Friday, July 20, 2012

For Many People Labelled Schizophrenic

by Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic 
...Or some other version thereof, as well as a few other psychiatric labels often used.
In many cases, there is the presence of someone who has a “covert” agenda of domination going, or who is trying to “prove” his/her “superiority” to him/herself.
That person splits off from his own lack of SELF awareness, projects his split onto the other, then denies it. The other person is treated like an object, or non sentient being, to accommodate the Splitter's self delusion. The Splitter makes the other's “reality” FIT into the Splitter's neediness.
Splitters commonly create double binds for their targeted “inferiors” by denying the other's awareness of their splitting. It is actually the Splitter who is unaware of the contradiction in him/herself. The  splitter's target sees it as obvious but it is NOT obvious to the splitter, because the SPLITTER is the delusional point of origin, or “source,” of the problem.
Concrete example from real life:An eleven year old girl is placed in charge of her four and a half year old sister. They go outside together. The eleven year old, who used to throw temper tantrums when she could not get her own way, before that baby came along, is now, not getting the attention from the parents that she used to get, “because of HER.”
She is “just stupid,” she tells her friend from down the street. Watch, she says, I'll show you.
The eleven year old then tells the four and a half year old to go and sit on a spot on the back lawn and to wait there until she comes back to get her. I am just going around the front for a minute , she says.
So, the four year old does as he is told because she must.  Her mother has told her that she must do as the eleven year old says as she is in charge.
The eleven year old then walks with her friend to the side of the house, about ten feet away, turns and peeks back at the four year old from around the corner and says to her friend, also standing there, “look at her...see how stupid she is? She doesn't even get up when we leave.”[1]
The four year old is taking all of this in, looking right AT them and is confused by it all. What does the sister think she is doing. The four year old does not understand it. In fact, the four year old is having trouble making any sense of it.
The eleven year old notes the confusion on the younger one's face and says, “See? Look how confused she looks.- like she doesn't understand.”
The younger one then feels even MORE confused so she calls out, in her clearly distressed voice, to the older one, “why are you doing this to me”?
The older one sighs, then smiles, her eyes glowing with obvious amusement, and says she is ''not DOING anything.''
You see, the older sister is a self deluded splitter. What she means by “not doing anything” is that she is not doing anything, of which she has decided the younger one, upon whom she is PROJECTING her own split, could possibly be aware, or understand. In fact, the lack of awareness is the problem of the older one and not the younger one. At the time though NEITHER of the pair knows that, so the younger one tries to “make sense” of the SENSELESSNESS of the older one while the older one refuses, or simply does not see, the senselessness of her own thinking and behaviour. That is because the older one is operating from emotion, not logic.
The older one sees her senseless thinking and behaviour as “superior” to the younger one, who “can't make any sense of it” because the contradictory information, set up, and behaviour is OBVIOUS to a four year old. This is how ''reality” gets “transformed” into it's opposite, via metaphysical “magic” which also fools most of the third parties who get involved, and who don't understand it either.  They too look for ''reason'' where there is no reason (logic) in the first place. It's idiotic, but it is SO idiotic that the target of the TRULY ''stupid'' ones can't make sense of it. That of course, is because '''sense'' has nothing to do with it.
Though you may assume  that the obvious and the idiotic needs no in depth explanation, that is exactly what NEEDS to be explained, as it is the obvious that is being denied.
Those of us who see that, skip over ''explaining'' it too, since we believe there is no NEED to ''explain'' the obvious. After all, who needs to SAY, ''I can see you and hear you'' to someone who is six feet away? Who over the age of three does not know that? I will tell you who- it is the TRULY deluded ones, those who rarely get labelled or assessed, who think their idiocy is ''superiority.'' These are the ones who need to face reality.
They are also the ones who will fight us, and fight hard,  when we try to make them do it. You can count on it, because they are fighting VERY hard to AVOID becoming self aware, and to avoid accountability for their own stupid behaviour. Becoming self aware RUINS their ''superiority,'' and ''proving'' their ''superiority'' over others, to themselves, is the reason (purpose) they do, what they do, in the first place. The premise and the goal rest on the same point and creates a self serving tautology.
The only way they can be the ''winners'' in the ''game'' they are playing, in their own minds, is by remaining inside their own delusion. It does not occur to them that their ''winner/loser'' delusion IS the problem. They externalize that problem via denial, and Splitter projection. As the system likes to tell us; if you are REALLY crazy you don't know it.
Now, to see how splitters ''split the difference'' look back at the highlighted parts and understand that the splitters are deluding themselves that all of those pieces of information are being kept ''concealed'' from the ''inferior'' one they are testing, as the means of ''proving'' their superiority to themselves. Delusional ReversalNow when we on the receiving end of this ask the one doing it “why are you doing this to me” or “what are you doing”, or “what do you think you are doing”,  the one doing it won't tell us and often laughs while rolling his/her eyes up as they do it. Can you now figure out WHY we can't get a straight answer from any of them?
Let me help you with that. It is because the self deluded one is telling him/herself that I am too stupid to know that s/he is trying to get a distress reaction. S/he is also telling him/herself that it is OK because it is being done to the one s/he is doing it to, because that one “does not understand it.”  Can you HEAR that last bit? THAT is a true statement at the nexus of meaning. We are not asking them why they are telling us one thing, while saying, being or doing the opposite, though even when we do we won't get an answer to that either as the deluded ones can't really hear the QUESTION. What we are asking them most of the time is why they won't answer us or why they are trying to get a distress reaction.
The deluded ones hear those questions as signs of our stupidity. We don't understand that their little “game” doesn't really include us as anything more than props in their own fantasy world. We don't know you see, that they are getting a kind of rush out of causing distress for others.  This is the spirit of the bully and the spirit of a bully who manipulates others to co-operate with his/her HIDDEN agenda. We don't know that because we don't think like self deluded nuts.
Nevertheless we often are the ones who get labelled as the delusional ones BECAUSE it would not be “reasonable” for whole groups of people to get involved and act out the way we “say” they do.
QED: WE must be 'crazy' for seeing it, and experiencing it, so that whole groups of people WON'T be crazy for acting out that way. 
In order to get the “superior” sister to hear the question, the four year old would first have to know that the eleven year old is psychologically deaf to it, and would ALSO have to already know that she needed to define the “this” in the question, in pedantic detail, to even HOPE that any real communication would ever take place. She would also have to know that the eleven year old is really not interested at all in communication or how the four year olds feels.
This” means:
Why are you telling me to sit on a spot in the back yard and not move until you tell me I can? Why are you being duplicitous while looking so proud of it? Why are you then peeking out at me from  the side of the house, telling your friend that I am stupid and indicating that you are going to prove that, giving me your little test, trapping me in a psychological double bind, trying to get a distress reaction, abusing your power over me, talking ABOUT me, within hearing distance like I am not there, trying to make yourself feel “superior” for acting out like an idiot, and then calling the distress reaction you are obviously TRYING to get, a perception/reaction problem that I am having?
The four year old would then have to explain the behaviour of the eleven year old to the parents, get them to accept it as reality, which they won't, as it would not be reasonable for the eleven year old to do what the four year old “claims” she did and then listen to them explain it away, as a problem in the four year old most often defined as being “too sensitive.” Most often the four year old would be invalidated by describing her as “fabricating” the other's behaviour for the purpose of “seeking attention” while the eleven year old looked the four year old right in the eye and SMILED.
For you see, only the two of them would actually understand the truth of the situation and the eleven year old would then know she had  achieved domination over the four year old, and that the four year old knew it and also knew that the eleven year old knew that she did. Now that's “satisfaction” to junior sociopaths, isn't it?

One of the older images of the Devil and Hell is that of of a group of followers carrying pitch forks used as weapons. I am sure that imagery came out of the time period when farmers got together to hunt down people targeted as crazy, or evil, or as witches and took their pitch forks with them as part of the hunt.
Now, tell me again about the meaning of “realistic expectations.” WHOSE “expectations” are the most realistic in this kind of scenario? know, as an abstract theory, which all you expects can enjoy talking about in lecture halls etc. while finding everyone BUT you, so “fascinating.” 
Are you now having trouble keeping from ''laughing for no reason''? 
It might be a good idea to adopt splitter language and definitions as part of the strategy for those who projected upon, to break the cycle and escape the co dependent trap. The projectors are the Splitters, and those they project upon are the monophrenics, (single minded and aware) who are currently defined most often as the schizophrenics, or some version thereof, bi polars or personality disorders.

[1]  Psychological double bind. She must not move AND if she does not move she is just stupid.

No comments: