Vampire

The leachy vampire which is a type for any act, is systemic of everyone, especially when simulation has become a modus operans that has overcome reality, figuring on evolved overblown representative models , of what what has been lost.
The original loss has transpired a long long time ago, and incrementally gained steam.

The systemic need to be scarred by scare, the puncture of vitality, of blood letting, pretty much parallels that which vampirism inflicts by the bite, of return to the age of immortality, a return to the garden.

Friedrich Nietzsche Human All Too Human

THE PREJUDICE IN FAVOUR OF GREATNESS. It is clear that men overvalue everything great and prominent. This arises from the conscious or unconscious idea that they deem it very useful when one person throws all his strength into one thing and makes himself into a monstrous organ. Assuredly, an equal development of all his powers is more useful and happier for man; for every talent is a vampire which sucks blood and strength from other powers, and an exaggerated production can drive the most gifted almost to madness. Within the circle of the arts, too, extreme natures excite far too much attention; but a much lower culture is necessary to be captivated by them. Men submit from habit to everything that seeks power.

While at the same time:

Narcissism and Self-Esteem Are Very Different

Narcissism and self-esteem have very different developmental pathways and outcomes

By Scott Barry Kaufman on October 29, 2017

As the mythology goes, Narcissus fell in love so much with his own reflection in a pool of water that he was unable to do anything else but admire himself. Eventually, he withered away and died staring at his reflection. Did Narcissus have excessively high self-esteem? Was that his main issue? Or was it something else?

For many years, psychologists and the media alike have treated narcissism as representing “inflated self-esteem”, or “self-esteem on steroids”. In the past few years, however, there have been some serious challenges to this view. The latest research suggests that narcissism differs significantly from self-esteem in its development, origins, consequences, and outcomes. This has important implications for our understanding of narcissism, and for interventions to increase healthy self-esteem.

Both narcissism and self-esteem start to develop around the age of 7. At this age, children draw heavily on social comparisons with others and start to evaluate themselves along the lines of “I am a loser”, “I am worthy”, or “I am special”. Children come to view themselves as they perceive they are seen by others.

Whereas self-esteem tends to be at its lowest in adolescence, and slowly increases throughout life, narcissism peaks in adolescence and gradually declines throughout the lifespan. Therefore, the development of narcissism and high self-esteem show the mirror image of each other throughout the course of human development.

The development of self-esteem and narcissism are also influenced by different parenting styles. Narcissism tends to develop in tandem with parental overvaluation. Parents who raise children who exhibit high levels of narcissism tend to overclaim their child’s knowledge (e.g., “My child knows everything there is to know about math”), overestimate their child’s IQ, overpraise their child’s performances, and even tend to give their children a unique name to stand out from the crowd. Eventually, the child internalizes these self-views, and they unconsciously drive the child’s interactions with others.

In contrast, high self-esteem develops in tandem with parental warmth. Parents who raise children who exhibit high levels of self-esteem tend to treat their children with affection, appreciation, and fondness. They treat their children as though they matter. Eventually, this parenting practice leads to the child internalizing the message that they are worthy individuals, a core aspect of healthy self-esteem.

Outcomes

The prototypical grandiose narcissist is characterized by arrogance, superiority, vanity, entitlement, exploitativeness, exhibitionism, and the incessant need for acclaim from others. Those scoring high on measures of self-esteem, however, tend to feel satisfied with themselves but do not necessarily see themselves as superior to others.

For instance, the most widely administered test of self-esteem-- the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale-- has items such as, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”, “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”, and “I am able to do things as well as most other people.” These items are not about being superior to others, but about having a healthy level of self-worth and self-competence. As Rosenberg put it,“When we deal with self-esteem, we are asking whether the individual considers [themselves] adequate-- a person of worth-- not whether [they] consider [themselves] superior to others.”

While narcissism is positively correlated with self-esteem, the association is actually small. This suggests it’s possible to think you are superior to others, but still not view yourself as a worthy human being. On the contrary, it’s possible to think you are worthy and competent without thinking you are better than others.

A very interesting recent paper further sheds light on the similarities and differences between narcissism and self-esteem. Self-esteem and narcissism were both related to agency, assertiveness, positive emotions, and a drive for rewards. But that’s essentially where the similarities ended. In fact, narcissism and self-esteem differed on 63% of the other traits that were assessed.

Self-esteem was much more strongly linked to conscientiousness and perseverence than narcissism. Also, whereas narcissism was negatively associated with agreeableness (i.e., narcissists were more antagonistic), the relationship between self-esteem and agreeableness was small but positive.

In regards to interpersonal functioning, narcissism and self-esteem differed on 75% of the measures. Narcissism, but not self-esteem, was associated with experiencing and expressing anger, and confrontational responses such as yelling, threatening, and physical aggression. Narcissism, but not self-esteem, was also related to a drive for acquisition of disproportionate resources as well as greater relationship problems.

Narcissism was related to feeling central to one’s social networks, and also perceiving others in one’s network as narcissistic, neurotic, disagreeable, and disinhibited. Narcissism was also related to more frequent arguing and social comparisons than self-esteem. The opposite was true for self-esteem. Self-esteem was related to feeling close to others in one’s social network, and perceiving others in one’s social network as attractive, high status, high in leadership, intelligent, likeable, and kind.

There were also clear differences in terms of psychopathology. Narcissism and self-esteem differed on 100% of the measures relating to internalizing psychopathology.Whereas self-esteem was strongly related to lower levels of anxiety, depression, and global distress, narcissism was only weakly related to these outcomes. Narcissism was much more associated with externalizing behavior, including alcohol/substance abuse, antisocial behavior, and aggression.

In terms of pathological traits, narcissism was related to a higher score on every single pathological trait, whereas self-esteem showed negative correlations with all 30 pathological traits. Self-esteem was particularly negatively associated with detachment, disinhibition, and psychoticism, whereas narcissism showed substantial positive relations to these traits. Narcissism also showed a strong relationship to histrionic personality disorders, whereas self-esteem was either unrelated or unrelated to histrionic behaviors.

It’s very clear from this analysis that narcissists are much more driven to get ahead than to get along. Narcissism is associated with the need to dominate others and the need to achieve superior resources. In contrast, high self-esteem is much more associated with the desire to establish deep, intimate relationships with others.

Should We Be Trying to Raise Self-Esteem?

What are the implications of these findings for the way we think about raising self-esteem? In order to answer this question, I think it’s important to look at history. For a good 20 years in U…S history (from the 70s to 90s), the self-esteem craze was definitely a thing. There was such a focus on feeling good about yourself as the answer to all of life’s problems.

Rightly so, there was a backlash against this simplistic view. Roy Baumeister and colleagues did a systematic review of the self-esteem literature and found that the effects of self-esteem aren’t as pervasive as generally thought: self-esteem was most strongly correlated with enhanced initiative and happiness. But correlation doesn’t equal causation, and they found little evidence that interventions designed to boost self-esteem actually causebenefits. So what should be the status of self-esteem in our psychological interventions?

On the one hand, I think we can relax our fears that efforts to raise self-esteem in children will inadvertently create a generation of narcissists. The real concern isn’t with raising healthy self-esteem. If anything, we could do a MUCH better job making all students feel valued and respected. The real problem is with “overvaluing”, and praising children for being special in a way that far exceeds their actual accomplishments. As Eddie Brummelman and colleagues put it,

“Interventions can teach parents and educators to express affection and appreciation for children without proclaiming them to be superior to others. By doing so, parents and educators may help children feel happy with themselves without seeing themselves as better than others.”

I view self-esteem boosts like taking a vitamin. If you are very deficient in self-esteem, there are really important consequences for health outcomes. For instance, low self-esteem is a significant risk factor for depression, regardless of whether or not one is narcissistic. However, once a person has a basic level of healthy self-esteem, the constant pursuit of self-esteem can be very costly. When our goals are to validate our self, or to constantly feel good about ourselves, rather than to learn and grow, we actually undermine our learning, relationships, authenticity, ability to self-regulate our behavior, and mental and physical health.

It seems that a better alternative, once you have a sufficient belief in your self-worth, is to focus on accomplishing challenging, valued activities and fostering your relationships. Let authentic pride and strong positive feelings about oneself be the natural outcome, instead of driving force. To get you through the difficult times and self-doubt, work on increasing your self-compassion, not self-esteem.

Hopefully through our understanding of the different pathways of narcissism and self-esteem, we can have a more realistic understanding of the impact of raising self-esteem, and can target practices to help people make sure they are increasing their self-esteem in the most healthy, productive, genuine, and authentic fashion.

