STRUGGLE:

Heterosexuality is NOT a privilege. It is a tormented struggle, the most difficult ordeal I have ever undergone, and this is not simply “my” experience; the entire history of humanity abounds in accounts which attest to this, within both fact and fiction. It was out of the primordial passion of procreation that ethics developed, and out of those ethics homophobia was born, if not homosexuality itself, but the renunciation of the phobia and the liberation of the homosexuality did nothing to make heterosexuality, the deeper difficulty and more mindboggling mystery, any easier. No amount of self-policing, just to appease a liberal platitude, could provide an answer to the most fundamental riddles of intersexual communication, questions which, in my experience, MOST women, as well as men, never even bothered to ask.  I could not even articulate them off the top of my head, though most moral and metaphysical matters I literally resolve in my own sleep. So you can imagine how livid I grow by the day in finding myself blatantly and shamelessly excluded from the “Pride” community, as though my mere presence were a threat to some network of ideological delusions which this cult holds in common. It has become clear to me what happened: someone compiled a list of minorities, and instead of going about the painstaking work of unriddling the suffering which hung between them, he or she sought to alleviate that suffering by unifying them against an enemy, a minority who was simply a confluence of majorities:

Me.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

BOTHERED:

Growing up I never understood the cowboys who would ask, “is this guy bothering you?” The cliché seemed always skewed, as if it leant too much authority to the arbitration of the lady who was addressed. At first, I thought it was only a film cliché: a cue for action, a romantic trigger for conflict. I understood it in the context of chivalry: the interrogator challenges the virtue of the other man, as if not only to preserve the dignity of the woman against lechery but to illustrate his own. As I grew older I came to lose faith in this tradition, not for lack of wanting to believe in it but rather for the lack of seeing the belief affirmed and valued. DID I bother anyone? Perhaps, and yet how rarely did they wonder WHY!! I was myself quite bothered, reasonably so, but even when my will was base my means were pure and my intent more scrupulous than any peers I used to call my friends. I have to ask them this: if they should ask her if this man was BOTHERING her, they should ask her WHY. Why was she bothered? And why would he want to? I refuse to fathom that for something universal I might be refused. If an intent is so transparent you can call it, it is surely general enough that you can’t judge of its humanity. It was not MY fault they were bothered. They had yet to prove me to have been unchivalrous, and if they were yet unattracted to me, then the REAL question is: HOW? How can one choose a man of lesser stature over one who values Righteousness? By what authority can I then be removed? By none. So long as I am right, I must remain persistent.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

POSTPOST:

One of the principal themes in K---- D---- H-- W---- is that of the finite life of the individual mind-body, set against the grandiose backdrop of the Multiverse. More specifically and politically, the theme at work is that we are stuck with the bodies that we have, that they are not only restrictions upon our Minds, but also that we are born into them for certain karmic reasons which establish them as our moral burden, as individuals. On some level, the Life of the Mind transcends these mortal restrictions, so at our most fundamental level of psychological awareness we all have the power to decide which chains to wear, and the nature of the chain reflects the decisions of the Soul. This pertains also to such features such as “beauty and brains”, and, given the immediacy of intuition, it functions as a reaffirmation of the Platonic approach to attraction. First impressions cease to be superficial prejudices, produced out of social “conditioning”, but rather they become the very measure of genuine depth and the possibility of transcendence; while “getting to know someone” is an attempt made by the conscious ego to reduce the Other to some expression of the sovereign Self, genuine Encounter with the Unknown is always produced through some sort of “Love [or, more generally, Recognition] at First Sight”. People become the embodiments of Gods and Goddesses in ordinary Life, though they seldom know this and far less often approve of the observation. Be that as it may, to love remains more valuable than being loved, especially by one’s self, and so the ultimate identity is defined more by how one perceives Others than how one WISHES to be perceived BY Them, and more is to be learned by studying how people TRULY see one’s self than by how one wishes to be seen, the latter of which amounts to nothing more than persona and convention, the most tragic outcome of whose overvaluation is the mutilation, denigration, and destruction of the Body. Within a psychosocial context, this presents some bold attacks upon the post-structural ideology of gender identity, though it remains well-meaning towards the ideology’s representatives. If the physical body is one’s own cross to bear, so to speak, then one acts in destructive bad faith if one tries to “escape” its strictures by appealing to an abstract and disembodied conception of “gender as a social construct”. It involves the internal contradiction of at once blaming “Society”, in the abstract, for one’s feelings of alienation, while at the same time making an appeal to Society’s liberal and philosophical traditions in an attempt to alter one’s social standing in the most superficial and conformist manner, pinning the blame upon those who “conform” to those conditions for which they accept responsibility. In this sense, the use of mythological archetypes, most notably expressed as Ancient Egyptian Deities, might be my only recourse in cutting through the pretensions of millennials who avail themselves liberally of abstract thought but abstain from any philosophical inquiry. “Society”, in my World, is NOT the antagonist who has to be overcome by manipulation, outwitted and brought thus to the negotiating table, in an attempt to restore some semblance of a lost autonomy. In K---- D---- H-- W----, that autonomy remains to be attained, as in olden days, outside of This World, to be EARNED in the Next World, which in itself has fallen into disrepair upon a level that mortals struggle to conceive. This form of transcendence is not simply an archaic and regressive alternative to the secular advent of deconstruction; it is a Living, Breathing Cultural Universal, representing the final stages of Moral Development. “Society” is not the enemy but the helper, serving as a stepping stone, as in Kierkegaard’s books, to the properly Religious (“Spiritual”) Domain. Yet Society is more than a series of moral dictates. The Body is the limitation, and its laws are those of the Suffering, Moral World. Yet Society is one’s first source of transcendence, supplying the Mind with Dreams of Another Life, instilling both the desire and the hope for fulfillment. To reject Society in the pursuit of one’s desires is self-defeating; to work with Society is to discover one’s Self.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

PSYCHOMETR!X: Sacred PR!DE.

What psychometrics do NOT teach you:

D!LEMMA ONE: Objective self-worth.

The Scottish Doctor of Ethics Alasdair MacIntyre recounts several traditional models for virtue, according to which he defines moral valuation. Here are just a few which we inherited from Antiquity:

1.             Virtue is defined as what is owed to a (hu)man. Coupled with self-knowledge, it requires individuals to objectively decide what others owe to them and what they owe to others.

2.             Virtue is defined as the teleological need to produce a Better World. (This is classified by Jungians as the Archetype of the Seeker, and according to the Enneagram this correlates to the Reformer.)

3.             Virtue is defined as the external imperative to actualize internal potentialities. In recognizing that people are born with different gifts, precluding the pretension that “everyone is gifted”, the ancient Greeks hosted competitions by which to decide who was the Best in a given field. The purpose of these competitions was not egocentric but social, since success was considered to be both a right and a responsibility, and talent was thus both a blessing and a curse. Quite literally, one’s life was a constant process of pursuing the actualization of one’s inner strengths, and failure was not an option.

MacIntyre argues, almost irrefutably, (by his own admission,) that the traditional meaning of moral utterance was revocably lost. For instance, (though this is my own observation,) “humility” ought to be distinguished from “humbleness”, as Krishnamurti indicated. Being too lazy to achieve ought to be distinguished from being open to experience, to new information, and to reform. Yet reform itself must be founded upon an even deeper orthodoxy. Entrepreneurs who echo MacBeth in saying that “fair is foul” ascribe arrogance to people who feel a drive to be “right”, yet Righteousness may not be so radically subjective. Lawrence Kohlberg demonstrated that most people plateau at a very low level of Moral Development; does this not imply that empathy can be a weakness? The sheer paradox of moral life corroborates MacIntyre’s thesis: what once was clear is obscured. Is this no different from that process which therapists refer to as “gaslighting”? Who are they to consider themselves innocent?

Allow me, therefore, to express the previous models of morality within the vernacular of behaviourism:

4.             Virtue is defined as what is owed to a (hu)man. Coupled with self-knowledge, it requires individuals to objectively decide what others owe to them and what they owe to others.

-      This is referred to as “self-entitlement”. Shrinks will often abbreviate this to say “entitlement”, summarizing their emotivistic* presupposition that entitlement is NOT a function of social virtue but rather of psychological pathology. In this manner, among many others, they demoralize.

Being “virtuous” in this sense is identified with narcissism. This is why some of the less conscientious fans of the television programs Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul tend to deplore Skyler White and Charles McGill, projecting their own shortcomings.

*Despite having been a topic of discussion for over a century, this term is yet unrecognized by Microsoft Word 16.

5.             Virtue is defined as the teleological need to produce a Better World. (This is classified by Jungians as the Archetype of the Seeker, and according to the Enneagram this correlates to the Reformer.)

-      The Shrinks call this “grandiosity”. It is not uncommon, therefore, for psychopaths and manipulators working within the psychiatric industry to describe moral imperatives and social obligations as expressions, again, of “arrogance”, irrespective of the actual benefits, while all the while they are content to live parasitically off of others. Even trying to create a Better World is psychoanalytically evil.

6.             Virtue is defined as the external imperative to actualize internal potentialities. In recognizing that people are born with different gifts, precluding the pretension that “everyone is gifted”, the ancient Greeks hosted competitions by which to decide who was the Best in a given field. The purpose of these competitions was not egocentric but social, since success was considered to be both a right and a responsibility, and talent was thus both a blessing and a curse. Quite literally, one’s life was a constant process of pursuing the actualization of one’s inner strengths, and failure was not an option.

-      It’s not uncommon for psychometrics to ask a prospective employee, REPEATEDLY, to confess to feelings of impending greatness. Yet was this not also how the Renaissance Man Mirandola** (whose full name in itself is grandiose, legally) defined human potential? To his mind, Humanism lay in the actualization of God’s gifts:

“A sacred pride should grip us of not being satisfied with the mediocre but to strive (for we can do it, if we want to) with the exertion of all our strength to attain the highest. Let us scorn what is of this earth, let us ignore what is of heaven, let us leave absolutely everything worldly behind us in order to hasten to the abode out of this world, in the proximity of the sublime deity. We do not need to think of stepping back. Of being satisfied with second rank, let us strive for dignity and glory. To attain the highest.”

**Note: MS Word does not even recognize HIM.

What has become of the Beautiful, Human Soul? Even Martin Seligman argues that we must move away from the Disease Model and supplement it with a Positive Clinical Model which seeks to empower genius instead of punishing it.

So: what is the dilemma? It really amounts to a paradox:

If I take a psychometric test, I only require the most cursory knowledge of popular psychology in order to “hack” it. Any psychopath can score as a saint if (s)he simply knows what a humble person is SUPPOSED to say, and the truly delusional narcissist will make claims to these virtues without warrant. Behavioural shrinks tend to presume that we are stupid so as not to appear to be condescending. The Just World fallacy has possessed them, apparently and transparently, to believe that members of the Dark Triad will slip up, exposing their own narcissistic evil.

While this might work for creating good television, it is seldom truly the case. Villains know how heroes think, and even though the historical meaning of “virtue” has become buried under the neglect of philosophy in a scientific age, most people are at least smart enough to guess at what answers seem more virtuous. If I wish to appear humble, all I have to do is click “Strongly Agree” when asked if I am. One can hardly disguise the essence of the question by asking me if I “know that I am great because people tell me that all the time”. In fact, all that this attempt at concealment does, manipulatively, is that it reflects the cynicism of the writer, who PRECLUDES the possibility that “people” are objective in judging the worth of the individual, who is then objective in recounting this worth, positively. This is precisely what MacIntyre characterizes as the modern crisis: that under the influence of emotivism morality has become subjectified***.

***Jung Himself used this term, and yet MS Word doesn’t!!

What psychometric examinations do, therefore, is that they reverse roles. Humble people, knowing humility to be a virtue, admit to their vices, confessing to egoism which the “impartial judge” then uses against them, describing them as narcissists. The judge does this subtly; instead of saying, “you have a problem,” the conclusion is that “you are more narcissistic than the average person, simply because you believe yourself to be better than the average person.” Yet this “belief” emanated from one of two places: either the aforementioned humility, an excessive admission to sins which the doctor believed himself to have subtly disguised, or an honest evaluation of one’s own value to society. The narcissist can look like a saint, while the saint will confess to the sins of the narcissist. It’s up to the Doctor to determine whether the confession expresses an external fact or an internal delusion. The nature of the clinical mind game is in the arbitration of the therapist. In other words, I might ask you: “Are you humble?” If you answer “yes”, I might choose to take your word for it, OR I MIGHT NOT, arguing that the very fact you believe your humility to be sufficient evidences your inflated self-conception. Had you answered “no”, the power would still remain with me, UNLESS YOU HAD SUCCESSFULLY MANIPULATED ME.

For a class of specialists who appear to love good television, they certainly lack the subtlety of the shows’ writers.

Presuming that I CAN fill out an examination HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY, my answers must at once serve two functions for the clinician:

1.             Those Truths which I am honest enough to reveal, though I am too stupid to fathom their significance, must remain apparent, and

2.             Those Truths which I am dishonest enough to conceal, owing to the same stupidity, must bubble up somehow in such a manner that exposes ME for the fraud I am.

Yet if I truly possess the Objectivity to answer these questions Truthfully, presuming I intend to do so Honestly, then how am I at fault for assessing my own self-worth? Why would you disbelieve me if I claimed that “most people praise me constantly”? Is that not the case for many exceptional people? Is that not an OBJECTIVE, SOCIAL danger of which they must be made aware, instead of simply an INTERNAL problem that THREATENS those same admirers they represent? Who are YOU, if not a gaslighter****, to invalidate my friends, fans, and family? If I stood on the precipice, ready to jump, would they not beg me to remain among the Living? Would YOU urge me to forget them THEN?!?

****This MUST be common usage, by this point.

Often, the paradox is intrinsic to the text itself. Here are but a few examples:

1.             “Modesty doesn’t become me.”

“I am essentially a modest person.”

[These stereotypes don’t become you, though you certainly become them.]

2.             “I am no better or worse than most¹ people.”

“I think I am a special person”.

3.             “I will be a success.”

“I am not too concerned about success.”

[Precluding the possibility that effortless action produces the surest results. See Taoism, Zen Buddhism.]

4.             “I just want to be reasonably happy.”

“I want to amount to something in the eyes of the world.”

[Ask the Ancient Greeks for the difference. Oh, wait. There is none.]

5.             “When people compliment me I sometimes get embarrassed.”

“I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so.”

[Presuming I can trust most people, isn’t the latter a GOOD thing? Perhaps I’m only “embarrassed” by the former because I am a cynical sociopath who frowns upon those who admire me, which is precisely how narcissism is defined.]

6.             “I am assertive.”

“I wish I were more assertive.”

[I have working muscles. I wish I were more muscular.]

7.             “I like to have authority over other people.”

“I don’t mind following orders.”

[Ever heard of “rank”? Or maybe just the egalitarian concept of eating what you dish out.]

The paradox is not in the contradiction but the LACK of contradiction. Since none of these pairings are mutually exclusive, the answers are arbitrary, and since they are arbitrary expressions of the emotivist self, the conscientious individual can decide just as ARBITRARILY how to answer. So can the narcissist.

¹ Here, the only contradiction lies in what Kierkegaard calls “Leveling”: the process by which egalitarian institutions inhibit Individuality. It’s most transparent in the expression “most people”, implying it to be “healthy” to be well-adjusted to a confessedly sick society, so long as one realizes that MOST people are one’s equals. Who, then, are the inferior FEW, and why do we presume that there are not also the few who are Superior, such as da Vinci and Einstein? Simply put: it’s a witch-hunt. We like to feel that the Greats speak for us, but we do not allow them to speak for themselves.

Since the whole matter is an exercise in emotivism instead of ethics, the results you get reflect only one thing: your mood.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

PSYCHMMXX:

Categories

1.     Agreeableness83.33%

2.     Conscientiousness80%

3.     Extraversion70%

4.     Neuroticism73.33%

5.     Openness93.33%

·         The Big 5 Personality Traits analyze the individual traits of your psyche across five different dimensions.  These dimensions are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

The above results provide you with a percentage of how you measure across these five unique personality traits.

In each one of the five dimensions there are also several sub-dimensions known as “facets”.  For example, the Extraversion dimension is composed of Friendliness, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity Level, Excitement Seeking, and Cheerfulness.

Below is a brief description of each one of these dimensions:

Openness

This dimension is known as openness to experiences.  People at the high end of the scale enjoy questioning norms and conventions; they like to play with ideas and they have vivid imaginations.  In contrast, the relatively conventional people at the other end of the scale prefer the concrete to the abstract and the known to the unknown.

Icon:  Leonardo da Vinci (the Italian painter, draftsman, scientist, engineer, architect, sculptor, musician, mathematician, anatomist, astronomer, geologist, biologist, and philosopher.)

People that score high on openness are: Creative, imaginative, abstract, curious, deep thinkers, inventive, and value arts as well as aesthetic experiences.

People that score low on openness are: Conventional, concrete, traditional, preferring the known to the unknown.

Openness Facets

o    Imagination:  High scorers tend to engage in fantasy to create a more interesting world.

o    Artistic Interests:  High scorers appreciate beauty in art and nature and are involved and absorbed in aesthetics.

o    Emotionality: High scorers tend to have good access to, and awareness of, their feelings.

o    Adventurousness:  High scorers are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and have different experiences.

o    Intellect:  High scorers love to play with ideas; they are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and they enjoy debating intellectual issues.

o    Psychological Liberalism:  High scorers are ready to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values.

You might find them:  Browsing the new age section of a bookstore.

What they might do:  Finding a new route to go to work.

Conscientiousness

People high on the trait of conscientiousness, plan ahead.  They like order.  Although a sense of duty is part of this construct, the dimension is not as dominated by conscience as the label of ‘conscientiousness’ might suggest.  Conscientious people tend to not become distracted, and they are not reckless.

Icon:  Sheldon Cooper (Big Bang Theory – TV Show)

People that score high on conscientiousness are:  Thorough, dependable, reliable, hardworking, task-focused, efficient, good planners.

People that score low on conscientiousness are:  Disorganized, late, careless, impulsive.

Conscientiousness Facets

o    Self-Efficacy:  High scorers believe they have the intelligence, drive, and self-control necessary for achieving success.

o    Orderliness:  High scorers are well-organized people who like to live according to routines and schedules; they keep lists and make plans.

o    Dutifulness:  High scorers tend to have a strong sense of moral obligation.

o    Achievement-Striving:  High scorers strive hard to achieve excellence; they often have a strong sense of direction.

o    Self-Discipline:  High scorers have the ability to persist at difficult or unpleasant tasks until they are completed.  They are able to overcome reluctance to begin tasks and they stay on track despite distractions.

o    Cautiousness:  High scorers take their time when making decisions.

You might find them:  Buying a label maker at Office Depot.

What they might do:  Alphabetically organize their bookshelf.

Extraversion

Extroverted people are talkative, enthusiastic, cheerful, energetic, and gregarious.  Extraversion also includes some traits you might not expect to be associated with this dimension.  For example, although you might expect that extraverts would be higher than introverts on friendliness and gregariousness, most people would not expect assertiveness to be part of Extraversion (it is easy to imagine that assertiveness would instead be associated with low agreeableness or low neuroticism, but it’s not).

Icon:  Tony Robbins

People that score high on extraversion are:  Talkative, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive, outgoing, sociable.

People that score low on extraversion are:  Reserved, quiet, shy.

Extraversion Facets

o    Friendliness:  High scorers genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others; they make friends quickly and it’s easy for them to form close, intimate relationships.

o    Gregariousness:  High scorers find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding; they enjoy the excitement of crowds.

o    Assertiveness:  High scorers like to speak out, take charge, and direct the activities of others.

o    Activity Level:  High scorers lead fast-paced, busy lives; they move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities.

o    Excitement-Seeking:  High scorers are easily bored without high levels of stimulation.  They love bright lights and hustle and bustle and like to take risks and seek thrills.

o    Cheerfulness:  High scorers typically experience a range of positive feelings on a regular basis, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy.

You might find them:  Giving a toast at a party.

What they might do:  Run out of space on their smartphones for new contacts.

Agreeableness

Agreeable people are generous, compassionate, warm, and kind.  Despite the name, agreeableness does not really refer to people who are pushovers.  It’s more about interpersonal warmth.  People low on this trait are frank in their opinions, and blunt, and not particularly concerned with protecting other’s feelings.

Icon:  Ellen Degeneres

People that score high on agreeableness are:  Helpful, selfless, sympathetic, kind, forgiving, trusting, considerate, cooperative.

People that score low on agreeableness are:  Fault finding, quarrelsome, critical, harsh, aloof, blunt.

Agreeableness Facets

o    Trust:  High scorers assume that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions.

o    Morality:  High scorers see no need for pretense or manipulation when dealing with others; they are candid, frank, and sincere.

o    Altruism:  High scorers find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice.

o    Cooperation:  High scorers dislike confrontations; to get along with others, they are willing to compromise or to deny their own needs.

o    Modesty:  High scorers do not like to claim that they are better than other people.

o    Sympathy:  High scorers are tenderhearted and compassionate.  They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity.

You might find them:  Saving the baby dolphins.

What they might do:  Consoling a stranger at the bus stop.

Neuroticism

The Big Five brand is far broader than our use of the term in everyday speech (i.e. a person who worries a lot).  Neuroticism refers to people who are easily stressed and find it hard to remain calm in tense situations, neurotic people get ruffled and anxious easily, worrying a lot and often ruminating about what lies ahead or what has just happened.  They are the opposite of someone who is laid-back and nonchalant.

Icon:  Woody Allen

People that score high on neuroticism are:  Anxious, easily ruffled or upset, worried, moody.

People that score low on neuroticism are:  Calm, relaxed, able to handle stress well, emotionally stable.

Neuroticism Facets

o    Anxiety:  High scorers often feel as if something dangerous were about to happen; they tend to feel tense, jittery, and nervous.

o    Anger:  High scorers are inclined to feel angry; they are sensitive about being treated fairly and feel resentful and bitter when they feel they are being cheated.

o    Depression:  High scorers tend to feel sad, dejected, and discouraged; they lack energy and have difficulty initiating activities.

o    Self-Consciousness:  High scorers are sensitive about what others think of them; they are easily embarrassed and often feel ashamed.

o    Immoderation:  High scorers have difficulty resisting strong cravings and urges and tend to be oriented toward short-term pleasures and rewards rather than long-term consequences.

o    Vulnerability:  High scorers experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress.

You might find them:  Awake, tossing and turning in bed the night before a big event the next day.

What they might do:  Obsess over something “stupid” they said in front of other people.

THE SEEKER (OR EXPLORER)

The Seeker leaves the known to discover and explore the unknown. This inner-rugged individual braves loneliness and isolation to seek out new paths. Often oppositional, this iconoclastic archetype helps us discover our uniqueness, our perspectives and our callings. Seekers are looking for something that will improve their life in some way, but in doing so they may not realize that they have a lot already inside of themselves. They embrace learning and are ambitious, and often tend to avoid the encumbrance of support from others. Needing to “do it themselves,” they keep moving until they find their goal (and usually their true self too).

Shadow Side: The perfectionist. This will manifest itself in your life as the tendency to always strive to measure up to an impossible goal or to find the “right” solution. We see this shadow element in people whose main life activity is self-improvement: going from health club to health club, traveling the world, bouncing back and forth through self-improvement seminars and workshops, etc. If this sounds like you, you might wind up feeling as though you haven’t really accomplished anything through a lack of commitment.

Life Goal: Search for a better way (better life)
Fear: Conformity, entrapment
Response to Problem: Leave it, escape it, take off
Life Task: Be true to a Higher Self
Personal Gifts: Autonomy, ambition, identity, expanded possibilities
Personal Pitfalls: Inability to commit, chronic disappointment, alienation and loneliness

[({Dm.A.A.)}]