Not trying to be a Narcissist -

 

 Not trying to be a narcissist 

Every book written so far is not always about me. Although it may appear to be the case in some instances, what I write about and what I should be telling in the story is mainly based on things, events or people around me. So indirectly, it is still a little about me but not as much as you might have thought before I wrote this paragraph and a small piece to explain myself a little.

If I were to write about myself all the time, I would come across as being the somewhat the narcissistic type and that would not be the message I wanted to project or tell my stories. Having said this, I want to confess that most of the stories written about the things that have happened in my life are memoirs of real-life events and we know that confessions are good for the soul as it allows you to tackle and deal with the realities of the past and present to improve the future.

It is a fact, I never considered myself to be an author, short story writer or even a journalist in some ways. I have no ‘signature assignments’ to brag about and when asked why I write, I simply answer that it does my soul good to let it all hang out there and express myself freely and without restrictions.

Sometimes, I write about secrets and other times I write essays or memoirs that played an important part of my life and somehow shaped my present status and future blessings (if that be the case) bestowed by my efforts to communicate my feelings.,

It is tempting to stop writing about me and dismiss the profile some may gather that I love myself so much, I have become one of a run-of-the-mill narcissist who writes misguided stories. As a reader, you might want to grab me by the throat and choke me and persuade me to stop screwing around and be serious about my writings.

The problem is not what you think about my writings but what I think they are about and what value they have for me. I can only hope that you give me a chance to take the time to be more generous with your interpretations of my words and feelings and shape them into a sentence or thought – not a symptom of a sickness of the profile.

In a way, I know that in some cases, I am part of the problem. I refuse to focus or dwell on things because they often don’t mean that much to me as they do to you as the reader and there we miss the opportunity to connect. That is my fault and I accept blame for that. I never tried to exploit every last tawdry detail and twist of my life and maybe I should.

Your takeaway as the book’s editor or agent for the reader is important. With me sharing the book or story with you reveals my internal traumas or spirituality. Hence, I gave away the control to manage the story by making you more knowable and informed of what I included in my confessional essay or attention grabber that includes some negativeness for the same effect.

Here is the demoralizing truth – there seems to be a huge attraction for first-person stories on the web. Whether they are low-brow publications or high-class cataloged high fashion selections, there are magazines out there that publish them with an abundance of appetite to reveal the intimacy of people famous nor not. It's like an attention   addiction. Some mix it with voyeurism and a little desperation while others stick to the facts. In the long run, they are short lived. This makes writing a demeaning game and with bad endings.

One is best to stay away from such tactics and focus on the realities that they should only offer insights and expertise based on their good and bad experiences and be honest about it.

Writing about things in your life does not have to be extraordinarily interesting or exciting because in all realities of our own world, there are billions of people who do not live interesting lives and with you telling the story, you may, in fact, make them realize that somehow, living an ordinary life is not a bad thing to experience.

Living with Mental Conflicts - Real, pathological or Deceptive?

Living with Mental Conflicts 

 

Full Definition of conflict

• 1 : fight, battle, war <an armed conflict>
• 2 a : competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b : mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.

          It would be reasonable to assume that living with a mental conflict within yourself would be an undesirable trait to possess. Some would argue that it at its worst, a form of being pathologically disturbed in nature or manner. Others insist that having such conflicts inside the mind leads to episodes of repression of the realities we either deal with or the occasions where we have dealt with it.

As far as theories go, it is the Freudian theory that is going with the repression and purposeful denial aspect with dealing in the realities of life. Some would go as far as saying that those qualities are epitomized in the mental illness diagnosis of schizophrenia understood to be a “split personality” caused by “double binds” resulting from conflicting or differing types of communications, the jarring of a person’s cognitive skills or the experience of having contradictory or mixed emotions.

Under the pretense of understanding this concept that “conventionally speaking, having a mental conflict has been regarded as at best, a precious possession of human emotions.” The root of this kind of thinking was the assumption that the mind—and indeed the integral parts of our brain —functions, or ought to function, as an integrated system without internal contradictions or disharmony. This is where the main differences lie in both theories.

The conscious-self, in particular, was assumed to be a single, simple entity, with any deviation from its intrinsic harmony and cohesiveness being self-evidently pathological. Putting this in content of context of everyday life, we generally agree that as a human being, we experience togetherness, harmonic relationships, and some level of self-integrity which are important and sometimes conflicting or confusing to other people’s perceptions and confidence in you and how you rationalize and behave most of the time.

Certainly, we can see how this perception can change how people trust your judgment and character as your ‘image’ when seen by others, should ideally be consistent, credible and certain one which possesses self-confidence. In other words, it is all about the image you project that makes people feel good or bad about you.

Your own personal consciousness is important and therefore, there are efforts to keep your private part of your life not be part of your professional life. This separation of deliberate consciousness awareness leads to an interesting point that you might want your professional life be ignorant of your personal life to avoid dealing with integrity or wrong-doings in your life. Some may call it denial while others just plainly call it being ignorant. What it really amounts to is a shielding of a personal side of your life compared to your professional side.

According to Robert Trivers, such “concerns with personal public relations throw an interesting evolutionary light on consciousness.” Trivers “argues consciousness evolved to fool itself all the better to fool others.” He concludes: “The mind must be structured in a very complex fashion, repeatedly split into public and private portions, with complicated interactions between the subsections.” I am sure you can see how this facilitates the art of deception.

I am also certain how this changes the perception of being straightforward or honest with others as this kind of behavior is anything but an integrated manner of thinking or acting as a genuine and sincere person. What it does is illustrate the importance of how you are self-seen in a social setting and comparing yourself to others.

Contrary to a Freudian theory, the difference seen is that this kind of behavior is used as a repressive tool as well as a defensive mode that is motivated to ward off inner-conflicts, confusion and stress or anxiety. Contrary to Triver’s theory that this is a primary function of the self-seen deception mode which is offensive in nature and evolved as a meant to resist stress and used for survival purposes.

Looking at this as a means to camouflage your real emotions, what you are really dealing with is an act or purpose to deceive others or distract them from the real persona inside you. Whatever the imagined reason, purpose or motivation may be, the result is the same for both Freud and Trivers: compromised consciousness and a divided self, with serious, deleterious consequences for the individual and for their peace of mind.