© 2017 Scott Barry Kaufman, All Rights Reserved

Ok self esteem?
Narcissism, complexity, languages, s(t)imulation, talk,
Darkness, and political uncertainty, straight talk, masochism,
Vampiric flagellation, waiting for the dark, been there done that, you would be surprised how complexity can not simply translate, stick to it never let go , and don’t mess with leeches, they bargain to deceive, and yet:

You know in constrained environments anything goes, they treat you respectfully since they don’t know or seem to care what you have, buffer zones, hiding in fields of cotton, be a gentleman, and beware of profalgates, & exhibitionist, in the certain field of travesty you’ll feel better,

So and so, stay home but don’t get stuck on the luminosity of televisions over right alternative, play the game,

And by all means stop when the chips are down, have a few left, a few shots and you’re back in the zone, I never left them oh no
to leave them desert them
As few shots later
Will miss you,
and of course don’t leave them hanging like to really leave, as if it was small just a gig,
course let them think, yours quitting time, as bereft of certain defeat
another then,
bites the dust.

Be mindful of perhaps mechanical failures along the way - it is an old model left to rust
not to impress.

youtu.be/P71JqKt1j-0

youtu.be/Jqi4GBxmwgg

youtu.be/AqVVksnAk4M

youtu.be/y5Z7LHB1foE

Worse

Whilst out last week,
my nephew attempted,
to rouse me out of my indifference,
only to realise,
that my indifference is my normal,
and to attempt for me to be otherwise,
becomes detrimental to mine self,
and now he knows to leave me be,
or make me worse…

I hate to agree with You, but it’s so true!

Indifference hurts more than the sting that is self infused by it, for it really much more effective a weapon than trying to argue and setting records straight.
It does have a castrating effect on the attempted fuel that keeps the fire of loathing and anger burning.
In many a case, after a while it neutralizes negative feelings and even dampens the affects that intended hurt can impose.
Sometimes that is the only solution.

He just wanted me to perk up… I just don’t do the whole ‘exuberant’ thing often… intensity, yes: exuberance, not often… I ain’t got time for that.

Why take another’s indifference personally? Not like he’s any different… which he’s not, but he is a hoot to be around.

Of course he may not realize it…that is the partial truth, before even considering it.

But I wonder, is it not inconsiderate to feign , or even be indifferent to that , wherein when he comes around may turn the hoot into some other technical muse?

And does that tend to devolve indifference to difference? Leading to more apathy and deconstruction of more ideal relationships ?

More questions then avaibility of answers.

The early depictions of vampires were as ugly, hook-nosed, blood-suckers. Parasites of humans.
recently they’ve been upgraded and made sexy, attractive, romantic.

Guess why?

Either… for Box-Office profit, or, that the Vampires would have started suing anyone that portrayed them in an unattractive light? I’m going with the former, myself, but I always like to offer options to others.

The earlier cinematic vampire depictions were indeed horror films, the current cinematic/TV vampire depictions are more Romance, Thriller, or Drama. Sex sells… the advertising from the 80s onwards is reflective of that, when the overt really started taking off.

Vlad the Impaler: the original Count Dracula and inspiration for Bram Stoker’s Dracula… OMG! go to 6.40 onwards… what a ruthless fucker… the good-old days of real torture and crusades.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YhD3mpDIZQ[/youtube]

I say… take me as I am on that, or any-other given day, or fear pissing me off… a one-off faux pas is fine… as I’ll recover, but once alerted to the fact of another’s (strict(er)) boundaries, then remember that… or I’ll help you remember.

When it comes to the day-to-day preservation of such-a-self, no-one’s going to give a shit about it but you, and no-one can see or even begin to fathom the great-effort that goes into it… but you, or the repercussions suffered, from not doing so. It becomes an art-form, you know… fine-tuning one’s craft and skill, until perfect, and then making it an eternal work-in-progress.

This series of adverts, is currently my favourite… the actor, brilliantly portraying Vladimir the Vampire.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C92jBt8tlag[/youtube]

Fear of the dark? Lack of sensory integration ? Return to the cave?

But then…that goes for both: the gentile and the Jew.

From the formless , there is no exit, and their commonality can not be mutually identified by recognition, hence the gap of sensory continuum

Victimization is an aesthetic premise stamped upon the Jew by a game akin to bait and switch, which most cons need to become wise to, if they can play the game.

The order of characterization between the good and the bad was not anticipated or planned , in thinly veiled metaphors, and hence resulted in the ugly de-differentiated basic and simple forms of averice.

