Negation Of Self

Negation Of Self

Or

Empathy – The Great Con

Based on this post: https://wannagitmyball.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/the-problem-of-observation/

Read that first so you get a more appropriate primer for what follows here.

I’ve read so many times that the wearing of a mask or face covering is not for oneself, but for somebody else. The premise is selfishness and its opposite, empathy. Never mind that these two aren’t opposed but complementary, I’ll address empathy and negation of self specifically and how this is perverted and abused to, namely, signal some non-existent virtue and compel submission.

Empathy works in two directions, at different periods in one’s life. First, it works as observation, from the thing observed to the observer. This is essential to build the model of self in the early years of life (0-4 yrs or just about). Then it’s done as projection, from that fully built model of self to the thing empathized. When a child is empathetic, he’s building his model of self by observing other humans. When an adult is empathetic, he’s projecting his (previously built) model of self unto another human. The specifics aren’t so relevant for our purpose here.

Negation of self usurps empathy in either direction and replaces it with some perverted version of projection to effectively render the self selfless, or more appropriately a weak or non-existent model of self (the self and the model of self are not the same, they are distinct). It’s even more perverted in that the demonstration of empathy has for only goal the reward of this act. This is not altruism, it’s narcissism. This is now what passes for empathy.

Maybe I should explain what the self is at this point. The self is, for lack of a better word, insane. Without memory, without the model of self, without the decision engine and other systems not part of the self proper, the self cannot manifest except in the simplistic and constant act of looking for those other things. The self is always “on”, and can only be turned off or calmed down by finding those other things accordingly. When the self finds memory for example, it lingers for a while, then looks for other things besides what is found there. Same for the other systems, except perhaps the decision engine, where the self could instead become apathetic for lack of some output which would stand as a goal for present and future behavior. Thus, for the self to manifest appropriately (i.e. not insane), it must have a properly built model of self, on top of all the other systems.

That’s where the usurpation occurs, at the model of self. The model of self is built from the obervation of some perverted version of the self, of some weaker version of it, of some less-than-adequate version, of some inept and fearful version. We’ve had several versions of this usurpation over the years and decades. The modern man, l’homme rose, the feminine side of man, metrosexual, and more recently a much more blatant admission of this perverted model of self: Toxic masculinity. It’s not so ironic that I’m talking about man and men here. Indeed, men are the primary actors of violence, the ultimate response to some attempt at submission. I think it’s not for naught that martial combat has become more and more popular, in parallel to this diminution of man in all other ways. Still, women aren’t spared, they too have been diminished in various ways, namely on the aspects of motherhood and homemaker.

It has become virtuous to be weak, powerless, entitled, and rewarded for preaching same to others, especially to those who otherwise abide by a much different set of tenets that instead attempt to elevate the self and make it stronger and self-sufficient. This is the self attempting, in a perverted manner, to project some semblance of empathy.

The real irony occurs when a savior, a strong and self-sufficient father figure offers safe harbor to all those who have built a weak and entitled model of self. But it’s a lie, all a lie, on both sides of the exchange. Neither is he a savior, nor are they virtuous. All are merely liars, thieves and frauds. The savior uses what he is given (or more appropriately, what he has taken) to then give back, but that’s not generosity, it’s theft. It’s the classic Robin Hood complex. The helpless accept readily what is given (back) because they deserve it, they’re entitled to it: They’re weak, powerless, dependent, and oh so empathetic.

From there, The Great Con. The savior now demands submission of the helpless. The helpless readily accept: They’re oh so empathetic to the savior’s plight, which he demonstrates constantly in his speech and presence. In all human hierachies, a superior is so only by consent of the subordinates. This is true here and true of a different hierachy where all are neither saviors nor helpless, but instead men and women who are strong and capable and self-sufficient, and rather than submit, they collaborate to a common goal and for mutual individual benefit (There’s no altruism here, it’s all selfishness of the highest order, yet with consent of all involved). If this doesn’t develop into a solution yet, I’ll put it plainly below.

Without the consent of the subordinates, the superior is no longer so.

Without the consent of the subordinates, the superior is no longer so.

Without the consent of the subordinates, the superior is no longer so.

But there’s still negation of self to deal with first. How? Simple.

Ask: Am I dimished or elevated by my action, as measured by my own observation?

Once you have solved negation of self, you can now retract your consent. But I suspect you won’t need me, or anybody else for that matter, to explain at that point.

Martin Levac 23:32 10/17/2020

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION