due to faulty equipment.)
That’s why NASA goes about developing its projects with methodical detail.
It’s not going to rush into something just because Congress wants it now.
It couldn’t even if it wanted to – developing and testing spacecraft is an arduous process.
Developing a deep space habitat would require several years’ work involving a ton of different personnel.
If Congress believes it will get a prototype module before 2018 just because its in writing, it must not really understand how NASA works, let alone space research in general.
Perhaps the governing body knows this and is simply trying to jumpstart the process by making it a requirement, with no real plans to hold NASA strictly to it.
Regardless, the request could jumpstart the project and get things moving forward sooner rather than later.
We might not get a full on deep space habitation prototype in two years, but we can at least expect some big news to come out before then.
Bahahahah...this made me laugh.
It is VERY likely NASA will meet the deadline because it's already there.....
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- N
We are special snowflakes just shut up okay.
(in sing-song voice) “We are all special snowflakes in one way or another Jacobi."
No I agree, but, it’s writers bias I suppose…you know I don’t drool on every word of everything I post here right?
Ahh, looks at the speshul wittle snowflake.
I know, I wasn't criticizing you. I mean if you want to delude yourself and believe that you''re special I'm ok with that. What else are friends there for, but to enable a psychosis that will eventually lead to incarceration in an institute for the criminally insane. hugs
Last edited:
Quiet
i know nothing
- MBTI
- infj
- Enneagram
- 1w9
I am great. Been doing somethings that make me happy, creating a lot of art, writing, meditating, hiking. Have no clue what tomorrow might bring...and that is exciting. I'm starting to look forward to being surprised.
How are you? And how is your back feeling? I had back pain for the first time last week, and i was shocked at how debilitating it was. It made me very grumpy, to say the least. I am truly sorry for any pain that you have experienced and sincerely hope that it is resolved
I wish i could hug you too, writing online is
.....i don't even know the word
[video]https://youtu.be/prlqT0ptpTI[/video]
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
Yeah…I get that from time to time…people will say to me “wow, I threw out my back…or pulled a muscle in my back and I can really see how debilitating that can be now.”
There are some days it takes all my willpower to just not scream…or I’ll go to smoke a bowl or have a glass of wine because I hurt and nothing makes that disappear, not ever…so I sometimes I just drown my consciousness.
Now combine that with being empathetic to the noosphere and I have had some really shitty days, I won’t lie.
But…I’m not going anywhere, life likes to fuck with me just like everyone else but it won’t beat me until I die.
Otherwise…I’m super.
The state didn’t even challenge my disability ruling (which is unheard of), so that made me feel like at least SOMEONE realized I couldn’t bail water from a sunken ship and to do so would be unnecessary and only make things worse.
Now the challenge is occupying my mind…because it will occupy itself if I don’t keep it in check…I’m sure you can relate.
Been meditating…have tried mushrooms twice now with interesting results (though not what I was expecting).
Mostly music…I always have music and incense permeating my house constantly.
Been giving some tarot readings also lately with what I think have been good results.
(PM me if you would like one, it helps me to release some kind of psychic blockages I think I get.)
Anyhow…glad you sound like you are doing well….may it continue to be so.
Last edited: