Attachment Theory

[Spaz]

We can start with IQ. Intelligent quotant. A person is in as good a shape as he/she can distinguish between similarities and differences.

This is two fold. Incidents in a persons life, good or bad, are either similar or different. A person with a lower IQ will stack many things together and they are, to him/her all similar or even the same. When in fact, they are not. So, bad experiences with women will all equal to either similar or exactly the same thing. BUT, they are not. There are differences.

So let’s take a new guy who comes onto SS and starts spouting off about the evilness of women, BPD, cluster B’s yada, yada, yada.
He read a lot of articles on this.

Now he has stacked it all together and can’t seperate them. Thus he has formed his reality. What’s interesting is he has also stacked similar events in his whole life and existence together with these failures. His view of the world is theougha prism of everything looking the same if he’s in really bad shape. He can’t unravel it so it’s all the evilness of women.
Mommy leaving him home alone and yelling at him for interfearing with her sexcapades due to being a single mom = girl rejection in fifth grade = woman rejecting him for sex = boss yelling at him = victim

Second part. Mechanics. The physical universe is based upon laws of physics. Every part works together. Distinguishing differences and similarities is mechanics. This is why on IQ tests you get a lot of diagrams that are similar but in fact they are different.

Mommy leaving him home does not equal a girl rejecting him in the fifth grade or a woman rejecting him for sex. There is no BPD or Cluster B. These are classifications used to label certain woman because they have an adverse effect on men who cannot separate their incidents.

It’s not the women who are being the cause. It’s the men being the effect. Victim. They can try to do the same things to a man who can see that his incidents are separate and different so there is no affect on him. She does not equal his mother, his teacher, the girl who rejected him for sex.
It is a self fulfilling prophesy because he catagorizes these incidents together and a new one will be thrown on top of the pile. He/she cannot separate them so of course, all women are the same. A=A=A=A. The same.

This is also why men cannot separate the feminine imperative from their reality. He can spout it off in conversation but it is still interlaced with the total of his reality.
His mind cannot separate the illusions. The imperative isn’t real. But it’s attached to his incident stack up so the separateness is just a thought or idea but is not really a reality to him.

Because he cannot see it with utter certainty he still gets himself trapped in it. He would not have trouble seeing the illusion, the matrix, If it was not interlaced in his mind.

A man who has a higher IQ would see the differences in all his incidents and thus see the illusion of the imperative. The imperative isn’t real in the least.
It’s a social tool to facilitate a breeding strategy with the hope that men can be held suspended in stupidity long enough to keep them squashed.

Well if the situation is due to low IQ or low processing power then a man will be in a lot of butthurt situations.

The process of which I'm talking in this thread is actually a desired result oriented process.

Core values + how you think + how you do things = results.

Being result oriented, based on my logic one must then go back to the process and examine each one when result is not achieved.

Since core values cannot be change then that leaves leaves how you think and how you do things.

It is when how you do things keep on yielding the same results that a man should reexamine how he think to achieve the desired result.

I think I need to draw a diagram on how this flows but I'll do it later on my laptop.

 

[Ranger]

Well if the situation is due to low IQ or low processing power then a man will be in a lot of butthurt situations.

The process of which I'm talking in this thread is actually a desired result oriented process.

Core values + how you think + how you do things = results.

Being result oriented, based on my logic one must then go back to the process and examine each one when result is not achieved.

Since core values cannot be change then that leaves leaves how you think and how you do things.

It is when how you do things keep on yielding the same results that a man should reexamine how he think to achieve the desired result.

I think I need to draw a diagram on how this flows but I'll do it later on my laptop.

I agree with you and I see the truth of it. IQ is only a factor as I stated earlier.

How someone unravels and applies the truth you just wrote is a factor. IQ plays into it.
Many will look righht at it and not grasp the implications and how it expands to every facet of his life.

 

[Ranger]

Like you alluded to, he sets up a reality based on his incidents and experiences and thus projects his reality. Self fulfilling prophesy. In the way he thinks and acts he pulls In or attracts the very thing he despises or is trying to avoid. This is science. Mechanics.
To fix it he would have to face the truth that he caused every bit of his discomfort. That is a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Spaz]

Like you alluded to, he sets up a reality based on his incidents and experiences and thus projects his reality. Self fulfilling prophesy. In the way he thinks and acts he pulls In or attracts the very thing he despises or is trying to avoid. This is science. Mechanics.
To fix it he would have to face the truth that he caused every bit of his discomfort. That is a tough pill to swallow.

Well BExcellent did say it's a definition of insanity.

 

[Ranger]

Well BExcellent did say it's a definition of insanity.

That would fit. Lol

 

[Spaz]

That would fit. Lol

Lmao.

The problem with most people is that they know not of a process to guide them towards a more sustainable outcome in life.

 

[BeExcellent]

To fix it he would have to face the truth that he caused every bit of his discomfort. That is a tough pill to swallow.

Agree. And this is the crux of the problem. If we do not own our own responsibility in our arrival at our current life situation, then we are wearing the cloak of the victim. The cloak of the victim is seductive in that it absolves one of personal responsibility for one's life trajectory.

Now. There is a point at which each of us is an innocent. A child. A person without agency or ability to correct a harmful situation...this occurs in early life and bad things leave indelible impressions...just as good things leave indelible impressions. However at some point each person begins a differentiation process from their childhood as they mature into adulthood. Each person begins to examine and sort out and challenge whether or not to accept or reject what they have been imprinted with, we question our core values, we explore our environment and compare it to the framework with which we are familiar...and we either reinforce what we were raised with or we form new and differing views.

The key difference as it applies to attachment theory has to do with how one views the world. If one views the world as a hospitable place, then one approaches new situations and new people with curiosity and a sense of security. If one views the world as hostile, then one approaches new situations and new people from a position of defensiveness and fear. The overarching view of things outside one's self drive both thought and by extension, action. And that overarching view is established deep in the subconscious, which keep in mind is habituated and imprinted in early, early life.

That does not mean overcoming the deep subconscious programming is impossible, but it is challenging and takes time and reinforcement of a new paradigm to usurp the established pattern.

Freedom lies, I also agree, in the ability to keep distinct our experiences and to understand that lumping them all into a pile does not serve us. Each relationship between two people is its own unique experience between two unique people occurring at a convergent place between two different life experience trajectories.

Carrying "baggage" from relationship to relationship is lumping things together in this indistinguishable way. The earlier in life we realize these experiences are distinct and unique, the better equipped we are to reset and grow and evolve. If one is the common denominator in negative experiences, for example, one must begin to examine why that is and accept the accountability for what is found there. Not easy.

But if we see and accept responsibility then we have brought the pattern into the light of conscious thought, where we can begin the work of actively chiseling the fundamentals of who we are. And as we revise and forge ourselves we also signal and imprint a new pattern into the subconscious that serves us in a better way.

This is deep spiritual work within our own psyche. It has the potential to free us from the prisons we lock ourselves up in.

 

[Spaz]

Agree. And this is the crux of the problem. If we do not own our own responsibility in our arrival at our current life situation, then we are wearing the cloak of the victim. The cloak of the victim is seductive in that it absolves one of personal responsibility for one's life trajectory.

Now. There is a point at which each of us is an innocent. A child. A person without agency or ability to correct a harmful situation...this occurs in early life and bad things leave indelible impressions...just as good things leave indelible impressions. However at some point each person begins a differentiation process from their childhood as they mature into adulthood. Each person begins to examine and sort out and challenge whether or not to accept or reject what they have been imprinted with, we question our core values, we explore our environment and compare it to the framework with which we are familiar...and we either reinforce what we were raised with or we form new and differing views.

The key difference as it applies to attachment theory has to do with how one views the world. If one views the world as a hospitable place, then one approaches new situations and new people with curiosity and a sense of security. If one views the world as hostile, then one approaches new situations and new people from a position of defensiveness and fear. The overarching view of things outside one's self drive both thought and by extension, action. And that overarching view is established deep in the subconscious, which keep in mind is habituated and imprinted in early, early life.

That does not mean overcoming the deep subconscious programming is impossible, but it is challenging and takes time and reinforcement of a new paradigm to usurp the established pattern.

Freedom lies, I also agree, in the ability to keep distinct our experiences and to understand that lumping them all into a pile does not serve us. Each relationship between two people is its own unique experience between two unique people occurring at a convergent place between two different life experience trajectories.

Carrying "baggage" from relationship to relationship is lumping things together in this indistinguishable way. The earlier in life we realize these experiences are distinct and unique, the better equipped we are to reset and grow and evolve. If one is the common denominator in negative experiences, for example, one must begin to examine why that is and accept the accountability for what is found there. Not easy.

But if we see and accept responsibility then we have brought the pattern into the light of conscious thought, where we can begin the work of actively chiseling the fundamentals of who we are. And as we revise and forge ourselves we also signal and imprint a new pattern into the subconscious that serves us in a better way.

This is deep spiritual work within our own psyche. It has the potential to free us from the prisons we lock ourselves up in.

Atta girl !

I knew you had it in you..

 

[BeExcellent]

Atta girl !

I knew you had it in you..

Thanks. Now my gray matter is tired. Headed to bed, lol.

 

[Spaz]

Like you alluded to, he sets up a reality based on his incidents and experiences and thus projects his reality. Self fulfilling prophesy. In the way he thinks and acts he pulls In or attracts the very thing he despises or is trying to avoid. This is science. Mechanics.
To fix it he would have to face the truth that he caused every bit of his discomfort. That is a tough pill to swallow.

I was waiting for the BPD, NPD and Low Self Esteem elite storm troopers to enter this thread, and at least make a counter offensive.

You'd think they're shy and need an invite ?

 

[Ranger]

I was waiting for the BPD, NPD and Low Self Esteem elite storm troopers to enter this thread, and at least make a counter offensive.

You'd think they're shy and need an invite ?

Lol they have a tenuous position. It’s hard to argue in the face of observable truth. If it was just an opinion they would be all over it like a dog on a bone.

 

[Spaz]

like a dog on a bone.

I do wonder if it's a form cruelty or an act of kindness when a dog's chain is being yanked....

 

[Ranger]

I do wonder if it's a form cruelty or an act of kindness when a dog's chain is being yanked....

Lol both.

 

[guru1000]

My gray matter hurt the other night too. Lol.

Well if you thought of this on your own, then it’s an astute observation and one that has been discussed among great minds for a few thousand years.

To follow, I will substitute the individual with “organism” and “It”--and with rightful purpose which may become apparent in the subsequent post.

How free is “free will”?

The organism is brought into Earth and born with certain genetic proclivities and biases not by his choice or volition.

The organism does not choose his parents whom instill certain values in It.

The organism gets conditioned through a certain school which is chosen by It’s parents (hereinafter “prior conditioning”)

The organism is subject to the rules of It’s parents, and It’s “choices” of other sources of conditioning such as television, radio, and surrounding people are all “choices” seemly influenced by It’s genetic proclivites, biases, and prior conditioning (hereafter “GPBC”).

The Organism “chooses” a girl, but this choice in a girl is based on It’s hard-wiring attraction—it’s genetic proclivity--and thus not a choice of free volition either.

The Organism may have kids, but this too is hardwired as a biological need, and further reinforced through GPBC and conditioning of the masses who also have kids.

The Organism one day is faced with a choice: “Choice A,” “Choice B” or “Choice C” and It will choose based of what serves It best, prompted by its biological makeup in how to survive best. How the Organism determines what serves IT best--this “illusion” of choice--is simply influenced by It’s GPBC, all of which It did not choose.

Through these “choices,” the Organism will gain an experience, but is this experience truly his own IF all the choices that led to this experience were not born of his own free volition but rather influenced by GPBC.

So where in this concept of “free will” is the Organism truly free?

More to follow, about specifically where “free will” truly lies.

 

[Spaz]

Free will is an illusion.

There are no words, actions or thoughts that come from nothingness.

Show me an example of freewill and I will show you an illusion.

 

[guru1000]

Deep within the Organism is a consciousness. At origination of the Organism, this consciousness is aware only of the Organism, but not aware of itself as apart from or outside of the Organism. This consciousness is veiled.

Within this Consciousness are certain desires to which it ascribes to the Organism to achieve. These desires are often confused an “mental paradigms” meaning they belong to the Organism’s brain as opposed to the will of the Consciousness. As not to direct this into a spiritual discussion (or perhaps debate), I will no longer make distinctions between the Consciousness and the Organism, and not distinguish between “desires” and “mental paradigms.”

Within the desire, the Organism has free will. While conditions and genetic proclivities/biases enter the Organism’s free thought to shape behavior (hereinafter “behavioral module”) and even practiced behavioral processes manifesting as unconscious responses in the Organism’s behavior, the desires that the Organism holds is the ultimate arbiter of what motivation the Organism will act upon. It’s this push and pull, conditions and proclivities vs desire, that create this module of resistive “thinking” –which if desired greatly enough will supersede the Organism’s behavioral module and lead to effectual change.

The Organism need not operate on its prior conditioning or proclivities/biases, though IT will most of the time. The Organism needs only to belie It’s conditioning some of the time to effect powerful changes in It’s existence. Plenty of examples throughout history, including posters in this very thread, who went against their conditioning and proclivities/biases to act upon a greater desire to effect a “new life” free of the former social chains and genetic constraints. Myself included.

To hold that circumstances beyond the Organism create the Organism’s future circumstances renders the Organism a victim to circumstance. We ALL know on a deeper level, this cannot be true. Each Organism has something much greater within itself which transcends its genetic limitations and conditioning, something so great rendering it inexplicable with human language, and concepts so great that the Organism’s brain cannot possibly interpret through its physical limitations and thinking. Though, it can be witnessed by the Consciousness in moments of clarity and silence.

Some could argue that this very post is a form of conditioning to which such an Organism reading can now act upon. However, if the Organism’s desire does not align with these words, then this form of conditioning becomes ineffectual and usurped by prior conditioning only to be parked at the back of the line in the Organism’s brain. Even if this conditioning were reiterated ad nauseam, if the conditioning does not align with the Organism's desire, the conditioning will be eventually challenged. Challenged does not mean overturned. What will determine the fate of the organism as it relates to its conditioning is the strength of It's desire.

More to follow …

 

[Spaz]

Interesting way of putting it.

Consciousness is relative to its content.

There can be no consciousness without awareness.

 

[Ranger]

Awareness being the impetus.

 

[Spaz]

Awareness being the impetus.

Yes it is.

But there can be awareness without consciousness.

This is gonna make some gray matter spinning and become more tired.

Interesting thread haha

 

[Ranger]

But there can be awareness without consciousness.

That is an advanced truth. Nice.
I understand this and have experienced it. So it’s acknowledged.