[continued from previous message]

This was part of his excellent grift. He was good, remarkably good,
but they all are, through the ages. Until they aren't.

I'm saying what I've discovered is that virtually all such people
are delusional, and that their "outsider" stance is usually quite >dysfunctional.

Would you call me dysfunctional? I am very highly functioning
regardles of my genetic and environmental legacies. I mix with the
best of them. I am very learned, fact, not fancy and not boasting.
Just reality. But I am not OF the best of them where "best" is a very
loosely defined word.

I am my own benchmark and my own performance indicator. Yet I'm a
true outlier to society. This is fact. You don't have enough
information to question this statement and I would recommend you
don't. I have the facts and I'm not willing to put them here on
display.

So I have long seen the advantages and disadvantages connected
with this manner of self-characterization, in many different ways
in many different situations, and to me, you guys sound mostly
trite and stupid when you talk about it. :) Why? Because I feel
I largely transcended any such generic viewpoints long ago.

Transcended? Long ago? Again, do you see what I mean?

I mean that I've seen through such stances time and time again.
Holding onto no such "identity" as being "an outsider or an insider"
affords me a greater flexibility and freedom.

You shouldn't have used the word "transcended". It's not appropriate.
You're no mystic. You're the opposite but in that regard you don't
have an extraordinary capacity for reason either.

Again, you need to dispel your self delusions before you can build
your true self.

In a way, everyone is an outsider, since we are all individuals
who face our own individual death, and NONE of us has anything
even close to control over the whole of society. Similarly,
almost everyone is also an insider, since almost all of us rely
upon the systems of society for our own survival and benefit,
whatever unusual viewpoints we may hold.

Not a rational argument, therefore not an argument. How does
knowledge that we must one day face extinction make anyone an
outsider? How can you say no one has anything even close to control
over the whole of society in the age of Putin, Erdogan and the other
dictators and big brothers of the world? And they are most decidedly
not outsiders.

No one is in control. Not even Putin. That we all must face death
alone makes us all in a sense permanently isolated. In the extreme,
it's 'us' against the world ('them') forever, for everyone alive.
But I'm not attached to that idea; I just tossed it out there. :)

But Mt Everest will die in some scores of millions of years. Some
seas and oceans will dry, others will merge, and some continents will
subsume and others will form and merge over the next half billion
years. In 5 billion years, the sun will start to turn into a brown
dwarf, of which there are billions already. The galaxies will move
futher apart over the next 100 billion years and over time
unimaginable, 10 ^ 100 or greater, even protons will decay.

Everything dies. So what? I don't feel "permanently isolated" because
of this because I've thought about personal death and its illusory
nature since I was a child. I'm in no sense isolated. How can I be?
I'm as part of nature and the universe and the cosmos as you are or
anyone else. I feel hugely part of something, an irreducible
component of something so vast it's beyond understanding.

Don't you? Or did you "just toss it out" as well?

I do not view any real-life issue exclusively as either an "insider"
or an "outsider". I stopped identifying with "us and them", although
when people band together AS a stereotype (such as "Republicans"),
it is all too easy to start seeing them as THEM. :)

You already said this.

The repetition was for emphasis.

Presume please that the written word does not need to be repeated.
Verbal I can understand, although I don't like to repeat myself. But
written? All we need to is re-read what's "historically archived" as
you put it :)

However, I prefer to look carefully at any specific situations
staying largely free of ANY prison of self-conception or
self-labeling such as taking an "insider" or "outsider"
perspective. I try to see the whole of any situation and try
to arrive at the best points of view while remaining free of
pre-established positions to come up with the best solutions
for the whole of humanity and for myself as an individual
(they're not always the same).

You are *in* a prison of your own self deception but you are possibly
the only one who cannot see it, or refuses to acknowledge it. The
prison walls are self-made, designed by your inner self to protect you
from hurt but in truth imprisoning you and fettering your ability to
be free.

Jesus. You're so full of shit. :)

No, it's true. To get this reaction means you *know* the truth.

In my opinion, if you haven't transcended labels like "insider"
and "outsider" by the time you're our age, then you have little
hope of ever seeing the complex reality of human social life
and existence. The day you guys say ONE thing that seems
profound about an "outsider", I'll be sure to let you know.

Slider kept using these labels and if I've used them, then it was for
expediency. I am what I am, said Popeye the sailor man. I don't need
labels, I'm living this life and I know who I am. If that falls into
someone else's construct they call an "outsider" then good for them.
It doesn't change a thing as far as I'm concerned.

Everyone is what they am and are what they is. :)
But what IS all that? There's the rub.

Yep, agreed. But it isn't "all that" - because we're all part of the
same thing. All of us and everything else. All the one thing.

And that's the second time you've used the word "transcended". That's
revealing. It's a parapraxis.

I repeated a word. Oh my god, call Freud.

I do believe conceptualizing oneself as an "outsider" and holding
onto that and wearing it like a badge IS an error best transcended.
That concept at various times became a significant issue in my life,
so it wasn't a "slip" - it was intentionally repeated for *emphasis*.

I don't wear anything as a badge because I truly don't give a fuck
what people think. I don't conceptualise either, it happens to be the
case, real life reality. I know myself, not completely, but I've made
a start. You haven't made a start and won't so long as you continue
to avoid the unavoidable and delude yourself.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

categories of autism. I may start quoting it.

Read the pdf I uploaded for you. DSM V gives a higher emphasis to
autism apparently. I've always been fascinated by autism spectrum
because it's highly functioning autistics who could be considered to
be real outsiders, outliers of the common herd.

For now, I merely invite you to consider two general ideas and how
they might interact/conflict:

1) creating a 'diagnosis' for anything out of the ordinary and
feeding people meds if they try to step outside any accepted paths.

2) The concept of 'neurodiversity' and the possibility that there
might actually be a very wide range of valid ways to be 'human'.

I agree with the general overmedication of society. I tend to think
of that as a result of the commercialisation of medicine, that doctors
are entering the profession in order simply to make money rather than
help people. A function of public medicine if you like, where
turnover of patients means more revenue and the way to turnover
patients is to minimise diagnosis to the bare bones and medicate with antidepressants, anti-ADHH stimulants and anti-psychotics - along with
mundane benzodiazepams like valium and temazepam and all the
other-pams, and sleeping pills.

Yep, I was already a convert to this way of thought. I don't even
take aspirin or painkillers let alone mind altering drugs. Fuck that.

And yes, there is a very wide spectrum in which people are not only
human (you used that word incorrectly, we are all human, ill or not)
but also highly functioning without causing harm to others.

Another way to look at it is as a conspiracy to hammer the square pegs
into round holes using whatever means are necessary including meds. I
do not agree however that DSM V is a part of that conspiracy. Society
at large is the conspiracy - why is not KFC and Big Mac outlawed, why
can we still buy tobacco and alcohol, why was marijuana a class A drug
which therefore prohibited research for decades, why are people still
executed in Indonesia for trafficking marijuana, why does the US
permit its protectorate, the Phillipines, to allow mass murder by
Duterte?

Society is the culprit, not DSM V.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)