MuadDib

I can't love you if you don't love yourself.

You're still just as insignificant as Diogenes, buttercup.

Training hard to be a purple wounded healer.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DY2UTSgMoJp/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbLZk36oD0w/

@Rafael Thundercat https://www.instagram.com/p/DdRYTxbFD_1/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc59vXyA0A1/

I want to say that I am not familiar with mental illnesses in any capacity beyond internet meme science, so I am taking Dr K’s expertise at face value. I’m also a man without kids, so I don’t know anything about pregnancy and childbirth. I will loosely summarise the things that stood out to me personally in this discussion and the case in general. Given my background and biases, when I first heard about the case, my initial reaction was, damn, these bishes acting cRaY, she needs to be locked up for life. Which speaks to one of the first major points Dr K brought up. Men and society don’t fully understand how hard pregnancy and the postpartum can truly be for women. For the average woman, pregnancy and childbirth are the highest risk activities she will engage in during her life, and the postpartum period is the highest risk period in her life for developing mental illness. So, there is a fundamental misalignment in gender perspective here that is fuelling a culture war outrage on both sides of this equation. The average man with a newborn child (that he holds so tenderly, preciously and joyfully) can’t fully fathom that there is a reasonably high probability his wife is brooding in the corner with a kitchen knife contemplating ... God knows what. There is also a lot of latent displaced anger towards men from women who have had challenging pregnancies and postpartum periods seeping out in the culture war. The second point that stood out to me was that although mental health awareness has increased in society, mental health ignorance has also increased. People in general (both men and women) don’t know what conditions like psychosis are beyond vague intimations and generalisations. The confusion about support for Lindsay speaks to this, and the discussions about agency, how she preplanned the murder, etc., also speak to this. Dr K’s explanation of psychosis was interesting. From what I could gather, agency and control are maintained; it’s just that the underlying assumptions and beliefs about reality are changed. In the mind of a person with psychosis, planning to kill your kids and then doing it in the afternoon can feel just as innocuous as giving your ass an extra wipe after a messy dump. This is different from conditions like command auditory hallucinations where a person doesn’t maintain a sense of agency and feels they must execute an action against their will. This is where the legal interpretation of the children’s deaths remains open, from what I can gather. The statistics of postpartum psychosis were also interesting. About 3 in 1000 live births will result in postpartum psychosis specifically, so while it’s not common, it’s certainly not unheard of. Of those cases, 5% will result in homicidal ideation, and 6% will result in suicidal ideation. There are about 10,000 live births per day in the USA, so literally every day there are at least a handful of women who experience this exact condition with homocidal connotations, making it completely reasonable that 5000 women would donate money to support her GoFundMe campaign. There is also a disconnect between people intuitive understanding of the consequences of various mental illness diagnoses and physical illnesses. As Dr K said, if you get a cancer diagnosis, it's easy for regular people to grasp that you have an x% chance of dying over a y period of time. If you are diagnosed with postpartum psychosis however, the same intuitive leap to a 11% chance of suicidal/homicidal ideation with the very real possibility of enactment, isn't made by folks. There are also discussions about the failures of the medical system being brought up with regard to the second court case, where Lindsay and her husband are suing her care providers. Objectively, she attended two of the best psychiatric hospitals in the country, saw multiple providers over a long period of time, was delivered an ironclad standard of care, yet this was still the outcome. The support she is getting can also be viewed from the perspective of women showing empathy and sympathy, possibly with respect to their own problematic experiences with the healthcare system over time. 17-minute consult times are too short, the non-centralised electronic health care records making communication between providers difficult, and the fact that she called a suicide hotline twice and that information wasn’t available to her providers are all being brought into this discussion. What is scary for many people (women especially) to consider is that there isn’t really much else she could have done as a regular person to prevent such a tragic outcome, making her support more morally and ethically justifiable to some people. I feel sorry for the dad; I haven’t heard shit from anyone about what he must be going through, just that he’s either defective in some way or even directly responsible. I wouldn't want to absolve him of responsibility, and it raises an interesting question about what exactly a father's role and duties are in a situation like this. I liked Dr K’s description of “women’s intuition” being a potent force to be respected, but only in the sense that it can detect incongruence about situations and shouldn’t be relied upon too heavily for directionality about the source(s) of incongruence. Whatever the outcome of the case, there are clear issues with the healthcare system that need to be cognised by the general public, if not resolved. It is a giant system that’s not going to be changed overnight and does deliver some of the best healthcare humans have ever developed at scale; it just can’t be considered a monolith that will solve every problem perfectly. People need to take more responsibility for their own healthcare and be more deeply involved in understanding their own personal situations and managing them accordingly. Should she be locked up for life? I don’t know. That is for the jury to decide and it seems they are having a hard time doing so. I hope the case won’t inspire sociopathic/psychopathic women to exploit this potential loophole in the future if it turns out she gets sent to a psychiatric institution with the potential to be free again at some point. The true victims are the children, of course and we can't have bishes slaughtering kids out here willy nilly. For reference, Dr K wasn't my sole source for interpreting the case Ana Pych video for a female psychologist's perspective: https://youtu.be/fyBRQURmdO8?si=uc6aezwHw-80Km0V Dr Joseph's video for an international psychiatrist's perspective on drug-induced psychosis: https://youtu.be/WUSH0D9LjSA?si=fpTuYhTfg8KJQZ6y

