Positive Dissociation?

[agni]

Hi girls & guys !

Thank you all for the thoughts on this.

[quote author=Jerry]Dissociation generally means a temporary forgetting of oneself, as when engrossed in a movie, or daydreaming. Your description of how you associate with a warrior is more like an approach toward life, which seems to me different.

A warrior lives as one who may die at any time, so every moment becomes vitally important and not to be wasted. This could very well lead to consistently remembering oneself, thereby reducing dissociative behavior. [/quote]

Very well put Jerry. Very clear. I've already read The Myth of Sanity, but some things remained unclear to me. I've questioned my understanding of dissociation, got somewhat suspicious why do I require an image of warrior to do these things, instead of real me doing these things. Next question was "Real who", I was not able to answer that one.

After you guys & girls shared your understanding, it became more clear that such tools can be necessary.

[quote author=Gertrudes] I also think that associating yourself to a worrier and acting as one as you've described it, can be a useful tool for self growth and even self knowledge. I sometimes experiment associating myself and behaving like a certain character or personality type that I think can be useful to a particular situation. I find that by doing so, the exercise brings out parts in my that I wouldn't normally manifest. Parts that I would otherwise believe as non existent. They are still parts, and they are my parts, but how can we really know who "I" is if we don't acknowledge all the parts?
We grow attached to a certain personality and we believe that is who we are, whilst in reality, there is often a world of potential hiding underneath the surface.[/quote]

Gertrudes, that makes sense. It does sound like a tool for self discovery. It's like writing your own program on the machine, with a difference you are familiar with it's purpose. It's difficult to know or understand what hasn't been experienced. It helps to exercise the will as well. .

Emergence of the unseen parts did not cross my mind. Not surprised though, arrogance of machine assumes it's aware of all of the parts.

[quote author=Guardian]Wonder Woman has been my Shero for as long as I can remember, and my parents definitely encouraged the addiction...[/quote]

Consider yourself lucky. It could have been Hanna Montana or something ;)

 

[Guardian]

[quote author=Guardian]Wonder Woman has been my Shero for as long as I can remember, and my parents definitely encouraged the addiction...

Consider yourself lucky. It could have been Hanna Montana or something ;)
[/quote]

Not likely...you don't want to know what I did with my Barbi doll :P

 

[truth seeker]

[quote author=Guardian]Wonder Woman has been my Shero for as long as I can remember, and my parents definitely encouraged the addiction...

Consider yourself lucky. It could have been Hanna Montana or something ;)

Not likely...you don't want to know what I did with my Barbi doll :P
[/quote]

I seem to remember something about a doorstop...

I didn't realize they had a new superfriends movie out. I grew up watching the cartoon series.

 

[Buddy]

In my younger days I went through a comic book phase where I was practically entranced by the artwork, but mainly I was a mystery reader and sci-fi nut. I read Sherlock Holmes, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Ellery Queen and something else I don't remember at the moment.

In the sci-fi genre, I was thrilled by Asimov's "I, Robot", but was mostly hooked on Star Wars and all the Star Trek versions.

 

[Guardian]

I seem to remember something about a doorstop...

Yup... Wonder Woman = childhood role model Barbi= the perfect wedge

I didn't realize they had a new superfriends movie out. I grew up watching the cartoon series.

"Crisis On Two Earths" and it was GOOD!

 

[Laura]

Speaking of dissociation, regarding hypnosis - a form of intense dissociation - I recently posted the following in another thread but it also belongs here:

Curiously, just last night I came across some interesting material about left-handedness.

K.S. Bowers "Sex and Susceptibility as Moderator Variables in the Relationship of Creativity and Hypnotic Susceptibility." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 78 (1971) - cited by H. B. Gibson in "hypnosis" London: Peter Owen, 1977.

Bowers matched 36 men with 36 women for degree of hypnotizability, taking subjects at all levels of susceptibility, and tested them on measures of "creativity." It was found that for men creativity was slightly negatively related to hypnotic susceptibility, but for women there was quite a strong positive association.

Further experiment with most of the same subjects showed quite striking differences between the two sexes. Among all subjects whose susceptibility to hypnosis was relatively high, the relationship between creativity and hypnotizability was especially high for women and especially low for men.

If creativity is tapping into the subconscious mind, and hypnosis is supposed to help to do that - inducing a state of intense dissociation - how is it that it works for women, but creative men are resistant to hypnosis?

