GENIUS FORUMS

It seems like it would be much easier to not have people in one's life, but humans were not built to tolerate that.

(see the section on Social-Sensory Deprivation Syndrome here:
Post Incarceration Syndrome

and research by Stuart Grassian, MD here:
Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement

When I was growing up, I preferred solitude to the torturous alternatives, but still I saw someone, if only an abusive mother, every day. My work is currently quite solitary, but I do (obviously) have online contact with people. It can easily be over a week between times that I see an actual human though, and there is an difference that I can not rationally explain.

Input requested.

Elizabeth wrote:

Input requested.

Actual contact with people is desirable because of the emotional exchange. If you spend your time with irrational people then the emotional exchange is incredibly low quality on their part. Their humor consists of vulgar and often times violent comical references. And their enjoyment is what you stay away from so there isn’t much of a relationship between you and them.

However if two rational people come together then they can enjoy each other’s company in a truthful way. They can poke fun at psychological tendencies as long as it isn’t done in a malicious sort of way. They can also derive humor through revealing their own psychological weaknesses. It depends on the relationship really.

Like Unwise has said the sage is here to enjoy himself, but Unwise seems to think his bad habits are part of the enjoyment which I disagree. I enjoy myself in other ways.

Solitude is incredibly valuable, it renews and regenerates, but being in contact with others is also valuable, maintaining a balance is key. I can spend about a week or two without any contact with sane people. In the meantime I entertain myself by learning from the irrational unconscious blunderings of those who are asleep. And sometimes I derive humor from the them depending on what sorts of thoughts are running through their consciousness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For instance: I have recently met a female from the university who works at a XXX rated sex shop, but she believes masturbation is gross and disgusting.

I said to her: “Isn’t this a problem considering you have to show old perverts the sex toys and blow up dolls and what not?”

She said “totally”

I said “you make absolutely no sense, why do you stay working at a place that you find disgusting?”

She said “the money is good though”

In a joking way, I pointed at her and made a stern face, acting like a controlling dictator and I firmly declared “You are a hypocrite! You must quit that job now! Now I say!”

She laughed.

She then asked me what I thought of masturbation. I said "well its a much saner resort than the alternative."

She said "what's the alternative?"

I said "spending half your paycheck at the bars to pick up some grubby serpent woman"

She said "you are such a cheap insensitive a-hole!"

I said "yeah well that's one interpretation"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t try to change ‘hopelessly deluded people’; I just have fun with them. People have such a unique miserable predicaments that I don't seriously give advice to anyone.

Is there any way to get rid of this "need?" Any way to starve it out of existance without the madness? Without the lapses in judgement, difficulties with impulse control, and the general distraction?

I understand that many philosophers throughout history led solitary lives. Did any of them not go mad?

Elizabeth wrote:

Is there any way to get rid of this "need?" Any way to starve it out of existance without the madness? Without the lapses in judgement, difficulties with impulse control, and the general distraction?

I understand that many philosophers throughout history led solitary lives. Did any of them not go mad?

The ones that were completely isolated went mad and with good reason too. You cannot exist without relationship. To me that is an absurd desire to want to live your entire life in solitude, what is the point in living if your not in communication/relationship with other entities? I doesnt make sense to me.

Isolationism is psychological suicide in my view. Solitude is important with a balance of actual relationships with sane people if you can find them.

If you live a life of no solitude and constant occupation with sensual enjoyment and stupid people then you are insane.

However if you live a life in constant solitude with no actual relationships to anybody then you're also insane.

One should avoid both extremes.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:She then asked me what I thought of masturbation. I said "well its a much saner resort than the alternative."

She said "what's the alternative?"

I said "spending half your paycheck at the bars to pick up some grubby serpent woman"

I'm sure you realized that I wasn't referring to sexual contact. I have read other studies about the need for physical contact, and I'll admit that a hug would be nice from time to time, but it isn't worth the risk of some guy wanting more.

