These are strange times. My intellectual grasp of the interconnectedness of the world is at peak form even if I do not hold an emotional state toward others living on this earth. Cognitively, I realize that every action I take affects someone else in some fashion and that every action another takes may affect me. In this sense, the grand dance that is life is slowly being revealed to me. What will eventually come my way from such a focus on the intertwined nature of life is yet to be seen. I do not believe in karma, but I do believe that if one seeks to be part of the world, they must respect the world. By respect, I mean that the individual must realize that others have their own unique positions in life and that they exist separate from the observer’s point of view. There are times in which my selfishness and callousness shines through, but by and large, I am morphing into a new being. This is no accident. Months and years of meditating upon my place in the world have brought me to this point and a lesser mind certainly would not reach the same conclusions that I have. These are strange times indeed.
It’s been a bit since the United Kingdom voted, democratically, to leave the European Union. Whether they actually do or not, given that the Europeans practice a bit of “democracy when convenient”, is irrelevant, though amusing to me. The philosophical question is one that was theoretically answered by the U.K. population: who owns the right to self-determination? In my belief – and I hope with yours as well – it is ultimately the people that give the government power to determine the governed’s fate. That is, the ultimate power resides within each and every individual that a democratic government derives its power from. This concept of being able to chart one’s own destiny, is ultimately what brings me to this post. The punchline may be the same, but I hope this connection to real life sheds some insight as to who ultimately holds the authority in our separate lives: the individual.
My continued evolution mirrors those that go to fetch water. At first, an individual will satisfy his own needs, and gather water from the well with his hands. He will be quenched, though he has no way to avoid going to the well in the future, as he has no way to retain the water he scoops up. He then returns with a canteen, satisfying his needs for a longer time and allowing for the storage of a sufficient amount of water. Finally, he returns with both canteen and pail, so that his needs are satisfied as well as those around him; he can return to others with the pail of water and continue his journey with the filled canteen. As an antisocial individual, I first obtained my necessities by deceit, considering only the moment when acting. I later learned measured restraint, finding ways to keep my needs met beyond the moment – ignoring derailing impulsivity for the moment – and was satisfied longer. Now, I am starting to learn to meet my needs in conjunction or in harmony with the needs of others. It may not be an automatic consideration, just as one fetching water may need to provide the pail himself, but the end result is all the same. What was once simplistic and only quenching in the moment is slowly evolving into a lifelong struggle to satisfy the needs of all. This weighs heavily on my mind as I continue to dwell on the nature of interpersonal relationships.
The liberal concept that everyone is deserving of, and capable of, love is laughable to me. Love is little more than a chemical reaction to shared interests and other commonalities. People describe a burning desire to the see the other person succeed as well as an emotional state that renders them vulnerable and blinded. Often logic gets thrown to wind as individuals in love succumb to emotional decisions rather than rational ones. In general, the psychopath experiences none of this, and if he does, it is exceedingly rare and usually with “less” disordered individuals. This point has been explored thoroughly in this blog and I will not revisit the topic in depth here. What I wish to focus on in this post is the concept of loveability, the state of having others love a person. Liberal voices decry the proposition that there exist those that are unlovable. While it may be true that there is some probability close to 1 that someone on this earth may be compatible with a person, the logistics of finding such an individual are often negligible. Just as the left tries to sweep the concept of antisocial personalities under the rug, they try to give false hope to many that simply will never see the love of another.
The question of disclosure has been weighing on my mind heavily as of late. Under what circumstances should a psychopath or otherwise antisocial disclose their status and to whom? I already see my antisocial readers rolling their eyes as they read these words. “No true antisocial would reveal themselves,” they probably are thinking. I certainly can understand that as the degree of disorder rises, the inclination to disclose weakens. However, I do believe that there are matters that affect psychopaths that today’s zeitgeist of being “more antisocial than thou” silence. I have reason to believe that I am not the only antisocial individual that seeks a bond with the world. I also have reason to think that a level playing field is agreeable to many antisocials. The reasons may vary, but ultimately there are legitimate thoughts that would lead to disclosure. The reception may – at this stage of human progress – be chilling and unilaterally hostile, with some exceptions, but this is part of the calculus that any antisocial must perform when determining how he wishes to relate to another human being. I encourage all of my readers to put down their preconceptions and defenses for a moment and examine the charged subject of disclosure.