Illusion Made Real: The Reifying Magic of Mind

[BMcGilly07]

Via Addiction

The loss of innocence which occurs at some point in every youths transition from childhood to adolescence is marked by a loss of wonderment and the onset of mental rigidity. The reason for this appears to be twofold: biological changes force ones confrontation with his finitude without his so willing; and it is this confrontation that results in the introduction to addiction to desires that arise beyond ones control. No time is more confusing than adolescence; one moment in highest heavens drinking the bliss of the possibility of love, the next moment flung helplessly into torturous hells having been denied the fulfillment of some unsought after and unasked for - yet undying desire for sexual and psychological completion.

The youth has been introduced to addiction, which society dresses up in romance to keep its unwanted nature secret. He is addicted physically and psychologically to the fulfillment of his biological and social imperative: pair bonding and mating.

What is different in the youth? Surely as a child he had deep desires that were both fulfilled and thwarted, what has changed in his thought process? The introduction of hormones has altered his brain chemistry, grinding deep ruts into his brain which he will work throughout the rest of his life to reinforce, unconsciously all of his efforts will be to protect his comfortable groove.

His confrontation with finitude is no new battle, it is presumed even infants wail in their discomfort in defiance against their finite, tiny, helpless bodies birthed into this cold, hard world. The point of birth is the beginning of his psychological addiction to completion through the ‘other’, through Woman. Mother makes everything okay. But all throughout childhood even unto and beyond the age of reason the youth maintains a fluidity of mind such that the tears and burning of a skinned knee are vanished with a kiss and a lolli. The introduction of chemical adulterants via hormonal changes instigate the youth to lose touch with his fundamentally mutable nature.

Having been introduced to a physical addiction he did not desire has forced him to make mentally real that which permeates every fiber of the adolescents body. He is tricked into believing it to be real, and all of society tells him so. Time to drop the toys and childish playthings of yesteryear, no woman wants a boy, she wants a man. And every boy come to manhood wants a woman, right? If not, something must be wrong. Society reinforces this belief so much to the point that even questioning the desire for “fulfillment” through Woman is a pointless waste of time, or worse yet the perpetrating of misogyny by implication – which is no better than the real thing.

To sum up, his mind has reified his imaginings and bodily instincts and all that support them. He lost his innocence by accepting the reality of his body.

Illusions only become dangerous when they are believed in, for then they become real.

Note: edited word choice, punctuation

[Ryan Rudolph]

One must be careful to conclude that before puberty, children have an innocence about them. Children are little devils from the outset. They move from one desire to another, constantly looking to evade boredom by subsuming themselves into one exciting experience to another. That is not innocence. It is the worst type of dependency, because they are dependent on the "parent' to keep them entertained, to keep them fed, and to keep them safe. It is then easy to understand why children love their parents, they have to, because if they don't, they will die. Love bonds allow them to increase the chances of their own survival - in other words - self-interest.

as a pre-puberty children, I can remember praying to god to keep my family and friends safe - self-interest, I didn't want to die, I didn't want to lose the source of all my security, entertainment and comfort. In essence, my dependency had made my cognitive patterns neurotic. My "loving concern" was actually fear, a fear to lose everything a child needs.

self-interest is necessary to survive, but it is at a very primal level in children. As one matures, so should the quality of their self-interest. It is unfortunate that many adults retain the same sort of primal self-interest as they possessed when they were pre-puberty children.

[Unidian]

Read until capital W "Woman" cropped up.

[BMcGilly07]

One must be careful to conclude that before puberty, children have an innocence about them. Children are little devils from the outset. They move from one desire to another, constantly looking to evade boredom by subsuming themselves into one exciting experience to another. That is not innocence. It is the worst type of dependency, because they are dependent on the "parent' to keep them entertained, to keep them fed, and to keep them safe. It is then easy to understand why children love their parents, they have to, because if they don't, they will die. Love bonds allow them to increase the chances of their own survival - in other words - self-interest.

as a pre-puberty children, I can remember praying to god to keep my family and friends safe - self-interest, I didn't want to die, I didn't want to lose the source of all my security, entertainment and comfort. In essence, my dependency had made my cognitive patterns neurotic. My "loving concern" was actually fear, a fear to lose everything a child needs.

self-interest is necessary to survive, but it is at a very primal level in children. As one matures, so should the quality of their self-interest. It is unfortunate that many adults retain the same sort of primal self-interest as they possessed when they were pre-puberty children.

Undoubtedly you are correct, thank you for making this clear.

While the child is a mass of ego and unconsciousness, and I can remember being an unhappy child and being just as aware of my self as the core of my actions as I am today- however, the innocence I am exploring relates to the fluidity of mind, their's being innocent or free of the binding conceptual walls most adults are entombed in, they're for the most part free from the need for addiction. Thanks for raising this point, I did not mean to imply in some atavistic way that our "Wonder Years" are filled with anything more philosophically substantial than wonder.

Taken from Fear and Trembling as transcribed in the compilation Provocations, Chapter 7, Suspending the Ethical, page 27:

"In one sense a child's bad behavior is not sin because the child is not yet fully conscious of its own existence. Looked at ideally, however, the child sins; he falls short from the demands of the ethical."

[BMcGilly07]

Read until capital W "Woman" cropped up.

This is a pretty stupid comment. What value or purpose does this comment serve?

If it wasn't worth reading on its own strength, that is one thing. If on the other hand, you find some shortcomings you can shed light on, why not?


Note: edited by adding last line.

[Unidian]

It serves the purpose of letting you and the audience know that, in my view, as soon as the capital W "Woman" concept is introduced, an essay can be safely dismissed as rubbish.

[David Quinn]

Thus betraying an attachment to words ......

-

[BMcGilly07]

It serves the purpose of letting you and the audience know that, in my view, as soon as the capital W "Woman" concept is introduced, an essay can be safely dismissed as rubbish.

I can't help but to laugh at this, are you serious?

Unfortunately I know you are, but I mean, come on. What a ridiculous load of crap.

[Unidian]

Completely serious.

It's just like how you're reading a perfectly decent essay, and then the author suddenly starts talking about the aliens at Area 51. Whoops! Nonsense alert...

[Carl G]

How do we know that the idea of aliens at Area 51 is nonsense?

[Dan Rowden]

Completely serious.

It's just like how you're reading a perfectly decent essay, and then the author suddenly starts talking about the aliens at Area 51. Whoops! Nonsense alert...

The real nonsense here is that analogy, and you know it.

[Ryan Rudolph]

BMcGilly,

the innocence I am exploring relates to the fluidity of mind, their's being innocent or free of the binding conceptual walls most adults are entombed in, they're for the most part free from the need for addiction.

I get your point, but its incomplete because it seems to me that fluidity of mind is very relative to each child, as it varies drastically. For instance: some children are not interested in science, have few questions about the world, when asked, they lie with answers, but believe they know everything, their favorite subject maybe gym, and their favorite video games tend to be action games which they become very addicted to. On the other hand, that same child's brother might have endless questions about the natural world, is never satisfied with the knowledge he gains, thrives in more intellectual subjects at school, and plays rpg and simulation video games, over action games.

Based on such a contrast in ability, this tells me that some children are destined to be intellectuals from the outset, and posses a higher degree of fluidity of mind, while other children are very dull from the outset, easily addicted to experience, have a difficulty with language, and a difficulty with higher thought, and therefore are destined to be labourers and unconscious.

[BMcGilly07]

BMcGilly,

the innocence I am exploring relates to the fluidity of mind, their's being innocent or free of the binding conceptual walls most adults are entombed in, they're for the most part free from the need for addiction.

I get your point, but its incomplete because it seems to me that fluidity of mind is very relative to each child, as it varies drastically. For instance: some children are not interested in science, have few questions about the world, when asked, they lie with answers, but believe they know everything, their favorite subject maybe gym, and their favorite video games tend to be action games which they become very addicted to. On the other hand, that same child's brother might have endless questions about the natural world, is never satisfied with the knowledge he gains, thrives in more intellectual subjects at school, and plays rpg and simulation video games, over action games.

Based on such a contrast in ability, this tells me that some children are destined to be intellectuals from the outset, and posses a higher degree of fluidity of mind, while other children are very dull from the outset, easily addicted to experience, have a difficulty with language, and a difficulty with higher thought, and therefore are destined to be labourers and unconscious.

This could very well be true, I was a self-imposed pariah as a child, rather wishing to explore my own imagination than engage with others. Having only my childhood as a reference point, the above post may be more auto-biographical in nature than I intended it to be. Although, there are exceptions to every generalization, and I do not expect what I have written to necessarily apply in all possible situations.

How about yourself, does what I have written apply to any degree? Further, do you think that this essay relates closer to those with a greater inclination to the spiritual path from childhood?

Bryan

[Unidian]

How do we know that the idea of aliens at Area 51 is nonsense?

Good point, Carl. It's certainly more interesting to me than the "Woman" stuff.

[David Quinn]

A common view among married men.

-

[BMcGilly07]

No matter how "over" any given concept or argument I thought I was, I'd never pass up an opportunity to inform people of their mistaken views if the opportunity arose; especially if I had the time, or more importantly, the inclination to make my opinion known.

[Ryan Rudolph]

BMcgilly,

How about yourself, does what I have written apply to any degree? Further, do you think that this essay relates closer to those with a greater inclination to the spiritual path from childhoood?

yes, I think you maybe writing more from your own experience, without reflecting on how the brains of other children differ. And I think some of your assumptions are incorrect: namely that children are not susceptible to becoming addicted to experience, and that they are not susceptible to rigidity of mind before puberty. The empirical evidence seems to suggest otherwise from what I have observed in young males.

For instance: as far as I can tell, all children are easily bored with raw reality, and this explains why children universally pursue fun. Moreover, Fun is normal and natural for children, as they need to be motivated to experience the world, enjoy it, and learn from it. However, young males differ in what they find fun, most boys tend to like a good challenge, but one boy might find it fun to go outside and collect insects, while observing their behavior closely. And another boy might find it fun to set up two large tonka trunks and race them towards each other very fast until they smash, while he has very little interest with more subtle intellectual things. This difference illustrates that one boy might have the potential to be a scientist or philosopher, while the other has the potential to be a construction worker.

In conclusion: the evidence shows that what boys believe is fun differs, and this difference of interest is an indicator of a boy's innate intellectual ability or lack there of.

[BMcGilly07]

How about yourself, does what I have written apply to any degree? Further, do you think that this essay relates closer to those with a greater inclination to the spiritual path from childhoood?

yes, I think you maybe writing more from your own experience, without reflecting on how the brains of other children differ. And I think some of your assumptions are incorrect: namely that children are not susceptible to becoming addicted to experience, and that they are not susceptible to rigidity of mind before puberty. The empirical evidence seems to suggest otherwise from what I have observed in young males.

For instance: as far as I can tell, all children are easily bored with raw reality, and this explains why children universally pursue fun. Moreover, Fun is normal and natural for children, as they need to be motivated to experience the world, enjoy it, and learn from it. However, young males differ in what they find fun, most boys tend to like a good challenge, but one boy might find it fun to go outside and collect insects, while observing their behavior closely. And another boy might find it fun to set up two large tonka trunks and race them towards each other very fast until they smash, while he has very little interest with more subtle intellectual things. This difference illustrates that one boy might have the potential to be a scientist or philosopher, while the other has the potential to be a construction worker.

In conclusion: the evidence shows that what boys believe is fun differs, and this difference of interest is an indicator of a boy's innate intellectual ability or lack there of.

I do agree that the level of introversion of young males is likely a precursor to a life filled with some more intellect than others, however I disagree with your observation that a child's interest is indicative of their potential for a given profession. Nearly every child goes through some phase of each of the activities mentioned above. My original thoughts were not meant to canonize all things child-like or childish, but rather to emphasize that mental change corresponds strongly with the biological. I didn't mention much about their activities as youngsters, but that all around, at least in males, a profound change in their mental state and change to identify with their body's a result of puberty and the accompanying social pressures. As a young male, a child may explore his body and react in accordance to needs and physical feelings, but his imagination is such that he can be anything he likes, and make anything around him (e.g. a stick) into anything he likes (i.e. a stick into a musket).

As he grows and changes he becomes far more self-conscious, and those physical changes and the attending societal requirements demands he acknowledge he is his body and so he must act accordingly. Hence the rebellion, the seeking of an identity with a social subset, often one of rebellion (e.g. emo, punk, skater, preppy, ghetto...etc.). Older males who have grown out of this identity crisis tend to dismiss it for what it is, a cry for help. Whereas an older male who sold his soul to rock n' roll for instance, relishes the lifestyle of a rocker and has all the identifying accoutrements in place, as if in uniform. Instead of Class 'A' military dress he has his ripped jeans, instead of his flight cap he has his gelled hair carefully crafted to look wild, instead of eppilettes he has seven earrings and a 16 gauge hole in his ear. This is all the left over results of the identity crisis of a teenager who lost his imagination, dropped his toys and plunged head-first into any group he could fit in; he couldn't pigeon-hole himself fast enough, yet as an adult he'll complain about people judging him on his looks alone.