Apparently, this sort of thing turns up here and there in the literature but few serious studies have been done in this direction. Ernest Hilgard, in his book "Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action (New York: Wiley, 1977), reports a significant correlation between a favorable attitude to hypnosis and susceptibility to hypnosis in women, but no in men. In other words, if you approve of hypnosis and are female, there is a strong chance that you will be a good hypnotic subject; but if you approve of it and are male, no such assumption can be made.

Back to Gibson:

Weitzenhoffer {"Hypnotism" New York: Wiley 1963} reviewed a number of studies on the sex difference in hypnotizability, later than Hull, and noted regular slight superiority of females. We may wonder, therefore, why some authors state that there is no difference between the sexes. Here we come upon the point that may vex the lay reader and convince him of the old saying that there are lies, bloody lies, and statistics. Some writers have the habit of saying that there is "no difference" when they have shown a difference that is "not significant." ...

The fact is that if a certain tendency, however small, occurs again and again in the same direction in different studies, one can be pretty sure that there is a real tendency and in need of some explanation...

Gibson makes the point that this comment is also valid in reference to a lot of other data, including the incidence of neurosis and psychosis in men and women respectively. Apparently, neurosis is more common among females and psychosis is more common in males. Unfortunately, the last study done on this was in 1943. Why is no one interested in this? Gibson suggests that this is due to "feminist" pressure, but I wonder if it is not really that psychopaths planted that idea because it really is a protective mechanism for their "kind"?

The bottom line is: sex differences exist in correlates of hypnotizability, and this should be studied so that we can understand the implications of the differences between male and female brains/minds.

Then, we come to Ruben and Raquel Gurs work on "Handedness, Sex and Eyedness as Moderating Variables in the Relation between Hypnotic Susceptibility and Functional Brain Asymmetry" from the Journal of Abnormal Psychology 83 (1974). Gur thought that the inconclusiveness of the studies that connected hypnotizability with different functions of the two cerebral hemispheres was due to conceptual naivete of the experimental protocols. Other workers had not only ignored sex differences, but had also ignored the handedness of their subjects and the "eyedness" as well. (This does not refer to which eye you prefer to use when using a telescope or microscope, but something more akin to what is nowadays utilized in NLP.)

Experimental studies have shown that when asked to concentrate on a mental problem individuals will habitually glance to the left or to the right while thinking. Contrary to earlier assumptions, it seems that it is NOT the type of question (math, language, etc) that influences the direction of the glance, but which cerebral hemisphere the individual is employing at that moment.

Glancing to the right indicates employment of the left "Major" hemisphere and glancing to the left indicates the use of the right "Minor" hemisphere. Note that "left major" and "right minor" applies to right handed people.

However, not even all right-handed people glance to the right most of the time! Some right-handed individuals looked more often to the left. At the same time, some left-handers glanced more often to the right; and yet others (both left and right-handed) glanced equally to the right and left. In other words, handedness and eyedness did not necessarily agree.

More than that, ALL females are (according to the study) "less well lateralized for hemispheric functions" than all males, and left-handed males also more closely resemble the females in the bilateral representation than they do right-handed males, particularly in respect of language function.

Gur reports that individuals who were strongly left-handed AND glanced to the left when thinking more than 70% of the time, tended to be more readily hypnotizable that pure right handers. Between moderate left-handers and right-handers he found no differences. He also found a high negative correlation between number of eye movements to the right and hypnotizability for right-handed males; slight negative correlation between number of eye movements to the right and hypnotizability for left-handed males; slight positive correlation between number of eye movements to the right and hypnotizability for right-handed females, and hight positive correlation between number or eye movements to the right and hypnotizability for lef-handed females.

In other words: right-handed males who glance often to the right are hard to hypnotize as a rule, but right-handed females who do the same - glance often to the right - have a more positive tendency to hypnotizability. BUT, left-handed females who glance often to the right (which they should not be doing by handedness) are SIGNIFICANTLY more hypnotizable.

What does it mean aside from the obvious implication that male and female brains work differently and this can definitely have strong influences on many things?

Well, one thing that stands out is this: men become less creative or it is less creative men who tend to dissociate easily. Men who do not dissociate easily are apparently more creative. The reverse is true for women. So obviously, there are different roles that each play in the creative process and perhaps this is Nature's way of saying that creativity requires male/female cooperation in a way we do not fully understand.

ADDED: I am right-handed, but use my left hand for a number of tasks preferentially. I tend to glance to the left when thinking (started making note of this) and also habitually tilt my head to the left when thinking or listening. I preferentially use my left ear when on the telephone. (I used to think that this was due to the fact that my right ear was severely damaged when I was a child, but really, there is not that much difference in hearing capacity.)

 

[luke wilson]

I have been reading some of the pages and this is quite an interesting thread.

