Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Mirroring and Why You Can't Help It


behavioralist

Recommended Posts

Is it in fact indisputable that if/where (“where” in your mind; considering that the observer is not representing the whole mind) an effort of mine to deceive you employing an impersonation of a “me” that you find agreeable or tolerable actually succeeds, then I have achieved the privacy of who I really am?

To reiterate: If I fool you that I am a good or fair (or even borderline legal) kind of person when I am in fact quite insufferable, then this insufferable person I am is my own private knowledge, don’t you agree?

Now, that social trickery accomplished, how would it become manifest as mirroring in you? I have achieved privacy of who I really am, right under your nose, and how do you mirror that (if mirroring is real, which we will get into further along)?

Privacy is an emotional state, solitude motivated by opportunism: whre because I am alone in knowing what I am up to I can think of things to get up to and how to dissemble or hide the actions and intent. If you mirror my privacy your reflection of it then becomes your privacy.

It’s ironic that you get your privacy because your mind (not your conscious, which was as perfectly credulous as your programmers intended) found it in me, or more specifically derived it from your subconscious perception of my behavior and its contradictions.

Can you resist this mirroring? You are a good person, let’s say, who wants to do the right thing in relationship, and I seem like a good fellow, so you don’t want to succumb to this maverick policy of privacy and opportunism. The dignity of who (I want to abolish the word whom since its only use is abuse) I appear to be makes it perverse, right?

At some point in your life you had never done so, and however vast your store of deflective data and imagery at that time, it had not acquired a resident observer/ thinker, so that what was “you” was as rooted to the present as light. So this was a critical point, a “trigger event” that sent you into thought or the adult conscious state the way something sets off a sociopath’s killing spree in “Criminal Minds” (an FBI-fantasy television series) psychology.

Since adults are authority the adult state is not a crisis but an accomplishment. Ego means to rely on appearances, which tell you that you are not a mirror, and so you must be what you wanted to become and not a poor copy of deviltry already done to you but cloaked. Stockholm syndrome: the hostage has always wanted an assault rifle and a phalanx of cops to gun down.

Perception and the evolution of the form are parallel, so that no form evolves without the perception being abreast of it. Form testifies exactly to the perception it embodies, and the perception will always be showing in the form. No one can perceive a living form and not perceive its perception. The one bird does not evolve on its own but in concert with the surrounding species. In other words, the organism can’t fool the perception, because the one is a perpetual reflection of the other ---making the present safe as houses.

If we examine this in detail it is observer-free, devoid of the very phenomenon “observer”. This bird perceives that bird, but what is there about that bird that is to be perceiving it? It is perception! One Perceives the other's perception, which means there is no fact, no knowledge, no idea, no utility.... It's either a collision or they belong together.

Let’s say I invent a video-game where you have to drive the car through a maze of obstacles at your best speed, but I do not make the obstacles solid in the game. Now I have two kinds of players: those who don’t avoid the obstacles and those who do, and any alloying of the two types. Do I have to play with them to find out which way they play?

Why are all those obstacles there? To make it interesting! Can I tell who wouldn’t care if it is interesting or not? Now compound this problem to where you are one of the obstacles and going through you does real harm to you. Can you tell when someone won’t go right on through you? ---or any smaller sign of contempt?

Each bird can tell that the other has always been very interested, that evolution has never produced a situation that was too complicated to grip in every detail, and their interests merge spontaneously into one. And this is how normal small children play, children who are not being coached. Their merged perception has found four feet to work, like a hundred bees making one seamless wall as a single superbee mind.

Bees and small kids do not trust each other, because evolution has never before brought up the issue of duplicity. They do not say, “But I don’t want to be him!”, because they do want to be him just as much. Only duplicity separates us into classes of unsavoryness or insipidity. You don’t love someone you don’t want to be. The difference between me and another living entity is I can’t be the other. Any other is a whole other evolution. Evolving wings, for example, is not like riding a bicycle, but is being universally welcome in the air.

One has to be aware that the problems of perception are not simple like thinking: these people handled this way get me the reward. The original mind has relationships and evolution as its goals. These goals are only reached together, and not by joining forces but by being nothing that has not conflated into one action, reserving nothing from each other’s vulnerability of finding out who we really are. I put all of me into another and there is no division: he is in there and I am there. And he has done the same to me at the same moment. We are one, despite that neither of us can be the other. Innocence is someone sweet to be surrendering to utterly, and can even be prey surrendering to predators.

I am aware of me; imagine if I were less aware of another! How would that be “aware” of that other? Is being a higher plane of awareness than perceiving? And in full awareness, how would I keep the two separated if they are on the same plane of awareness, and why? Can I really reserve a Place to be that keeps out what I perceive? And how is another innocence going to get me into trouble; A Child or bird sees nothing more in this conflation than pure fun! Life was so simple before it became really simple.

What the other organism in relationship is and does shows up in the mind, but not in the conscious. By nature, which can’t stop being transparent or wishing to be fully understood, this is flawless vulnerability. Nature can’t conceive of exculpatory evidence or argument. Everything is contest, which means form decides; and where form decides the mind must be an exact reflection. As a natural consequence you can’t stop yourself from finding out everything about me (if we are natural entities), which only becomes inconvenient with human experience; an inconvenience we are all programmed to deal harshly with (as authority over the perceptive; the known supervising the gradual disposal of attention to the real) so that now when you are programmed you can only find out something about me: the amount you mirror.

And you can’t become conscious of having found it out, so there is no fun in mirroring. To find others as others is the fun of the mind, like upgrading from campfire storytellers to 3D movies. You do not have the option to not mirror, and so your options are to perceive or to mirror, one good option and one moronic one.

Conditioning means there is an introduced attribute of the mind, the conscious activity, which supersedes the mind and explains it away so that the conscious may uphold its conclusion that the mind is itself private, and not just the thinking. All adults behave as if this observer reigned over the mind itself rather than over an aggregate of deflections and distractions, and that the mind as it is is “impossible” or “an empty void” (so that the supervisor of the child is everything and the child is nothing except what it has gleaned from the supervisor).

Mirroring, then, is a vestige of this absolute vulnerability to each other’s presence coexisting with the deflective reasoning programmed into conscious on the terms dictated by that reasoning, which is that any emotion is as private as any thought. The emotion is inescapable, and so it has to be presumed private, self-generated, otherwise the thinking becomes an exercise in futility; what does how to appear matter where everything is simultaneously being perceived as it is?

The conscious is a petty frail soldier in a war against the very correct and invincible monster Subconscious! ---or "Karma's a b****!"

If I can stoop lower than you can, then your version of the social defalcation we are sharing when we meet is minor in comparison, but still founded upon the same emotion. If I was stabbing siblings in the back at seven, serving them up to an abusive father on a platter along with a ready pretext in the form of planted evidence and false testimony, then when I look at you with "concealed" contempt you start seeing me with mirrored contempt (but your conscious sees someone deserving to get past without a confrontation; that's the "concealed" part), but are you really as dangerous a customer as thiis me, or are you honing a mere pen-knife for a battle you have not seen coming or already lost in junior high? And does your contempt lack that same stature as an emotion, so that in mirroring it into the conscious you have stopped the consummation of perception which is my contempt irrevocably discovered?

See how discovering my actual contempt in the moment of passing explains for you my relationship to my family, and how it has actually benefited me economically since, explaining my whole life faster than a one kilobyte file switching discs. That is an animal finding another animal. (And it's a bad animal; a good one is exponentailly more profound; actual nirvana.)

One inference is that your trigger-event, the first time you decided to take the duplicitous route to something with someone who “appeared quite decent”, was unavoidable. You either had to get away from that person or you had to tumble into mirroring him or her. There was no “decent relationship” awaiting you in that relationship. It could not hang upon the one person, you, falling into the other person’s trap. One has to mirror what one can’t grasp when one tries to bond (supervision is not bonding, so if parent or teacher and child bond something more adult-oriented has passed between them), and people are worse at grasping than chimps are since people are totally and complacently convinced they have grasped it: the other guy is as decent as he appears to be.

Taking mirroring a step further into the truth of society: what is envy? Let’s say you are not wealthy, for example, and there is a fellow there with something you will probably never afford in your life. You get this feeling, envy. How can that be mirroring? Unless wealth is nothing more than having more of your time wasted by more preposterous things!

Evolution has not taken an interest, and no matter how we decay (or imbibe) we can still feel it frustrated by being kept out of the loop by programmed pursuits. The less time we devote to Product and service the more time we devote to the loop, which retards the dwindling of the vestige of animal scope of interest, the ability to be welcome as one is, to find the natural habitat opening up to one. (So it's actually science that "the best stuff is free".)

And jealousy as the mirror-effect (mirroring being at the other end of “the observer effect”)? Have you ever had a “sexy soul-mate” who became a mere person to you due to over-familiarity? It is true that one can have sex with a mere person, which all consciously sexy people count on if they want to settle down. That "mere person", however, has more fun with people who are not familiar, more fun inventing him/her-self again, just as the preposterous possession is more fun while you are not familiar with it.

So in jealousy, the actual moment of the emotion, you are mirroring the awareness that the appeal is invented and the mere person is also never really settled down to a mere realtionship. If you do not mirror, but let it consummate away from your conscious, what you learn about the couple is of Epic proportions.

A girl sipping tea across from me has hidden her pores and complexion-flaws, the shape of her head, her height and her length of leg, her body-hairs, etc., not to mention her past and her true anticipations; basically no girl there, and she tells me I’m afraid to commit! “I double-dare you to step over this line!” “You don’t have the balls to inhale that!” God, we’re easy!

Society is founded upon the “You don’t want to make the product or be the service, but you do want the money so you have no choice!” -paradigm; and the upshot of that is that when you have the product or service it slowly dawns on you that it was a waste of time waiting for that fact to dawn on you; that the system “Gotcha!”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

TL;DR, but I did spot this:

.. I am in fact quite insufferable, then this insufferable person I am is my own private knowledge, don’t you agree?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe others just might have incorporated it into their knowledge...

You might be surprised just how perceptive some folks are, even if they don't live in a thesaurus and scramble their innumerable sentences beyond recognition.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read quite a bit of it, until the convoluted grammar and repetition got to me.

I tend to think this long posting may be part of some abstract trolling. Your last line sums that up nicely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like some high school level philosophy class stuff.

Presenting an idea then rewording it in different ways over and over again to fill space.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it in fact indisputable that if/where (“where” in your mind; considering that the observer is not representing the whole mind) an effort of mine to deceive you employing an impersonation of a “me” that you find agreeable or tolerable actually succeeds, then I have achieved the privacy of who I really am?

To reiterate: If I fool you that I am a good or fair (or even borderline legal) kind of person when I am in fact quite insufferable, then this insufferable person I am is my own private knowledge, don’t you agree?

Now, that social trickery accomplished, how would it become manifest as mirroring in you? I have achieved privacy of who I really am, right under your nose, and how do you mirror that (if mirroring is real, which we will get into further along)?

Privacy is an emotional state, solitude motivated by opportunism: whre because I am alone in knowing what I am up to I can think of things to get up to and how to dissemble or hide the actions and intent. If you mirror my privacy your reflection of it then becomes your privacy.

What you propose is not mirroring.

Mirroring occurs when the 'mirror' perceives what is being mirrored, but you have stipulated privacy in the hidden aspect - which prevents perception and so prevents mirroring. Privacy, and what is private, cannot be mirrored. Only if what the person thinks is hidden is not really, can mirroring occur - i.e. the deception must be obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have just said. People will mirror the behaviour of others to avoid showing their own true personalities as they wish to keep them private because they believe others may not like who they really are.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you propose is not mirroring.

Mirroring occurs when the 'mirror' perceives what is being mirrored, but you have stipulated privacy in the hidden aspect - which prevents perception and so prevents mirroring. Privacy, and what is private, cannot be mirrored. Only if what the person thinks is hidden is not really, can mirroring occur - i.e. the deception must be obvious.

Mirroring occurs whenever we are not grasping what relationship we are participating in. The thing we feel like doing is not represented in the other's demeanor, and so it feels original and we must be told by someone that we are under the spell of the mirror-effect.

No human being, or chimp, has ever grasped what relationship he is participating in with an adult human being.

Your version dismisses that perception is subconscious. Even the Child who is a perfect mirror of his father is not conscious of his father being the original iteration. No one has ever perceived what he is getting into with an adult human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have just said. People will mirror the behaviour of others to avoid showing their own true personalities as they wish to keep them private because they believe others may not like who they really are.

"May not like" is not what they Think. There is no opportunity for gaining ground you are not welcome to in being transparent. People will not merely dislike being duped into serving a role they feel to be quite a long way beneath them. They will literally vomit!

And the conscious is not mirroring people in the sense described here. It is trying to fit in, assuming that what it sees is real while what it conjures for others to see is affected.

This is being duped into duping something that isn't there (affected), which is that the conscious is alive only in its own estimate, not qualifying as entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mirroring occurs whenever we are not grasping what relationship we are participating in. The thing we feel like doing is not represented in the other's demeanor, and so it feels original and we must be told by someone that we are under the spell of the mirror-effect.

No human being, or chimp, has ever grasped what relationship he is participating in with an adult human being.

Your version dismisses that perception is subconscious. Even the Child who is a perfect mirror of his father is not conscious of his father being the original iteration. No one has ever perceived what he is getting into with an adult human being.

Mirroring is a behaviour recognised in psychology - and has nothing to do with what you are on about. It is common among people familiar with each other.

Whatever you are attempting to explain, it is not mirroring.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got as far as concluding that you are a pompous ass. I could be wrong, but upon that 'enlightenment' I see no reason to even try to decipher the quagmire of your vocabulary. Therefore, I could care less what you think or don't think. I might care one way or the other if you knew how to have a general conversation with real people. There are already too many people on this forum who, for some reason, fail to see the importance of taking all of their medication. I can only conclude that you are one of those people. :yes:

So it's the fret-finger problem? Morphine? You should never assume it impresses people to see you're trying to be a musician, since the sucess rate is all on the side of those Selling the instruments. Fish! is what it Projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's the fret-finger problem? Morphine? You should never assume it impresses people to see you're trying to be a musician, since the sucess rate is all on the side of those Selling the instruments. Fish! is what it Projects.

Thank you for your kind words. You are indeed a treasure in the great store house of the ultimately forgotten...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"May not like" is not what they Think. There is no opportunity for gaining ground you are not welcome to in being transparent. People will not merely dislike being duped into serving a role they feel to be quite a long way beneath them. They will literally vomit!

And the conscious is not mirroring people in the sense described here. It is trying to fit in, assuming that what it sees is real while what it conjures for others to see is affected.

This is being duped into duping something that isn't there (affected), which is that the conscious is alive only in its own estimate, not qualifying as entity.

You seem to believe that people who mirror have an ulterior motive and are "conning" others. I think it is more likely they are insecure and not willing to share too much of themselves with a world they have no reason to trust at face value - pardon the pun.

Edit to add: anyone who will "literally vomit" is suffering an obsessive disorder or severe panic attacks - I have never seen anyone who has been challenged "vomit" because they have been shown as a "lesser being" (in their own mind) in any manner or for any social reason outside of substance abuse at all in fact. So in saying "they" - do you really mean YOU?

Edited by libstaK
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to believe that people who mirror have an ulterior motive and are "conning" others. I think it is more likely they are insecure and not willing to share too much of themselves with a world they have no reason to trust at face value - pardon the pun.

Edit to add: anyone who will "literally vomit" is suffering an obsessive disorder or severe panic attacks - I have never seen anyone who has been challenged "vomit" because they have been shown as a "lesser being" (in their own mind) in any manner or for any social reason outside of substance abuse at all in fact. So in saying "they" - do you really mean YOU?

Wouldn't that be mirroring? lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind words. You are indeed a treasure in the great store house of the ultimately forgotten...

Kind Words? I have not even devolved to your own vernacular, which would only be kindness, wouldn't it? I can't understand why you are haunting a psychology forum?

And being remembered is being forgotten, while being forgotten is having made a difference without deffelcting it with something to remember. All nature is forgotten, which is why it evolves instead of obsesses.

And I mean no censure. Your participation as it is is better than your agreement could be. I don't reply to be polite but because I become stimulated by how the conscious, something I don't posess myself, challenges a specific perception.

Edited by behavioralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to believe that people who mirror have an ulterior motive and are "conning" others. I think it is more likely they are insecure and not willing to share too much of themselves with a world they have no reason to trust at face value - pardon the pun.

Edit to add: anyone who will "literally vomit" is suffering an obsessive disorder or severe panic attacks - I have never seen anyone who has been challenged "vomit" because they have been shown as a "lesser being" (in their own mind) in any manner or for any social reason outside of substance abuse at all in fact. So in saying "they" - do you really mean YOU?

You are still floundering under the delusion that you have been outside the sea of credulousness at some time. You have never been there, or "here" if you like, but that seems to be asking to be belived which I never intentionally do since a believer has decided not to follow your work but just to nod at it like a Catholic passing an altar.

And the conscious is not a lesser being, but the idea of being reflecting the idea that memory holds the beings people, and it is where to find them and process how to deal with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind Words? I have not even devolved to your own vernacular, which would only be kindness, wouldn't it? I can't understand why you are haunting a psychology forum?

And being remembered is being forgotten, while being forgotten is having made a difference without deffelcting it with something to remember. All nature is forgotten, which is why it evolves instead of obsesses.

And I mean no censure. Your participation as it is is better than your agreement could be. I don't reply to be polite but because I become stimulated by how the conscious, something I don't posess myself, challenges a specific perception.

muddeep_zps0204e2fd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

It's a bird! It's plane!... It's a sociopath!

Reading you got me incredibly p***ed, then I thought to myself "why would you be p***ed over this? are you jealous of him and his effortless ability to writte?" Then the switch went on. I'm a co-dependant, I empathize for a living, but I can't with you, that's why I was so mad.

Your writting is devoided of any emotional context, cause you weren't feeling anything while doing it... or before.... or afterwards. You talk about evolution like is your religion and make statements out of your personal opinion. Like someone said before, you could've summed up all in one single sentence.

With that being said... you could just be mirroring one. lol

Edited by paranoir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more interesting when I don't mirror someone. It seems to confuse people and puts them on edge. They can't grasp who or what I am or what I'm about. I find in situations where I need to have the upper hand, no facial expressions and no body language puts me in the superior position in the relationship.

Sometimes we need to take control of a situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.