It's peculiar how often both sides in a relationship think they are giving more than they are getting out of it. When I was married, I had already recognized that. I accepted that as a perception, and ended up in actuality giving much more than I received, and as I gave continually more he gave continually less. I noticed a similar pattern in some "friendships" but it is easier to make distance from people who are untrue friends than from a guy who thinks he owns a woman. When I divorced, I dropped his last name and did not retake my maiden name because I am not, nor will I ever again be, the "property" of any man, and I am not going to wear a man's surname like I am some kind of branded cow.

Balance and healthy interaction with rational adults would be best, but similar to what Sue recently pointed out in another thread, rational adults are "as rare as hen's teeth."

Elizabeth wrote:

I'm sure you realized that I wasn't referring to sexual contact.

I know, I was just going off on a tangent for my own enjoyment.

Elizabeth wrote:

It's peculiar how often both sides in a relationship think they are giving more than they are getting out of it. When I was married, I had already recognized that. I accepted that as a perception, and ended up in actuality giving much more than I received, and as I gave continually more he gave continually less. I noticed a similar pattern in some "friendships" but it is easier to make distance from people who are untrue friends than from a guy who thinks he owns a woman. When I divorced, I dropped his last name and did not retake my maiden name because I am not, nor will I ever again be, the "property" of any man, and I am not going to wear a man's surname like I am some kind of branded cow.

Yes, marriage is a power struggle for the most part. If I ever live with a woman who I feel is somewhat sane, there will be separate bedrooms and all the rest of it. Intimacy could occur, but it would be a rare occurrence – I would still want it to feel like an alien event as it feels now when it happens. I don’t want any conditioned patterns to establish because those are the seeds of attachment.

Elizabeth wrote:

Balance and healthy interaction with rational adults would be best, but similar to what Sue recently pointed out in another thread, rational adults are "as rare as hen's teeth."

Thank the totality for message boards eh Elizabeth? (Ryan hugs his monitor – “I know I wrote a paper to critique you old friend, but lets never fight again”)

Ryan Rudolph wrote:what is the point in living if your not in communication/relationship with other entities?

That is the question that comes up, isn't it? One can endeavor to make some kind of difference from afar when being near does not work out. If I were the only one on the planet, there is much less that I would do (what is the rationality of a manicured lawn anyway?), but I do wonder if I am lonlier because I know that there are other people out there.

When I was too young for school, and during some summers in school years, I would only see my mother a moment as she deposited breakfast in front of me, and when my father was home I spent the dinner hour with them performing the arduous exercise of being scrutinized while following a long list of rules of etiquette (under circumstances that made it impossible to always follow the rules). That was pretty much it for interaction. Even the times that I did not have a dog, I was not lonely. The forest was my friend. It wasn't until after I had human friends that I became lonely when alone for too long. I never felt like I needed a hug until after I had my first boyfriend. There was a time when I felt nothing wrong with isolation, so I can not see why I can not re-create that child-like state.

Isn't part of enlightenment being able to turn off one's illogical emotions?

What is the point in living if your not in communication/relationship with other entities? Well, I'm not being tortured, so there is no need to escape into death. At the moment, the discovery of my corpse would be more of a burden to someone than my continued life, and I do make contributions to society - it is just that my soul is not being fed by in-person exchanges. It is just illogical to feel bad about that. Illogical and selfish.

Elizabeth wrote:

The forest was my friend. It wasn't until after I had human friends that I became lonely when alone for too long.

There is a difference between loneliness and a desire to speak with actual people. Loneliness is quite painful, but I believe the individual can get to a point where on occasion they simply desire to talk to someone in the same way one desires to go for a walk.

Elizabeth wrote:

There was a time when I felt nothing wrong with isolation, so I can not see why I can not re-create that child-like state.

Don’t idealize the child-state into something it’s not; the child can play in nature for hours and hours, but he or she still needs relationship eventually.

Elizabeth wrote:

Isn't part of enlightenment being able to turn off one's illogical emotions?

Some emotions are deceiving, but some are natural. For example: wanting to hug the opposite sex is a deceiving emotion compared to wanting truthful sane relationships with actual people in real life.

Elizabeth wrote:

it is just that my soul is not being fed by in-person exchanges. It is just illogical to feel bad about that. Illogical and selfish.

In my view, it is healthy to desire sane relationships with actual people, you are not being selfish. If you want actual relationships in-person, you could do web-cam dialogues with other sane philosophers to give you the feel of actual human contact. I believe the human being needs ‘some’ human contact.

Also you may find intellectual people in your area that are capable of some sort of intelligent exchange whether it be through book critiques, film critiques and all the rest of it. Every community should have some sort of intellectual minority that are capable of fairly decent in-person exchanges.

They are some philosophers that idealize their teachings and they place an over importance on the written work to justify an isolated existence where they don’t have to actually deal with people.

I would think actual relationships should be primary instead of fantasizing about what your work will do for people in the future.

In essence - your relationships with actual people should create your work. There should never be the thought: Oh now I have to create a body of work.

You can't fit all of your actions into the rational box. A person may be rational yet still feel the need to be with people...still feel the need to have sex, eat, breathe, sleep, etc. These are physiological drives. You can overcome them, but you'll come out pretty fucked up.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Loneliness is quite painful, but I believe the individual can get to a point where on occasion they simply desire to talk to someone in the same way one desires to go for a walk.

So how does one get to that point?

I am feeling better now. It only hurts for a couple of hours about once a week, and I minimized the occurrances by limiting my association with people who neglect to return phone calls or cancel out at the last minute (or recurrently [which reduced the social contact possibility pool, but reduced the frequencey of pain as well]), but I would like for the pain to simply not recur. I would also like to conquer the other effects that are not painful, but are a hinderance.

Elizabeth,

What if you viewed other people as causality?

What say you?

sschaula wrote:You can't fit all of your actions into the rational box. A person may be rational yet still feel the need to be with people...still feel the need to have sex, eat, breathe, sleep, etc. These are physiological drives. You can overcome them, but you'll come out pretty fucked up.

I understand the need for eating, breathing, and sleeping. I don't understand the need for sex or being with people.

Elizabeth wrote:

So how does one get to that point?

how is the wrong way to ask; how implies you can be instructed, but finding that state can only come about when you stop taking instructions from others.

Elizabeth wrote:

I am feeling better now. It only hurts for a couple of hours about once a week, and I minimized the occurrances by limiting my association with people who neglect to return phone calls or cancel out at the last minute (or recurrently [which reduced the social contact possibility pool, but reduced the frequencey of pain as well]), but I would like for the pain to simply not recur. I would also like to conquer the other effects that are not painful, but are a hinderance.

Loneliness has something to do with missing particular types of emotional experiences from particular people, however there is a glory in solitude that one can find, there is a certain child-like contentment in the unknowing moment that can alleviate all suffering.

This state whips clean all previous experience; it whips clean all attachment to particular people and all attachment particular sensual emotions delivered by people and by external things.

If one finds that state then being rejected by particular humans for particular experiences means nothing because one can always fall back into that state.

One needs to end the fear of being rejected by others. Being rejected by others means nothing to me, if someone doesn’t want my company I find other things to do without even thinking about it.

In a sense I am ready to die to all relationships at any moment, however I still value those relationships because I learn from them and they supply me with enjoyment.

Steven Coyle wrote:Elizabeth,

What if you viewed other people as causality?

What say you?

I need you to spell out your question a little more for me; I don't understand what you're asking.

Sure.

What are your thoughts on the idea of God also being other people?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:One needs to end the fear of being rejected by others. Being rejected by others means nothing to me, if someone doesn’t want my company I find other things to do without even thinking about it.

I don't fear rejection, actually I nearly expect it. It is only when I stop nearly expecting rejection that rejection can hurt. Rejection is not the same as lonliness, but rejection can exacerbate the feeling.

In a sense I am ready to die to all relationships at any moment, however I still value those relationships because I learn from them and they supply me with enjoyment.

It is good to not have that attachment to relationships because it helps a person stay focused on the things that are really important such as ethics. A state of isolation is quite different from not being attached to relationships.

Steven Coyle wrote:What are your thoughts on the idea of God also being other people?

All that is, is God. Every person, every spirit, every plant, the keys I'm typing on, the air, even the refuse in the garbage can is all God. Every thought, every system (such as mathematics or physics), every planet, the space in between, and all that is beyond - all of these and more are all God.

I agree.

Here's a perspective I was thinking about:

What if these friends that never call back, are God's way of telling you to find alternate resources for esteem...

Can you trace within these "friends" aspects of your parents?

E,

I understand the need for eating, breathing, and sleeping. I don't understand the need for sex or being with people.

What do you understand about eating, breathing and sleeping?

Here's what I understand: I feel a need to eat, so I eat. The same goes with the other things. Breathing is thought to be unconscious, but when you consciously hold your breath you DO have a choice. When you consciously hold your eyes open, it's a choice whether to lay down and give in to sleep or not.

And the same goes with sex and being with people. I feel a need. It's not the same as an addiction, like wanting to drink beers. I may feel a need to drink beers, but that's because I've had quite a few beers and I'm feeling like crap. But with sex and being with people, it's more natural and unadulterated.

Steven Coyle wrote: Can you trace within these "friends" aspects of your parents?

If I look for it, I can find an aspect of anyone in anyone else. I don't think there is enough of a correlation to make a reasonable comparison, though.

Fair enough.

sschaula wrote:What do you understand about eating, breathing and sleeping?

Eating: As a process of being alive, a body has a metabolism which requires nutrients to maintain the function of being alive and cleansing agents such as water and fiber to remove the toxic byproducts of life.

Breathing: Another feeding/cleansing mechanism, one which is less voluntary than eating. You can hold your breath until you pass out, but then you will breathe again. People who have attempted to suffocate themselves have even reflexively removed the instrument of suffocation after losing conciousness.

Sleeping: Part of the cleansing/rebuilding cycle. A state of mind that must be achieved in order to release certain chemicals that use certain nutrients to rebuild parts of the body, especially in the skin and brain. Also opens channels in the brain to allow certain toxins to be released and ultimatly washed away. Sleep can be prevented for a surprisingly long time, but first thoughts become foggy, mental tasks become more difficult to impossible, the immune system becomes impaired, energy decreases, and physical changes develop (most obviously in the sclera and the skin as a whole but mostly under the eyes), auditory and visual hallucinations develop, and thoughts become increasingly irrational. Eventually, sleep will occur despite any natural measure, and the person will be temporarily unarousable. If sufficient chemical measures are taken to prevent sleep, a person can die.

A person can not die of being celibate.

There have been studies showing that a lack of physical contact in small children and the elderly tends to lead to death (in this way, physically abused children fare better than totally neglected children), but no studies have indicated similar findings in the adult population. There also has not been a clear indication of why small children or the elderly require physical contact.

I don't really see much of a difference between maintaining my body (eating, breathing, sleeping), and maintaining other bodies (procreation).

Both seem equally irrational and biological to me.

Sex is not always used for procreation, in fact it is usually used for recreation.

Granted, recreational eating is pretty popular too. Excessive eating, sleeping and breathing all result in undesirable effect.

Perhaps after enough beer, all of those things could seem irrational.

Insufficient eating, sleeping, or breathing lead to irrational thinking, therefore these things are irrational. Okay Scott, you figured out how to explain it to me. If insufficient eating, sleeping, or breathing are irrational because they lead to irrational thinking, and insufficient social contact leads to irrational thinking, then insufficient social contact must also be irrational.