I noticed there are quite alot of creative people on the forum who engage in making art.

I personally am more of a consumer of art than a producer. I dont particularly consider myself to be creative. I have had trouble defining that word and what it means and how creativity manifests itself and what positive and negative creativity are exactly. From my point of view, creativity is entirely subjective.

If there is one activity that I have done quite alot in my life is dissociation. I think the forms have been distributed between both positiv and negative depending on the situation and point in my life. I mainly use music to dissasociate. I dont particularly learn from music directly, It just helps me sink into my mind. I also dissasociate whilst watching movies but in this case, I dont sink into my mind but rather think about what the movie is about and what messages it's trying to convey and if they have a basis in reality. With paintings and pictures, I dont particularly understand them or are able to interpret them like in an analytical way. I went to a gallery acouple of weeks ago where it had modern contemporary art and one which had more traditional paintings done before the 20th century. Personally I thought the modern stuff was more funky, I liked the whole contemporary setup, even if the art itself could be classified as weird, I thought it was new, abstract and really connected with my mind. With the older traditional stuff, I felt more out of place, I couldnt really understand it, either they were trying to portray some religious imagery with angels and stuff or it was more portraits or pictures trying to convey ideas about love and beauty. It was more poetic in short. Personally I dont understand poetry or this conceptualisation of what beauty is meant to be or what love is meant to be so I just thought the older more traditional stuff was not my taste. I admire the fact that they try and convey such grand ideas as beauty and Love and religious concepts about Hell and Heaven but I am out of my depth with this subject areas. I personally consider this to be elitist and done by and for people like those alchemists, intellectuals and high society where they hide all there ideas behind this and that and portray there grand ideas where only 'afew' selected people who are meant to be 'elite like in there mindset' can understand. This to me is the very definition of elitism. Elites arent necessarily people with money in my opinion. They are people who think they are better and more exclusive than everyone else based on whatever reason and act upon this in a discriminatory manner.

On the 2nd page of this thread Laura posted an article by this "observer" who is a self proclaimed failed artist and she basically proceeds to criticize modern art. I personally thought that article was written from a subjective point of view, I thought her observations might be correct interms of who controls the art world and stuff but I thought her conclusion about the effect of this art might not entirely be true because art has different effect on different people, IMHO. Some of the modern art can be very subjective and show a perverted sense of Being on the sense of the artist but as an artist that is what there creativity lead them to. One could call this pathological creativity but creativity is creativity in my opinion. No one is forcing you to look at the image, buy it or accept it. I feel the writers view might have been heavily influenced by her perception of how the art world treated her, she might feel as an outsider and as a result she has this views.

The main aim of art in my opinion, whether positive or negative is to influence. People can say oh, it's meant to be as a form of expression. Well, why do the artist feel the need to broadcast there artwork to the world? Who are you expressing this to? Why are you expressing this? I think the why is to influence. We live in pathological times, the art might be considered pathological as a result and the influences as a resul might be pathological which many posts are against and claim to be negative and all that. However, even I see the same value in this art as that which might be classified as "non-pathological" as they are both meant to influence the thoughts and behaviours of the viewer. You can classify it as positive or negative influence depending on what the art is and what your opinion of it is but I think in the ultimate sense none is more or less important or valuabe than the other as there aim is the same.

So in short. What is the Point of any artform?
My answer: To Influence Behaviour by portraying certain concepts.
Reason for answer: Through observation, be it modern contemporary art or tradition art showing quests of heroes, ideas about evil and good, I have noticed they are meant to provide a seed for certain ideas in the viewers mind. It's only the seed that differs from different time periods. Now you can say it's the seed of pyschopathy compared to the seed of idealic beauty, poetry as a means of expression or concepts about what Love is which might be considered non-pathological by some audiences.

Further question: Is it true that all forms of art truly have the effect of influencing the observer or manipulating and giving rise to new ideas either positive or negative? If so, then is art as we know it or have ever known it STO? What is STO art?

 

[luke wilson]

Sorry for the double post.

I have seen acouple of images posted and I'd like to post some of my own and state what I think of some of the ones posted. Hopefully learn something in the process.

I am more into more modern art compared to old stuff like this:

and

Eventhough I think the 2nd one is better than the 1st one. I wouldnt personally stick it on my wall... I kind of feel it belongs back in the 16th century or whenever it was made.

Ok, modern supposedly "pathological" art that I like.

{revolting images removed - you can find them on websites where they host revolting stuff, but they are not staying in our house}

Ok, some controversial pieces that I think capture the psychopathy inherent in the world right now and there perverted views!

{revolting images removed - you can find them on websites where they host revolting stuff, but they are not staying in our house}

and

{revolting images removed - you can find them on websites where they host revolting stuff, but they are not staying in our house}

I have no idea what the girl in the 1st picture is doing or why she is doing it but this is supposedly art. I feel she is a victim of the times. She has my sympathy. Also the 2nd picture apparently is called Love Bite Web or something like that and I cant figure out why she is biting the small baby. I dont like the evilness in her eyes aswell.


Out of all this, I personally would go for the 3rd and 4th pictures because in my eyes they have way more vibrant energy about them than any of the other pictures. They have a vibrant modern feel. However, I feel I am doing the 2nd picture a great injustice, the reason I wouldnt go for it is because I cannot relate to its message. So my order out of this 6 would be, 3, 4, 2, 5, 6 and then 1. What does this make me?

 

[Gertrudes]

Hi luke,

I think that I can understand where you are coming from, having studied art as my A'levels (not sure what that's called in the states) I did get to a point where I was biased towards some contemporary art that I no longer appreciate. Not so say that contemporary art is bad, there's some pretty good things out there, but I have to say that I have changed my perspective towards much of what I used to consider good. Nowadays, I like some abstract art for its patterns and colours, and I would hang a picture on a wall solely for that reason, since colour really inspires me.

However, I think that there is plenty of art that is not only pointless but also destructive. What I think is fundamental in this issue is that our tastes are very often not our own. At least this is how I currently see it. In other words, what I believe to be my personal taste, is often the result of cultural conditioning and programing. Imagine for example having been born in the 16th century, would you have found wearing jeans particularly attractive?.... The fact that our "tastes" are so mailable is a wonderful tool for the Powers That Be to shape us as they will. We are born within a specific cultural setting, and we learn to like and dislike what has been fed to us.

If you haven't had the chance, I would suggest you to read this article from SOTT: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/197844-Portrait-of-the-CIA-as-an-artist
This was for me a real eye opener on the extent of the capacity of the PTB to shape our reality, in this case, with the introduction of modern art.

I admire the fact that they try and convey such grand ideas as beauty and Love and religious concepts about Hell and Heaven but I am out of my depth with this subject areas. I personally consider this to be elitist and done by and for people like those alchemists, intellectuals and high society where they hide all there ideas behind this and that and portray there grand ideas where only 'afew' selected people who are meant to be 'elite like in there mindset' can understand. This to me is the very definition of elitism. Elites arent necessarily people with money in my opinion. They are people who think they are better and more exclusive than everyone else based on whatever reason and act upon this in a discriminatory manner.

Fwiw, I've seen and experienced the effects of considerable elitism within nowadays visual arts artists, and dancers, my 2 former backgrounds. It was actually the extreme elitism that put me off from both worlds. Yes, maybe some contemporary artists lead us to think they are just like the common Joe, very down earthed and approachable. In my experience, the opposite is much more often the true. The rebel artist is nowadays put in a pedestal, and he acts accordingly.

I am tented to think that the reason why you find those century old paintings elitist, could be from the fact that they belong to another era, and respond to the public of that same era. Today's generation is much more likely to feel completely disconnected from an art that is long gone. And more, we can even sometimes be taught to view those with contempt.
Perhaps some of those old artists were indeed elitist, who knows. But I think that the way you are assessing elitism in this case could be off due to your own bias towards contemporary art. Please feel free to correct me if you think that I am off myself here.

From my point of view, creativity is entirely subjective.

Some of the modern art can be very subjective and show a perverted sense of Being on the sense of the artist but as an artist that is what there creativity lead them to. One could call this pathological creativity but creativity is creativity in my opinion.

I disagree with you here. Creativity is often miscalled. I think that more often then not, "artists" are not really creating something but rather reacting to their internal urges and needs. That is very different, in my view, from true Creativity. Examples of some of nowadays sordid works of art come to mind, that can be many things but not creativity. It can be the result of one's need to do something new, the need to shock, the need for self aggrandizement and so on. They are all needs, and there can't be any true creativity when one is slave to his own blindness and childish needs, osit. I think that it is often cultural programing that leads them to create, not really creativity.

I see creativity as stemming from the ability to know oneself, and to choose. True choice only being possible with self knowledge. That choice enables the artist to create what he chooses, not what he was programed to create. This theory is a work in progress of mine, so take it with a grain of salt ;)

People can say oh, it's meant to be as a form of expression. Well, why do the artist feel the need to broadcast there artwork to the world? Who are you expressing this to? Why are you expressing this? I think the why is to influence. We live in pathological times, the art might be considered pathological as a result and the influences as a resul might be pathological which many posts are against and claim to be negative and all that. However, even I see the same value in this art as that which might be classified as "non-pathological" as they are both meant to influence the thoughts and behaviours of the viewer. You can classify it as positive or negative influence depending on what the art is and what your opinion of it is but I think in the ultimate sense none is more or less important or valuabe than the other as there aim is the same.

I think that you are right in saying that art is made to influence. However, this is often done without the awareness of the "artist". The link I've posted further up sheds some light on this issue.
In that sense, the artist is often not really trying to influence (although he/she might believe he/she is), but is rather responding to his own automatism, to his inability to see how his tastes and views are highly, if not completely conditioned by cultural programing, and to his inability to see how this cultural programing is making him believe that he his the real owner/creator of his art, when he is not.

So in short. What is the Point of any artform?
My answer: To Influence Behaviour by portraying certain concepts.
Reason for answer: Through observation, be it modern contemporary art or tradition art showing quests of heroes, ideas about evil and good, I have noticed they are meant to provide a seed for certain ideas in the viewers mind. It's only the seed that differs from different time periods. Now you can say it's the seed of pyschopathy compared to the seed of idealic beauty, poetry as a means of expression or concepts about what Love is which might be considered non-pathological by some audiences.

I think so to. In this sense, it is the aim to influence behaviour through a pathological point of view leading to entropy and destruction, versus the aim to influence behaviour through genuine creativity leading to growth. STS versus STO.

To be honest, I don't trust in my ability to distinguish pathological from creative art. When this thread first started, I remember having put a lot of my previous views to question, which is something that I am still doing. So I suppose that my post is the result of my latest reflexions on the subject, something that I am also trying to learn and view more objectively myself.

 

[Meager1]

I used to read rocks, I thought of it as a diversion, a time out from housework, TV or whatever and wondered why everyone wasn`t doing this. It was amazing!

I enjoyed doing it, it was better then reading a book and seemed to contain just as much, or even more information then most books do!

I recall reading in one of the older Pleaidian books, that the Earth is a living Library, and I thought, if so, then rocks must hold all the recorded images from all time.

I would do this by softening my gaze and concentrating on a rock, or a picture of a rock and almost immediately "pictures" and images would become apparent.

I realized much later however, that I was not just gazing at rocks, but that I was inadvertently and immediately putting myself into an altered state to do this! Duh!

Why it took years for me to realize that I don`t know.

Would a self induced altered state simply for the purpose of reading rocks be a good thing to do?
I was thinking probably NOT.. and stopped doing that awhile ago.

Back in the 1950`s Richard Shaver was reading rocks this way and making paintings of what he saw there.
He was able to sell a lot of them too, even though his were a peculiar form, almost like old Mayan style, and most people thought he was just a nutty science fiction writer, they were still amazed by what he painted.
There are people who specifically collect old Shaver paintings today.

 

[ana]

Out of all this, I personally would go for the 3rd and 4th pictures because in my eyes they have way more vibrant energy about them than any of the other pictures. They have a vibrant modern feel. However, I feel I am doing the 2nd picture a great injustice, the reason I wouldnt go for it is because I cannot relate to its message. So my order out of this 6 would be, 3, 4, 2, 5, 6 and then 1. What does this make me?

Luke you come and go to several topics without deepen in yourself.The group is constantly giving you input and it is meaningless if no real effort on your part is done. We consider it is time for you to stop interacting here so you can carefully start to read the forum and all the advice given to you, if this is what you want .
Your posting privileges have been blocked.

 

[Laura]

Luke, in addition to the linked article that Gertrudes has given you above, I would like for you to read these articles carefully:

The Plot Against Art, Part 1
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtI.html

The Plot Against Art, Part 2
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtII.html

Spitting Mad Jews and Angry Artists: Part 1
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-SpittingMad.html

Spitting Mad Jews and Angry Artists: Part 2
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-SpittingMad2.html

When you are done and have had a day or two to think about things, come back and let's talk.

 

[Meager1]

Wow! That was an eye opener!
Thank you for those links Laura.

 

[Laura]

Wow! That was an eye opener!
Thank you for those links Laura.

Yes, it's Ponerology in the art field. Extend it to fashion, fads, music, etc, and you have a picture of a society that is being deliberately trashed.

 

[istina]

Wow! That was an eye opener!
Thank you for those links Laura.

Yes, indeed!!! Just few days ago I talked with my colleague about such a modern art and after discussion I felt little "primitive" because I never could feel anything or anything what attracts me in that. Now I'm glad that my instincts were good!