Fixing a few fractures:
BROKEN
If look at any obsessive dedication, especially where prone to escapism the following is apparent (simplified):
The 10III, qua ta’anug, is not seen properly, and this is due to a few overlapping expressions (ratzon l’ratzon) of that hidden agenda.
One damaged 10II seems to be for 4II as an ends unto itself, rationalized (8II) by its necessity for various causes. Especially against persisting fears. This 10II may be mistaken for 10III.
The reason that there is a false appearance of 10III is that when interrogated or challenged – viz in opposition to vector to submit to its siren call – there is an argument raised that acquiescing to the submission will enable something not otherwise achievable, due to some poorly-alluded set of emotional handicaps or limitations of understanding. Thus it looks like a 9II (per shape, i.e. like a 10I above a 2II in its graphics), and is the inspiration for the 8II mentioned above; but the original directive can be read as the sufficient higher-world inner half of other 10II’s, and thus the false appearance as 10III. The details of the 8II against fears are what lead to 4II being an end unto itself. The argument goes: If I can’t escape the fear, then I should do anything that opposes it, even if that act contradicts its ethos and thus increases its terror; rather that I should wallow than be prone before this circular maze.
Another damaged 10II is for 3II qua act of communication, whose expression, via 10I and thus 1I, is aimed as a first milestone; then the 1I can be contemplated to cause appreciation via 7I or 6I, and thus empower 7II, and thus empower 4II. (But this is a distortion of 4II, since the same 7II is used to invoke the 10I da’at of the expression, and once vindicated in its optimism, is chained into 4II as if it had proven some new achievement – see next 10II).
Another damaged 10II is for the aforementioned 7II itself.
The (aforementioned) 8II justifies the sufficiency of admiration of 3II to 1I an interim step of the previous 10II desire, which is ultimately via the 7I for 7II which was admiring the 1I.
The lie was that the immediate pleasure of the 10II’s expression, is directly via 7II, since there is an immediate confidence in ability.
In general terms: I’m justifying obsessive behaviors by mixing up motivations to literally feel more powerful, presuming that the pleasure derives from love of admiration of what is expressed, and deriving the pleasure (after submitting to obsession) actually earlier, via the the love of engaging expertise in general.
And furthermore to the last mentioned pleasure, pleasure of engaging expertise: It is expressing itself via an intention, which surreptitiously draws into the splendid subordination of the final expression. That means that the intention’s directive is a lie in itself. The crown (10I) is made contextualized (2I) within its own expression (1I). And that circular logic had impelled the self-assurance in self-sufficiency that nurtured the captaincy of (seeming) expertise (7II).
Again in general terms: When I convince myself to toxify, the most fundamental argument which appears is often the necessity to be empowered (esp confidence), even if temporarily, and despite costs. Otherwise, so it seems, I will be endlessly caught in some psychological or emotional quagmire, often circulating fear and an endless capacity for self-doubt. There is a further motivation (which knows to derive itself from the previous) to be witness to the aesthetic dimension of the toxic intoxication and its expressions, as if that could be a boot-strap for empowering the mandate of expertise to direct, and thus further reinforce the confidence.
This is a double-dipping of justifications, since: the confidence was first enabled by virtue of opposing our own judgments (on account of the fear that haunted their laws), and thus was needed to find an avenue for directing our motivation in actual practise of toxicity, whereupon the original directive to be empowered, claimed to be seeking further empowerment, thus adding further legitimacy and honesty to its original claims. However the success of this strategy depends on the devising via thoughts’s concepts which are shared by all parties (in their origin, i.e. regarding how reflections on expressions will lead to improvement and hence empowerment). And thus the true channeling responsible for empowering the confidence is the presence of an uninvolved expertise expressing itself. And what’s more, although all these back-and-forths truly do overlap with the fulfilment of some desire, its claims are nonetheless false. The desire claimed to seek empowerment through expertise, through appreciation following expression. But while all these happened, the satisfaction occurred through free-reigning of expertise, and further suggests that the true intention of this ratzon l’ratzon was to avoid awareness of fear. And the chaining into confidence may have occurred, but it was not necessary. The confidence stemmed from intoxication.
Note that there had been so much dependency on 7II in the absence of any stable 4II and even less so 5II.
THEREFORE
Make the three 10II self-contained and not hidden.
First: 10II towards 3II. The 9II (of the 10II or within the 3II inside) provides a purposeful set of principles, which upon expression of the 3II into 10I, chains into the inevitable 1I. But due to the instructions gained from the 9II, the 1I can be 3I into a 6I (qua aesthetics and suitability), which instructs ever improved expressions of the 1I. 10I of the 1I (still informed by the 9II of the 3II) causes 7I and 6I (at least) for the 1I’s product.
