matrixmann | Madman

Entry tags:

Madman

What makes you a madman?
Does it make you one if you abandoned the hesitation to kill, to slit peoples' and animal throats, to survive, to have food or just to protect someone you hold dear?
Does it make you a madman if you feel no remorse, if you think that was right?
Does it make you a madman if you do that for money or on your own behalf?
Does it make you a madman if you call other humans "sheep"? If you dehumanize them and get your distance to judge them?
Does it make you a madman if you abandon emotions and if you regard everything through the lens of a rational mind?
Does it make you a madman if you decide to make decisions for others - what you think is best for them?
Does it make you a madman if you doubt the adulthood of the community?
Are you insane if you throw all that to their faces what they have suppressed just to buy a superficial hypocritical peace - that ends when all turn their backs on everyone?

Does it make you a madman if you cut the word "scum" into your arm and show it to the world like a trophy?
Does it make you a madman if you commit a crime while being intoxicated by psychosis and seeing stars?
Does it make you a madman if you kill someone while being in delusion and thinking you have seen Christ?
Does it make you a madman if you decide over the life of a few thousands through the wisp of a pen?
Does it make you a madman if you play with guns and feel joy with it?

Does it make you a madman if you jump off a skyscraper?
Does it make you a madman if you got blood on your hands and celebrate to not wash it away?
Does it make you a madman if you beat up the one who tortured you for your life?
Does it make you a madman if you know how to build explosives from simple household utensils?
Does it make you a madman if you consume culture and feel something totally different with it than the most?

Does it really need to be a butcher to be mad?
Does it really only need beastiality?
Does it really only need coldness and aloofness? Blood and guts?
Isn't it also madness if the mood of one can terrorize a whole area?

What qualifies you for the title?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

First thing that comes to mind is someone who can't control their anger is a madman.

Other than that, I think each person should refrain from violence as much as possible, but I agree that people see me as like a homeless guy type and potentially crazy. So, I see your point.

Still, it is good from our side to know what is considered normal by everyone else so that you don't end up too far from and even if you become a little far from it, you can still point to where normal is from where you currently are or even start walking towards normal so that you start appearing more and more normal to whoever is questioning you and then when they are no longer looking, you can start doing what you wanted to again.

I think it helped tremendously in keeping my job teaching by listening to this Dr. Laura show on the radio three hours a day. She had callers call in over and over and I started to realize that this was the way administrators and parents at schools use to screen whether I am crazy or not. So, when one of them checks on me to see if I'm normal, I use words like my responsibility, I know I was wrong to, but I am working towards, etc... People that are sociopathic can't do that and always just blame everything.

I am pretty sure I am mostly a responsible and moral person on my own, but it did help to learn the language of it. Don't go off on everything when someone is checking to see if you are normal.

It might help if you created a hobby or special interest to put all your anger and frustration into. Writing projects, reading projects, art projects, working to help others projects: this is the stuff the world understands. Those are mine though, there are others like making furniture, using your hands to build and repair things, making music etc...It also is sort of soothing to know that you have a point to potentially work towards and not just have to be at work and then play video games or whatever for hours until you have to go to work again.

I consider it an option to learn to not think too much with the rigth-side part of the brain.
Only who thinks in emotions has a lot of anger and is in the position of maybe losing control over it.

was thinking about what you said here. I guarantee most psychoanalysts, Freudian theorists, would interpret that as something that shows that you have an important trauma in your past that you never want to think about.

They'd want you to bring it to the conscious mind an deal with it. It means that you'd go through sort of a small trauma bringing it into your conscious mind and then you'd be free of it bothering you.

So there you go. Thought I'd point it out because if somehow it was correct, I'd have saved you a lot of suffering. It may not be correct, it doesn't seem to apply to me though therapists have been probing me for over a decade.

Well, let that psychologists talk. They don't have to live with it if you be emotional and this means killing people, trashing half of the town and somebody suddenly is rich out of the blue.
...Not that I wanted to indicate something about myself, just picking these three things as an example to demonstrate.

It would benefit you if they were somehow right though and they'd predict that you'd be hostile to their idea. You should at least consider it especially maybe a few weeks from now. They'd say that you consciously reject it strongly because there is a point to it and your psychical structure has been built, up until now, on rejecting evidence like this. So, it would be even more intense in rejecting it now.

It isn't always right,, but it would benefit you if it were. It has been right for many people. Thought I'd bring it up because it could potentially save you a lot of suffering

Let this be said: I know way more about psychology than my entries and comments might show. And I have sort of an eye for it.
You may be able to understand this without me saying much: One doesn't choose the path that the goes just for nothing. I know a lot of people do the stray stunt even though, but for me I think this isn't the thing I do anymore. In many ways I've sorted things in my personality.
I don't claim the mindset that I have is especially healthy, it might not even be a thing for everyone. For me it works and I find it's better than what I used to do before.

I can only say psychologists tell a lot, but that needn't always be the way for everyone to go to deal with himself. It might work for 99%, but 1% might not be able to discover what to do with the way they open up for you. That's where psychology even needs to stay dynamic - that's also the point why psychology as a science about human behavior and mental health also still keeps evolving and changing. You didn't develop forward if you have found the Holy Grail already, right?

If the question though is what is normal? The answer is that it is just what is considered to be acceptable behavior among a community of people and it usually has to do with whether someone is violent.

I meant to have that paragraph be about whether normal is what people think it is. People think normal is what is healthiest and even more so that God expects people to act that way. In that sense, you're right that there is no normal and it is subjective.

I would say though that it doesn't make a lot of sense to think that humans can live outside of a community. As a species, we are like bees in that the only reason we dominated the rest of nature is because of how we worked together. We are not like tigers that just stake out territory, like on their own, and kill.

We are like a lot of animals though and in some senses are like tigers and in some senses are not like bees.

My point though is that it is maybe an effect of how we are conditioned by society to think that an individual human can exist entirely outside of society at all.

For instance, children that are taken from their mothers or for some reason do not have a mother quickly die because humans are not supposed to be totally alone. Similarly, prisoners put in solitary confinement nearly all try to kill themselves.

We have an independent component, but it is not a good idea to have no contact with any other human. You will do very strange things and probably become addicted to some kind of drug.

It is a sort of play with what people regard as "being out of one's mind".
Lots of times it is connected to having a more releaxed relationship to blood and spilling blood.
All is just damned to be peaceful in human society, even if that's not possible, even if humans themselves don't behave this way from their own free will.
I find that thinking is pretty much twisted and one-sided.
There is no need for spilling blood just to do something inhuman.
A lot of today's cruel deeds actually are done on an office table. The execution in practive only then is a dirty one.
So that's then what leads me to comparing all these things...

Good point about things happening at an office table being worse than someone hitting someone else.

I think though that when a community, neighbors, or the authorities want to check to see whether you are mad or not, they are looking for you to admit that you know you are responsible for things and that up until now you have been somewhat lacking in some area and that you know you need to improve in someway.

That is what all the callers on the Dr. Laura show were told. That is what judges want to hear in court rooms. It is all of a piece. I can see why someone might say that it is a system of making people compliant and there might be more to it.

Michel Foucault, a French philosopher from the 1960s ad 70s, wrote a lot about the history of madness. I think he said that madness was acceptable up until a point in history when everything became much more organized. He pointed out that up until a certain point, people that heard voices were considered potentially divine like they were someone that might be hearing God's words, but then something substantially changed and that suddenly was an insane thing to think. What is odd though is the whole system is based on when initial people like Moses and Jesus did hear voices.

The Foucault book is called Madness and Civilization. Foucault loved Nietzsche a lot. You could just Google the book title and there will be lots of summaries of it.

Now that you name it... That was differently.
But also - you can say it was pretty ambivalent. You know, as they burned witches, people suspected of sorcery - in some parts of the world this still is a crime worth punishment! -, they may have also send people to death just because they were different from the average. And this may also include people who have a larger knowledge about something - obsession is a topic that people with mental deficits also have to deal with, depending on the person.
So - I don't know, it doesn't look that definite to me.

Buddhists say that you should learn how to control all your thoughts and emotions by meditating and slowly have your whole life be a kind of meditation. This makes the most sense to me, you are always in control if you just work on always being very calm no matter what is said or done to you externally.

On the other hand, you develop total no attachment and a lot of times people blame or get angry at someone because they want that person to be sort of imprisoned and caught in a weird relationship to them. So, they blame you, but know that by abusing you that you will stay and continue to let that happen. If you study Buddhism though, you can just leave that sort of person. It's the best way to deal with someone that tries to entrap you like that. No matter what the say, you just say nothing and as soon as you aren't required to be around them you don't come back.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Madman

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject