Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on December 2, 2018 @ 12:50 pm

She said “I can do what I like”

“yeah” the pragmatist yawned “as long as you convince yourself you wouldn’t ‘like’ to do anything that challenges social convention too much (especially those outside the sanctions of your privilege) – had you tried you would have found that there ARE obstacles to such desires” as he threw another copy of Atlas Shrugged on the fire to keep warm now the electricity had been cut off (like Ayn Rand collecting social security struggling with lung cancer, as her disciples abandon her, one of whom goes on to head the World Bank in the 2008 economic crisis)


The X files are out there

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on November 28, 2018 @ 6:50 pm

Is the joke of the Fermi paradox

That we can only parse our own Lebensweld linguistically (more or less, but not much more, definitely less)


Types of ‘voice’ behaviour

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on November 7, 2018 @ 11:06 am

In previous writing I have referred to voice dialogue, but this is closer to the Maastricht Interview associated with Intervoices and the Hearing Voices Network. This experience informs my writing, but my writing is not about this so much, attmepting to take a broader look at the discourse itself. I have also worked through 25 causes of my psychosis based on a variety of different theories (none bio-medical though) that all seem to fit my personal experience. Anyway below are my voice ‘behaviours’.

I have 26 types of voice (alienated thought if you will) that I can identify as having disitnctly different behaviours