Second: 10II towards 5II. This 5II is derived from the (10 within) 4I, itself empowered by the appreciations of the 7I/6I pair. (This is via the role of 3II/3I in the evaluations, and thus by chaining up, informing the da’at of the 10II, which nurtures 8II to justify 4II, i.e. there are reasons to have faith in ability of 3II, [and by calibrating of the 3-4-5II axis following 3II’s empowerment]).
Third: 10II towards 4II. This is a chaining up, and derives its strength from the newly empowering 4I, which provides a 4I within 8I (which had first been taught by the 8II of 3II), and thus a proof for trustworthiness (of the 1I, etc), and this empowers the 4II.
Before continuing onto general explanation, and self-instructions, allude to neighboring flaws which had influenced the challenges to self-rectification of identity and purpose.
Often the flawed 9II which had called (indirectly) for escapism, was reacting to a pattern in which the claims of 9II (elaborated in 8II) were challenged by a disapproval (5I), which self-promoted until its circularity became an obstacle in itself. That fear in the impossibility of escaping fear is a major premise of obsessive directives.
(Similarly, stop using external expectations to direct ethical beliefs. We had been replacing 8II with the 8I which we had built on top of the requirements of 5I). (And, in general, 5I should be ablated, since its feedback loop, makes us vulnerable and biased to favor the mandate of the flawed 10II which seeks 4II as an ends unto itself).
Thus recommend that 9II within 10II qua da’at be taught to induce 5II (esp. in the vectors schematically alluded above) in place of 5I, as has been learned from Rivkah’s beauty. This 5II, paired with a 7II which will inevitably result from the 7I (and nb. 7II should not have been an ends unto itself, nor as a stepping stone to 4II unto itself), which will become the momentum of self-respect to replace shame.
In general terms:
There has been an unwillingness and fear to endorse any self-express in good faith. Anything that is written is judged to necessitate secrecy, due to presumed incompetence. It is only justified as an exercise the fruits enjoyment and the passing of time.
Amongst the consequence of this ethos to write without really believing in the writing as a reasonable pursuit itself has been a failure to engage or deliberate on the meaning of the enterprise as a whole, and thus there has been a failure to develop finesse greater than what is inspired during any particular inspiration or inclination to add content and edit.
To reverse that handicap requires first reflecting on the goals of the writing as a project. Once reflected goals become available to the cognitive powers, the value writing can be given a measure – and thus no longer be vulnerable to a self-doubting (insofar as) perpetuated by lack of criteria and dominated by low general esteem. (nb. Other vulnerabilities)
Once measured, every draft becomes the unripe precursor to its next draft, and thus also to an ideal final shape which is not antithetical to beauty nor inspiration.
Necessarily, every intent to engage in the purposefully conditioned writing, and its iterated improvement, implies an ability to judge the writing, and eventually, this will evoke the sensed and emotional admiration stemming from their nutritive capacity (towards the planned goals) and from their aesthetic quality.
Necessarily, as one comes to admire their own art-form, via the senses of affection and beauty, a confidence in the ability to pursue the writing’s opportunity will install itself, and to add some abilities to overcome and expand. This confidence is effectively a self-faith in one’s own ability (to write), and in time can become a seed for a tree of self-respect to replace those that cast judgements of shame.
Note that only the first steps need instantiating, namely planning of goals of writing, thereafter writing, revising, and reflecting.
Only once admiration at writing is noticed in own senses, should the first stirrings of a strength within beliefs be expected. And only later than that, faithfulness within beliefs. Those will be the drivers of trusting my own soul. Growth and faithfulness.
I can’t try and develop self-belief by raising the volume of expertise, nor impelling it to run so far and so fast. Who has measured the sufficiency of our expertise, and for what purpose? And without its determination and faith, it can never be the origins of our inspiration.
We had emphasized it in so many directives since it seemed the earliest milestone to prove ability. But we often mistake potential for shared-proof, with a sufficiency of solitary belief.
Coda:
It has been explained how the obsession and submission to the compulsion to toxify and disregard costs to self-esteem from contrived arrangements of psyche’s attributes. There is something that needs to be escaped, that can’t be escaped, the last stand we can take against it is to disregard it, for everything else re-invokes its self-perpetuation.
Thus: I will toxify to empower to avoid fear. And in order to add specificity beyond the mere drive to toxify, are pseudo-lower intentions, to be empowered (and thus resistant to future fears, etc) by amazement of the intoxicated experience and reflection upon its certainty that alludes to the forms of confidence, and thus there is a further pseudo-lower intention to employ that form of confidence to prove the success of reflections upon expression. And the confusion of the third intention stems from the lie of what is motivating this compulsion. It is suspected to be due to compulsion along the reigns of the mesolimbic pathway etc and thus is motivated to its own motivation, also habituated to favor the pleasure that follows in its wake, which it learns to justify, thus attributing its “real” desire for the intoxication and its pleasures which are given other rationales per obsession’s delusion.
Here the argument that involved low-self-esteem in writings was somehow made potent enough to justify the obsession’s will. As hope drops, the relevance of ethical and future-caring reasoning fades.
All I defended against above was the employment of the same argument.
But tomorrow it may be something else. Perhaps the dark lord will whisper:
There is not one thought in your head that has any value. And You should be afraid of how nonsensical some of your beliefs are. What you call brilliance in your past musings, are rather a brilliant capacity for imagination, and not for any intelligent design of thoughts. Etc etc. You lack the ability to overcome this doubt, not even to take its measure. Your only recourse is to become intoxicated, and thence use the confidence that follows to give momentum to judging these doubts, or finding some value beyond them. Probably you will discover that although all these things are true, there is some other opportunity to be sought in their place, and that will give you the determination you crave, and proof of the confirmation that you have lacked so far. So you have no choice, either wallow, or go get toxic so that you won’t wallow, so that you have the momentum to judge yourself, and what’s more, you should use that momentum to instigate a purposeful exploration of what opportunities you had not realized due to your misguided vector that you have been in denial about. This may look like a bad thing, and there may be costs, but the decision to toxif won’t just give you short term confidence, it will be the leverage you need to prevent this sort of awakening and shame at wrongness of course from making you emotionally and cognitively invalid evermore. You will finally work out if the boundaries of the set of what has been wrong and right in our beliefs, and thus be finally able to direct ourselves towards growth, and away from pits such as this one.
Obviously, i.e. to correct what the doubts and debasements advise: the path to correction is reflection and revision of efforts’ investments.
But even if I defend myself against their recommendations, the criticisms remain, and I may still be left suspecting my utter lack of talent or belief except for those that epitomize my failure to recognize my own failures, and thus stand as signifier of my blind shame (which had lauded to itself what all else know to be wrong and deformed).
And them sometimes, I am cast from hopelessness into hollow determination, saying I have built too many strange ideas within this mind, explored too many uncommon caverns. Why should I be surprised that I have alienated my realm from others’. I will never know how our reality’s correlate, because it would be too much to even explain how it would be possible for them not to correlate (e.g. given the possibility of communication between my words and others’). The Buddhists, who are not as a rule presumed outcast from the general communication, say that there are somethings that cannot be learned in theory, only experienced. And the Hindu’s who (and so did the Zen) attempted to abnegate their epistemology’s syntheses (and not just their karmic impact) know that the name of a thing does not refer to that experience which can be labeled with that name (except as means for directing, but not for differentiating). Why should I not claim to have found the same in my own searches? The notion of texture of attracting and repulsive forces between sensations and mental factors cannot be comprehended without their experienced study. Even the notion of bhakti yoga as a mode of attendance different to a mere directive for attendance cannot be comprehended solely by its description, except by analogy, and dependent on its relevant similarity. If these claims sound dogmatic, self-righteous, and unproven, then it behooves one to test so for themselves. And if a person thinks that they have no need, I imagine that just as one cannot imagine what it is like to be a parent until so experienced, I imagine so too, but that is not the case at all. And I assume so confidentially since unbridgeable partitions of experience are not the same form of creature as unbridgeable partitions of awareness or attendance. Which is all to try and convince myself that I should stop trying to work out what reality this is, nor what is counted as a normal set of awareness.
But as soon as I rationalize all these, I am cast into a deeper doubt, which compels on the basis of my defense’s corrupting desire to flee other judgments. You are arguing in such manner, so says the devil’s shadow in the middle of the day, only because you are so desperate to avoid the contrary, and only because you are not capable of proving your legitimacy – you didn’t even try. And maybe the devil is right, but I am forever suspicious of myself, and can sight the prints of an instinct to escape. I try and avoid the task to make legitimate, because to do so would be a trap, a lowering of my armour, and exposure of wounds that never heal to a world that I have not learned how it can be trusted.
And so forth.
The general strategies against impenetrable tangles claiming proof of hopelessness, is to argue for a hiatus from all judgments, court to be reconvened at a more invigorated opportunity, when perhaps there shall have been causes for optimism, or time for considerations without the looming lightning strikes of fear’s unblinking gaze, that is forever turning and forever lost and forever prophesying the end of the world to a date long ago. But it never tells me which one. Sometimes this strategy buys time, but it is never the bookend promising safety and order. Rather like one wind pushing against another. And who could else would ever know, because in the middle sits a rock, and it never moves. And inside me is a bigger storm, and so who could have taken notice of the outer one, which had hidden itself too.