@Carl-Richard Absolutely, enjoy! https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbqYqSdsKV0/

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbR5AAqjV_0/

Not true. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLvEMEnuKxh/ Socionics, more accurately.

@Cathal What branch of Buddhism is your monastery? Are you familiar with other branches of Buddhism? What form(s) of meditation do you practice? Do other monks have different practices? Have you attained any refined states of concentration? and ... how are you accessing the forum? Do you have a mobile phone, or some kind of computer at the monastery? I have more questions but I think that's enough for now.

Gator wine

This reminds me of a YouTube lecture I watched some years ago on “genuine pretending” that @tsuki shared describing identity formation as an inherently paradoxical and incongruent process of performance and experience. It also described three main “technologies” of identity formation we have today and how they sit in a historical context, namely sincerity, authenticity and prolificity. I will try to describe the three in this vein with respect to dating, romance, and relationships, as you asked. The general premise was that all identity is essentially a performance, and that performance is a condition of identity itself. Whatever “sense of self” or identity you inhabit has to be performed in some manner in order to be socially perceptible, whether you are writing, speaking, moving, the clothes you wear, your hairstyle, the car you drive, etc… you are putting on an act to yourself and to the world. You may stop performing an identity or part of your identity you experience as false, but you cannot stop performing altogether; the performance morphs and changes as you move through your journey of life. There is a subtle sense this model of identity is insincere; however, it’s important to note that identity becomes genuine through it’s enactment. So being “genuine” isn’t some hidden source behind the act, rather, it is the effect produced by performing the identity well enough that it comes to feel real to oneself and to others with a sufficient level of congruity. Hence the phrase “genuine pretending”. This model of identity rejects the idea that we have a “real self” behind some curtain within us that we then act or express to the world and instead posits that we first act and express, generating experiences that we then either experience as genuine or false. If an act is experienced as false, we then adapt it to be experienced as something more genuine. The three “identity technologies” are different ways of organising this process, and none of them functions perfectly, as there is no way to construct a “right” identity, yet all of them somehow presume there is a perfect way to “be” in the world, as a person. When forming identity through the process of sincerity, it is organised through externally established social roles. This was far more normal in antiquity and is a normal process most people in both the East and West move through today as we grow up. It can be loosely correlated with stage blue on the spiral. The culture you live in, and its prescribed roles, are strictly adhered to; for example, you could be the town’s clergyman, a fisherman, a husband, a father, a man, a boy or some combination and there will be clearly defined modes of enactment prescribed to you by the culture. Sincerity demands commitment to roles. The external role is what’s REAL and your insides must back it up honestly, otherwise you are considered a dishonest fake. Traditional roles under this technology can feel natural or genuine, especially as they correspond to some natural order, for example women in their roles as nurturing mothers to children, men using their physical strength to tend fields, defend territory etc. Under sincerity, gender roles are assumed to be naturally correct; there is a “right” way to be a father, mother, daughter, husband, wife, etc. This results in the implication that if you are not fitting the roles correctly, it’s YOUR fault and the onus is on YOU to improve your performance to match your role(s). The pathology with this technology is that no man perfectly fits the idealised version of a man, or woman a woman and so on. Add in sexuality and things get worse because … WHAT ABOUT THE GAYS!? The rise of authenticity as an identity technology emerges as a result of these conflicts. Authenticity changes the direction from asking “what role am I supposed to inhabit?” to “Who am I really, underneath social expectations?” The implication being that there is a fully fledged, consistent and coherent true self is inside you, waiting to burst forth and impose itself on the world. With this comes the rise of individualism moving away from collectivist tendencies of various cultural norms. Many great works of fiction from the Romantic period idealise this way of thinking. The inherent flaw with authenticity is almost demands the pursuit of originality. The inside is REAL and the outside must be an accurate representation of it, otherwise, it is considered a hypocritical façade … you’re a super special *one of a kind* snowflake after all, and if you are not bringing the phreshness there’s something wrong with YOU; you’re not being your realest bestest truest self. Not real enough, not original enough, not unique enough etc. Romantic love is idealized under this model as the meeting of two unique inner souls, each of whom has shed their facades and is seen and loved by the other for who they really are, away from the ideals of love under sincerely constructed identities with clearly defined roles for husband, wife, courtship, gender roles, expected duties to one another etc. Prolificity emerges with the rise of social media, and roles as they exist in a technocratic society. Like sincerity, it relies heavily on something external to the individual. But the external reference is no longer a stable inherited role from a culture. It is a profile whose meaning depends upon how it is observed, evaluated and circulated within a social environment. A profile can be a literal social-media profile, but the concept is broader: it is a publicly legible representation of oneself constructed in anticipation of how others will view it. Like a forum post. Profilicity permits a much looser plurality, a person can have a linked in profile, a tinder profile, a professional persona, and various other pseudonymous identities without any requirement that all of them express one underlying fully formed unified self, they can be relatively independent identity formations. They can be much more dynamic, as contexts change, audiences change, evaluative criteria change, and there is a multiplicity of public spheres, as opposed to a single unified public sphere in the case of sincerity modes of being. Communication is different between each of these sphere’s and they function according to different rationales. An important aspect of profilicity is the notion of second order observation. Where you create a representation or expression of “yourself” to some profile, and you then join in with the general audience of that sphere to evaluate yourself. Shame can emerge from each of the three identity technologies when the inevitable incongruence and paradox of self generation meets itself. In sincerity, one can feel shame about not fitting a role correctly enough: I’m not a good man, good father, good wife, etc. In authenticity, I am not being myself enough; I am hiding my truest self, my true self isn’t enough in some way, or I am too cowardly to be my real self; under profilicity, I am not recognisable enough; how am I being seen? How do others see others seeing me? What do I look like to the relevant audience in the context of this profile, of all my profiles!? @eos_nyxia Taoism is indeed the way. Don’t hold any act of self too tightly, or it will enclose you in suffering.

It's a senior photo actually, my mistake. I must have had some sophisticated makeup on, because I had 11/10 "stay away from me" acne until my early 20's that is well hidden here.

10th grade was a dark time for me.

Nobody ever gives people like Daemon a pep talk; in fact, it's usually the opposite and most of their accomplishments are minimised. ): Plus, they are usually too busy to be giving out free one on one pep talks.