1. solidarity voices: voices that acknowledge what i think but don’t make a deal of it. Are nomadic in the sense in that they seem to be triggered by affinities in the content but otherwise tend not to bother me.
2. Playful voices: When i am stressed but in a good mood will paly with language or word forms.
3. Charity/ Karpman’s Drama triangle voices: The first of the negative one’s. Try to help me, but there is always a condition, often of, ‘approved behaviour’ or insisting on me accepting a different belief from my own, or some sort of conforming behaviour from me. Will attack or ‘poor them’ if denied. Will often police the playful, blaming all the playful for the smaller number of manipulators.
4. Approvers: Will approve of my behaviour but only to ‘keep the door open’ for the possibility of disapproval – so related to the preaching conformity voices. will police the playful as the ‘approvers’ disapprove, not being ‘moral’.
5. Insecure bullies: Will pass on unfactchecked gossip, or have a go because they feel insecure, or i am exhibiting ‘rights-defensive’ behaviour to the social conservative hegemony they would like to challenge but are too cowardly to do themselves. Will bully the play they don’t get and feel insecure about.
6. Hypocrites/ Prejudiced/ Authoritarian voices: They come in with prejudiced judgments but without the full facts, so from my own perspective I know are wrong. Will rarely listen to reason. Their belief in ‘free speech’ is to be prejudiced but not allow a reply to that prejudice (denial of free speech in others)
7. ‘Liberals’/ passive aggressive tone police: Will tone police my behaviour standing up to the negative ones. But then get sensitive when challenged themselves, calling in others to police (often the Hypocrites/ prejudiced) but claim ‘they are not right wing’. Poor them.
8. Narcissists: Make the act of me standing up to the other negative voices about them. In a good mood I am tolerant, but if i am overwhelmed by the others, they can undermine demanding i am nice leaving me defensive against the other negative ones, or I have a go a them instead, thus proving i am the bad one for their narcissism. Thus they are exploitative. But will also defend their exploitation with a ‘poor them’.
9. Nosy/ Inquisitive judgers/ gossips: Want to know more information about my circumstances to either exploit me when i am justifying myself to the prejudiced, or the disapprovers, or will phish for information to use later as gossip or for their own later disapproval. Will never use for solidarity (or rarely) will use to confirm their preexisting prejudices. Will manipulate or ignore factual information that does not tally with their prior prejudices.
10. Misdescribers: I hear these talk to other voices not to me directly but constantly misrepresent me. Will poor them if challenged. Call in authoritarian prejudiced in defence.
11. Victim blamers: will blame me for feeling the need to defend myself. The prejudiced are always the one’s who are right. whatver I do i am the one on the wrong. And moreover have asked for it.
12. Manipulative/ con-merchants: Will hear the ‘battle’ with the negative one’s and try to get something out of the chaos. Can also zone in to manipulate the playful voice games, or dishonestly emulate the playful one’s turning a good mood dark. They clear off when the solidarity voices come in.
14. Naive realist: They insist their experience of voice hearing, or their belief in recovery, or their normalised relation to the hegemony as being the only possible intepretation or perspective of the world. Often with little evidence based practice. Will move to vctim blamer (it’s your own fault etc), poor them or insister if challenged.
15. Insisters. As far as they are concerned my mental health is only caused by the thing they have decided on, are focused on (cognitive bias of focusing effect), to the detriment of all my other experiences (given I have identified 25 different factors affecting my mental health in the past – although their focus may not necessarily be one of these causes, it may just be something they made up or learnt through gossip or mimesis due to their prejudices). May insist on procrustean naive realist recovery techniques or biomedical arguments rather than accept differing arguments from my lived experience.
16. Deniers: Deny some single label (such as ‘right wing’) whilst participating in the above nexus in one of the negative ways. Will trun to ‘poor them’ or authoritarian or insecure bully when challenged.
17. Can’t do anything wrong: Will manipulate using many of the above so that I am always wrong either to escape punishment themselves, evade their own superego and conscience, or some other prejudice so that i have to maintain a lower status, just as long as they are not in the wrong.
18. Boo hoo: I am not allowed to move from ‘bad me’ to ‘poor me’ as others have more right to ‘poor them’ than me. Dynamic status quo protector.
19. Superlative: Use a superlative like ‘always’, ‘all of us’. every’, ‘never’ etc either as a straw man for something particular where the universal would be ridiculous, or to garner support from others who may not actually be aprt of the set ‘we’ from their persepctive in order to outnumber me in the gaslight. Also used as a ‘poor them’.
20. not good enough: Whatever my circumstances or behaviour i am not good enough. It is their justification for blaming me for their treatment of me, it is the justification for my explanations and defence being rejected (it is even manipulated in a victim blaming form as proof of guilt to even need to defend oneself), it is the justification that I always have to play the bad me role for others poor them. Any of the negative roles can be used to maintain this, it is even the dishonesty behind the approval role.
21. Resentment: If i do anything for my own pleasure or to improve myself, seens as above my lowly status, i get judged for it ,what they were deprived of, or what i am not allowed to do, unless I maintain and ‘bad me’ sackcloth and ashes status for their poor them, in defence of this authoritarian nexus status quo.
22. Harry Enfield/ Mansplaining/ Dunning- Kruger: If i don’t toe the line then i am asking for it (if that’s what you want then that’s what will happen) combined with staring at goats attempts to fix my problems. Alighned with Karpman Triangle, victim blamers and authoritarians.
23. Submit to our belief: There is an emotional theory that suggests that fear combined with trust leads to submissiveness. There is another theory that one brings comfort in, but one dumps out for self-care purposes, socially organised by level of trauma. However, this ‘submit to our belief’ group expect submissiveness and for others to dump in, comfort (compassion) out even toward prejudice and authority (the status quo), i.e, expecation of submissiveness (or you are a bad person) whilst maintaining their right to comfort in/ dump out based on ‘hard work’ rights to kvetch (prejudicely about others rather than their own issues, hence bypassing the demand to dump in (self blame)) rather than trauma informed perspectives. Whilst of course maintaining it’s your fault you are blamed for not recovering quickly enough and being ‘in work’ to claim ‘bigoted dumping rights’ for yourself (if you can’t beat them join them).
24. Is this about me: Voices that think me working stuff through is a justification to them personally. Obviously related to narcissist but covered up with an authoritarian or approver/disapprover gloss.
25. Meritocratic ideological belief disbelief: The idea that mental health is about lack of effort, combined with a belief in recovery through hard work that culminates in the idea that surely if i was doing a PhD looking at mental health i should be well. I must, must, have some blame for the way the worst treat me (meriticracy and individualism being related to victim blaming) given all my hard work, or they have recovered themselves and have worked harder than me, i should stop complaining, or some such, otherwise they would have to challenge the ‘hard work’ mentality to mental health recovery themselves, and either their social capital is too invested, or they may now have ‘recovery’ jobs, as for whatever reason there is strong cognitive dissonance, that leads to the denial and disbelief of my own self-reported mental health experience. I have some pity for these, is if they believe that so much that they deny me, the question is left begging, how hard are they on themselves?
26 Nudgers/ pushers: Alien intrusive thoughts that will try to change or nudge my own thoughts into something else, due to the cognitive dissonance on the part of the phantasm, rather than the phantasm being responsible for it’s own actions (if you want you can think of this as a memory of people being that pushy with regards thew right to work through, discuss or understand stuff – in a way that Freud suggested someone changing a conversation in therapy was avoiding their deeper issues). Other than the authoritarian one’s (and this one is related) this type of voice behaviour I consider the most ‘violent’

Different phantasms/ or constructs can shift between different roles. At the end of a signifying chain the phantasm or construct will have a different ‘identity’. But will have passed through several stages. These are related to emotional states but cannot be simply reduced to them. I have multiple regular constructs (more than 26) who are never a static identity but seem familiar on repeated occasions. Others are nearer to thoughts (especially the nomadic solidarity one’s) and have less of a temporal identity. Also consider these behaviours ideal types as Max Weber would describe such typifications. Moreover these ideal types can work in combination (having elements of one, two or three or more different flavours)


The distance between metaphor and it

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on October 23, 2018 @ 2:01 pm

The frog lept from lily pad to lily pad, he saw a big one ahead and jumped on it. But it was a fata morgana and he ended up in the water, and had to decide which of the multiple possible lily pads it represented to swim to, each with it’s own potential danger lurking beneath.