It is not the activities of childhood that necessarily predispose one course or another, but rather how he deals with his identity as he grows, which is a reflection of intelligence and will. He who has the intelligence to know somethings not quite right, and the will to explore the possible alternatives to the socially acceptable, he may have a chance at a real life.

Bryan

Note: edited word choice, punctuation

[Ryan Rudolph]

BMcgilly,

yes, I can agree that during the teenage years, most teenagers become quite obsessive over their identity. And as a result, their imagination's are fearfully enslaved to trying to fit into a teenage political structure. Moreover, it seems that most ego's of that age group go through a stage where they feel the need to identity with outward things as a desperate attempt to be recognized, accepted, and complete themselves.

Sexual desire, sexual competition, and the need to be observed as social, normal, and not lacking in friends is probably the three strongest forces controlling a teenager confused consciousness.

It is unfortunate that in the teenage years boys and girls feel the need to work at fitting into the chaos around them as a means to feel normal, which is the result of a deep fear of being rejected, humiliated, and ultimately ostracized from important social circles. This fear is probably the strongest during the teen years, and there should be more awareness brought to kids in schools. I remember many pointless public speakers that used to attend our schools, and give inspirational speeches and other nonsense; in my opinion, a speech outlining the truth of teenage psychology would be more useful.

I also remember a teenage girl I knew quite well in junior high who used to follow me around, and many times she shared the fear she had of being kicked out a social circle she was in. I used to appease her ego by saying that she was too nice of a person and that nobody in that group was going be kicked out because I knew that they all had been old friends, but at the time I was quite naive of psychology. She proved me wrong because she became the leader of the group through manipulation, and convinced the other girls to turn on a girl in the group that she knew she could dominate, and she started kicking her out of the group periodically, making her cry, and then bringing her back into the group. So she did the very thing to others that she feared the most - a common behavior.

[BMcGilly07]

Ryan,

Yes it seems that the rebellious and awkward nature of the teenager is the result of a the once free-flowing mind of a child coming to terms with the prison of social identity that each adult will spend the rest of his life defending and fortifying. The ugliness of childish behavior has not changed inwardly, but has in most cases outwardly assumed a mantle of respectability. The teenage years never leave the masses, the remainder of their years spent in battening down the hatches and loading the breeches against any assault on their identity. Hence the hatred of one man for another who is different, in seeing the differences and how mundane and childish they are he inherently fears them and so must demonize them lest he find himself looking into an all-too-perfect mirror.

The spiritual man never feels quite comfortable enough in any adopted identity, and so is easily rid of any he encounters, not as a jack of all trades, but rather as a master-in-training of One.

[Ryan Rudolph]

BMcgilly,

The spiritual man never feels quite comfortable enough in any adopted identity, and so is easily rid of any he encounters, not as a jack of all trades, but rather as a master-in-training of One.

I seems that there might also be a relationship between ego, identity seeking and psychological disorders, meaning that based on predetermined genetic factors, particular egos are predisposed to certain psychological disorders, which ultimately influence the kind of identity seeking that takes place...

[BMcGilly07]

BMcgilly,

The spiritual man never feels quite comfortable enough in any adopted identity, and so is easily rid of any he encounters, not as a jack of all trades, but rather as a master-in-training of One.

I seems that there might also be a relationship between ego, identity seeking and psychological disorders, meaning that based on predetermined genetic factors, particular egos are predisposed to certain psychological disorders, which ultimately influence the kind of identity seeking that takes place...

This is most evident in at least two cases, that of the male and the female. The male is genetically predisposed towards the psychological qualities we identify with the gender, and likewise with the female gender.

Anyone who denies that masculine psychological qualities are pre-eminent in the male, nor that feminine psychological qualities are pre-eminent in the female, has in his mind a deep-seated bias, having been socialized by way of the meme of all being equal or, in the sadder case, that none should even appear to speak ill of women; that appearance of bias against women must be considered bias without further investigation as to the reasoning behind this perspective nor to the conditions under which it arises- he is lost to any hope of comprehending his own nature.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Yes, but I was also thinking along these lines - men usually have larger, more pronounced egos than women, which makes them more susceptible to psychological disorders such as Narcissist, Schizoid or Histrionic. However, females have less clearly defined egos, and less independent egos, compared to males, which makes them more susceptible to dependent, anxiety, and borderline disorders. However, borderline is probably more related to a woman's instability of hormones, rather than her more dependent personality type.