The synthesis of such dramatic thrusts to vanity, had it’s clear motive expunged by the underlying one if basic substrate; approbation caused by wanton need to nationalize private property, to switch ideological uncertainty from the spirit to it’s constituenr.
It always was a subliminal game of hide and go between so called races, where races and cultural artifacts could be colluded.

The vampire, if he had been able to see himself in this manner, would not have fell for it, but would have rejected it , the whole nine yards, in an obvious game that lacking wisdom.

It is at a level brought upon it’s self, and ill understood, it can only see it’s self in shared blindness of each other.

It does not depict the particular vampire, only reflects , through a glass, darkly, a manifest projection of it’s own lack of sight, hence sustaining the vampirism it seeks to enlighten.

It is not trickery, but a needed bravery needed that denotes the real dynamic.
that is easy to recognize ; as hiding under.the Caricatures. which hinder suppressed emotions resolvinv sensory disjunction.

Oh this waiting game, 3 days to Christmas, let us not forget who caused this, and what it represents!

Even if, one day, the Christ appears as negative to His own image! It would serve a preestablushed transcendental contract between everyone, father and sons connected by fiat. It would disserve only those , who revel in uniform suppression of the innocent , colluded with the unformed.

Vampire prefer the shadows…despise the sunlight.
They are eternal…meme.
They are parasitical in relation to humans.
They suck the host dry…

I’ve posted an entire thesis on the symbolism of Vampires, Werewolves, Frankenstein, and the entire modern canon of superheroes and supervillains.
Each one symbolizing a post-modern psychological type.

Vampires don’t prefer it, literally their genetic lack of ocular understanding have been denied, they have to enhance other firms of relating to life, and their image can not be thus literally understood. Others see them as pre reflective, but reflection literally can not be mythically be in line with Narcissus, therefore, Nietzche could not have been intentionally devised, only through the eyes of Heidegger.

Therefore the whole program falls flat, and becomes inconsequential in it’s essence.

Well, we have obviously not been reading each other, or misreading. That is why the sense and the sensibility sustains a difference.

At any rate, happy holidays.

The sunlight clarifies - the twilight obscures and mystifies.

Nietzsche is devised through the eyes of every reader…like any artist is.
The clarity comes from comparing the idea with the world it emerged from.

The mystification appeals to the masses who have minimal ability to reflect. They relate to it superficially.

My replies are always directed to multiple readers.

Happy Holidays.

Agean wrote,

“The sunlight clarifies - the twilight obscures and mystifies.”

Does not N predict the future?
Does not the twilight replicate 18th century art, impressionist?

The cave was dark in the Middle Ages, when first exposed to the Enlightenement, man was overwhelmed by light, reality became elusive.
Icarus fell cause he was too close.
Impressions became the mode of apprehension, to overcome the vagaries of denying one of the principles of an aesthetic: appreciable distance, objectivity.

The twilight afforded objectivity, the reconstruction of it, the quasi union of the real and the ideal.

What’s wrong with that. N spoke in aphorisms, that light be converse, refocused on it’s object.

Some did not appreciate such vision, they needed return, return to the original.

Now, the central point in trying to understand is the signification of the simulated return.

I will proceed with incorporation of below comments- obscureatism as in nude, the obscure.

Here is a thematic summary:

"The novel tells the story of Jude Fawley, who lives in a village in southern England (part of Hardy’s fictional county of Wessex), who yearns to be a scholar at “Christminster”, a city modelled on Oxford. As a youth, Jude teaches himself Classical Greek and Latin in his spare time, while working first in his great-aunt’s bakery, with the hope of entering university. But before he can try to do this the naïve Jude is seduced by Arabella Donn, a rather coarse, morally lax and superficial local girl who traps him into marriage by pretending to be pregnant. The marriage is a failure, and Arabella leaves Jude and later emigrates to Australia, where she enters into a bigamous marriage. By this time, Jude has abandoned his classical studies.

After Arabella leaves him, Jude moves to Christminster and supports himself as a mason while studying alone, hoping to be able to enter the university later. There, he meets and falls in love with his free-spirited cousin, Sue Bridehead. But, shortly after this, Jude introduces Sue to his former schoolteacher, Mr. Phillotson, whom she eventually is persuaded to marry, despite the fact that he is some twenty years her senior. However, she soon regrets this, because in addition to being in love with Jude, she is horrified by the notion of sex with her husband. Sue soon asks Phillotson for permission to leave him for Jude, which he grants, once he realizes how unwilling she is to fulfill what he believes are her marital duties to him. Because of this scandal — the fact Phillotson willingly allows his wife to leave for another man — Phillotson has to give up his career as a schoolmaster.

Sue and Jude spend some time living together without any sexual relationship. This is because of Sue’s dislike both of sex and the institution of marriage. Soon after, Arabella reappears having fled her Australian husband, who managed a hotel in Sydney, and this complicates matters. Arabella and Jude divorce and she legally marries her bigamous husband, and Sue also is divorced. However, following this, Arabella reveals that she had a child of Jude’s, eight months after they separated, and subsequently sends this child to his father. He is named Jude and nicknamed “Little Father Time” because of his intense seriousness and lack of humour.

Jude eventually convinces Sue to sleep with him and, over the years, they have two children together and expect a third. But Jude and Sue are socially ostracised for living together unmarried, especially after the children are born. Jude’s employers dismiss him because of the illicit relationship, and the family is forced into a nomadic lifestyle, moving from town to town across Wessex seeking employment and housing before eventually returning to Christminster. Their socially troubled boy, “Little Father Time”, comes to believe that he and his half-siblings are the source of the family’s woes. The morning after their arrival in Christminster, he murders Sue’s two children and kills himself by hanging. He leaves behind a note that simply reads, “Done because we are too menny.”[1][2] Shortly thereafter, Sue has a miscarriage.

Photochrom of the High Street, Oxford, 1890–1900
Beside herself with grief and blaming herself for “Little Father Time”'s actions, Sue turns to the church that she has rebelled against and comes to believe that the children’s deaths were divine retribution for her relationship with Jude. Although horrified at the thought of resuming her marriage with Phillotson, she becomes convinced that, for religious reasons, she should never have left him. Arabella discovers Sue’s feelings and informs Phillotson, who soon proposes they remarry. This results in Sue leaving Jude once again for Phillotson, and she punishes herself by allowing herself sex with her husband. Jude is devastated and remarries Arabella after she plies him with alcohol to once again trick him into marriage.

After one final, desperate visit to Sue in freezing weather, Jude becomes seriously ill and dies within the year in Christminster, thwarted in his ambition to achieve fame in his studies as well as in his love. It is revealed that Sue has grown “staid and worn” with Phillotson. Arabella fails to mourn Jude’s passing, instead setting the stage to ensnare her next suitor.

The events of Jude the Obscure occur over a 19-year period, but no dates are specifically given in the novel.[note 1] Aged 11 at the beginning of the novel, by the time of his death Jude seems much older than his thirty years – for he has experienced so much disappointment and grief in his total life experience. It would seem that his burdens exceeded his sheer ability to survive, much less to triumph."

This only to organize and synthesize my ongoing search into signification and an attempt to sensory integration.

As far as the intentionality of deliberate positioning or reified objects is concern, that question revolves around N’s success to objectify his narratives to achieve a coherent structural transcendence that he be understood , in terms that metamorphose the descriptive into idiomatic understanding.

I think he basically fails in this, and this is why Heidegger’s continuum gets full of exploitative gaps.

Darkness prevents objectivity.
Half-light obscures and convolutes. Prevents clarity.

Using obscurantism to escape detection and cultivating it to remain hidden, can only have a motive.

In Jude the Obscure, Hardy uses a deep metaphor, the indication of an objective motive appears missing, or forgotten. Not merely a tenuous desire to remain hidden, but sign of a nomadic life.:

"The word Jude can mean the wandering Jew. By calling the main character of the book Jude, Hardy is making a reference to a group of people who believe in God and are classified as wandering. By using this allusion Hardy is trying to convey to us that the path of religion is not one that has a true destination, but rather it is one of fallacy that leaves people wandering. Hardy further illustrates this point by making Jude a “wanderer.” Jude is a wanderer both literally and figuratively. Literally we see him wandering from place to place to find work, and figuratively we see him searching for his own identity.’

{This narrative helps to clarify distinctions between Husserl, Heidegger and Nietzche}.

The ref. Is lengthy and can also be said to invoke an obscure content built up in a way that presents some motive in ways parrellel… I plan to go into this more, in the above summary.

A landless people, would develop traits that would aid it in tis quest to survive, at all costs.
With no hearth, to ground them, they would develop a abstract hearth they could carry with them, from place to place, and from the vicinity of other tribes to the vicinity of different ones, appropriating from each whatever was of value, to them, and developing the language and behavioural skills to remain both distinct and seemingly disappear in them.