A psychotic’s occupation

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on October 2, 2018 @ 12:54 pm

“Why did you do a nonsense word salad when that guy was demeaning?”
“Trying to elude control, giving flack to the Rule 150, by making some fucking noise”
“Surely it would be better to recover and get a job and then he wouldn’t pick on you”
“Signifyin’ is a psychotic’s occupation, who says I am out of work?
I’d say my occupation is to point out there’s no room for just world victim blaming in social justice, but it’s not my job to educate you.



Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on September 20, 2018 @ 5:39 pm

“you are so naive, me, I’ve been doing it since I was 11”
“Oh” I said, “I am naive in relation to you as you have been doing the positive object since you were 11”
“The positive object”
“What’s that?”
“I am saying you have been using ‘it’ in a sentence since you were 11 to gaslight someone as, the word ‘it’, being a positive object, can be replaced by whatever was on your victims mind. Thus allowing you to either phish, pull a fast one on Joey (especially if you replace ‘it’ with ‘he’ or ‘she’), or you and ‘it’ fight.”
“Yeah, whatever, I’ve been doing it since I was 11”
“Sure, and no matter how much you practice confirmation bias will still be confirmation bias… oh, and when you see your mother, don’t forget to tell her i Said ‘Nee! Nee! Nee!'”


Here comes everybody. A play in 3 Acts

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on June 1, 2018 @ 9:21 am

A play in 3 acts

Act 1:
Here comes everybody.

Act 2:
Here comes everybody’s friend, superlative.
They create a Weltanschauung together.

Act 3:
Consequently superlative leaves
Everybody depressed


The sixth sex

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on March 7, 2018 @ 8:32 pm

Grandma Carrington took the hearing trumpet from her ear and said “I’ve heard of Simone de Beauvoir and I’ve heard of Judith Butler, but what on earth is the sixth sex?”
“Sixth sense grandma” her granddaughter moaned.
“And who on earth is this Bruce Willis?” Grandma continued “A spiritualist? Really takes the biscuit. Pass the bourbon, dear.”
Her granddaughter went and got the biscuit tin.
“The whiskey, dear, the whiskey.” bristled Grandma “Can’t you hear?”


The ignorance and the shame

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on September 14, 2017 @ 11:00 am

The constant refrain, every statement, of a language that intends, due to a prior dogmatic, unquestionable, authoritarian prejudice on making me permanently invalid. The ignorance and the shame.


The possibilities of dialogue with a belief puddle

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on November 27, 2016 @ 2:24 pm

It was Oscar Wilde who said he is tolerant of everything apart from intolerance.

And then there are people who have a self-perception of a form of liberalism, but one that has failed to do a Copernican Revolution of self-understanding in that they claim to be open-minded but in fact the phrase that describes their self-understanding should be closer to:

“They are fine with all kinds of belief as long as it is their own”

I have a real problem with people like this especially in the realm of language. Say with the word ‘belief’ there is a set of all the possible meanings, ie for this signifier the set contains all possible signified (of course the signifier could also be a phrase such as ‘human nature’ or ‘adult’ or ‘grown-up’). A person like the above has a closed set within this larger set that is quite fixed and unable to perceive the possibility of existence of forms of meaning and knowledge outside this more fixed set. If i am aware of not only the existence of larger permutations of the word, but also for me my understanding of ‘belief’ with regards my own behaviour exists outside theirs AND moreover whilst I am aware of their use of ‘belief’ I am highly aware it does not pertain to my own self-understanding,then whilst I am have a conversation with this person using other words I am highly conscious that I cannot use the word ‘belief’ myself (it does not apply the other way around as I understand theirs) as it will immediately lead to misunderstanding.

If then this closed set of the word ‘belief’ of this other includes, as in the saying above, a strong unchallengeable faith, can I never retain my argument on ‘belief’ with this person if I accidentally use it, albeit as I understand it, because the person will be convinced, due to their ‘belief’, that I have used it in the way they use it, not my own. And furthermore due to the type of use of ‘belief’ they understand they will be even less likely to see my perspective than before I used the word.

In fact any conversation with such people will take a form of aphasic behaviour where I would have to constantly skirt the use of the word otherwise all possibility of recognition is lost.

If this other use of ‘belief’ includes a CS Lewis type of tyranny of conscience, due to the necessary intensity of unmet needs that stem from this impossibility of recognition, even as applied to their own sense of selves (how can such a closed linguistic set ever speak for the greater non-linguistic whole of their being?) even whilst this faith thinks it has a truth-claim to salvation, almost an ideological Bernean Schlemiel, then does it pose a threat to the existence of all other meaning and knowledge and identity? A total eclipse of the self. I am thinking of Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia here.

I also find myself thinking in this case of the Star Trek Next Generation episode 23 ‘Skin of Evil’ with the narcissistically childish but omnipowerful black pool of goo rather than Tarkovsky’s use of a type of Last Universal Common Ancestor sea in Solaris, a Douglas Adams puddle thinking version of such a larger sea of potential being.


next page

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace