Empaths & Pre-psychosis

Spirituality
#1

i’ve been trying to articulate some of esoteric knowledge with western knowledge to give a more precise understanding of it.

empaths seem to have a very strong sensitivity to other people’s feelings/reactions in a way they can’t regulate/control (unless you work on it).

in psychoanalysis we have a function for that regulation/control, it’s called “Name-of-the-Father”.

Name of the Father functions as an element for division/separation/fragmentation of oneselve to the other people/things.

it’s called NF because it’s a gimmick to Christianity and is also the father’s function to separate the child from the oceanic sense of oneness and completion with his mother (although this NF function can be created by the mother herself or other person).

it’s function is also the creation of existences (to incorporate the notion of existence and the judgement of existence, which is an effect of perceiving one self as a separated entity to other things, which gives this “feeling” of existing and that other things exist).

it’s also the responsible for primordial repression (in which reality is produced), because to “give up” oneness one must repress this tendency to project it elsewhere (to create the outside world/reality and attach energy to it).

if this function is not supporting subjectivity properly, there are many effects that comes from it:

  • lack of sense of individuality (one is lost in the other, which causes over-identification to other people’s feelings/identity/etc).

  • feeling omnipotence from other people and reality (other people and reality cannot be wrong/fail/lack/indeterminated, therefore there cannot be a sense of “mistake”, “deja vu” or “coincidence”, which causes paranoia and excess sense of certainty about reality and other people’s intentions).

  • desire cannot function properly: desire is created by repression, if repression does not work properly, this causes people to retract their energy from the “outside” (goals/people/relationships) and turn it “inside” (in the form of excess narcissistic unconscious enjoyment within the body, which is evident in severe psychosis symptoms like dementia or autism).

3 Likes
#2

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to explain. Was it your attempt to explain it to yourself or to others? And to what end?

1 Like
#3

in academia people are not interested in esoteric knowledge. they usually see it as new agism, a form of narcissism and imaginary omnipotence (which is actually the case in many forms of teachings/gurus).

i highly disagree and my attempt is to give the scientific rigor it needs to be taken seriously.

sadly i can’t find many people interested in this endeavour, so i post it here where someone may find it and even explore it more than i do to reach better conclusions.

if i do something like this in academia, people’s egos will get mad. although that if i do it here, people’s egos also may get mad too.

there’s no way to please everyone.

3 Likes
#4

I think it would be helpful to outline in your OP what your desire is. I am sure others can help if it is clear what kind of input is needed.

7 Likes
#5

I think if you form this with the acknowledgment that this is a study, and your beliefs based on your knowledge, along with your clear and transparent intent of posting, perhaps it will be seen as such rather than an attack on others. It would be quite presumptuous otherwise.

#6

I often read your perspectives, and I find them interesting, thank you!
To me it seemed fairly obvious that he’s sharing an ‘opinion’/‘perspective’ based on the knowledge he’s gathered, for whomever mind find it helpful now or later or wish to interact.
In the way he’s presented it here (might be different irl / in a conversation face to face with someone, who indeed might feel some type of way), it seems excessive/wordy to preface it with some kind of declaration of intent *, as just about anything here (and in general) is just that, someone’s opinion/perspective based on their knowledge and view of the world, seems implied ‘in itself’ / contextual ‘forum’)

*To be frank, in my mind it messes with the ‘lyricism’ / style, kind of like having to hear a disclaimer before you listen to a song

1 Like
#7

If you want to make it more “rigorous”, I think that you would need to add references to other reliable sources and define more precisely the framework you’re using. It would also help others to achieve a better understanding of what you’re talking about. Since it is not a psychoanalysis forum, I assume that many members are not properly acquainted with the concepts you mention and would need to explore them more in depths in order to understand your ideas.

#8

i’ve been posting for a while. i personally fit the “empath” category, and i also had similar experiences to what’s called “pre-psychosis” in psychoanalysis, structurally to me it seems very similar, and it’s an attempt to understand it better, although it doesn’t negate the possibility of metaphysical experiences, because psychoanalysis is not interested in metaphysical experiences (because it cannot grasp it yet, my attempt is to formalize it).

formalization and logic attempts to strip away any form of belief or imagination from the process. like a computer doing argorithms on its own. this allows a more “pure” undestanding (although not complete).

why belief and imagination doesn’t work? because it leads to Christ explaining how to reach enlightenment and people going out to burn witches and pay huge taxes to the church get free from some spiritual debt. everyone interprets what’s convinient for their own ego to a certain extent. this is not the case for mathematics and logical processes (as they work on their own).

psychoanalysis is not a psychogenesis (which means that it doesn’t seek to explain what’s good/bad, worse/better and not based on biology or evolution). it’s not nihilistic either, because it seeks to cease excess suffering.

Lakatos defined it as a negative heuristic (“Freudism”, although lacan tried to go beyond it by formalizing and introducing mathematics).

it’s in a certain sense a logology. which means: a way to give account for reason and existence in itself; instantiated in what it’s called “aura gaps” in esoteric knowledge (2-dimensional holes in topology of surfaces for psychoanalysis), being created out of nothing (creatio ex-nihilo for psychoanalysis) through signifier articulations (entanglement of differentiations creating gaps within the auric body, gaps in which the Other can affect us and we suffer from its effects).

2 Likes
#9

I’ve been through psychosis and I’ve experienced various states of what could be called “pre-psychosis” over the years. As far as I am aware, according to Lacan, the potential for psychotic experiences is embedded through something going awry in the disawoval of the symbolic order and the aforementioned “lack” of the Name of the Father. I’ve been pondering the issue heavily and am even considering writing a paper on it, I’ll post more here if I come up with anything interesting.

1 Like
#10

yes, indeed. sadly there’s no “cure” to psychosis according to lacan, but stabilizations through acts, delusional metaphors, sinthomes, etc.

all ways to give a temporary sense of stability. an artificial neurosis.

but this is because his theory is incomplete.

morphic fields pretty much help to create a sort of permanent cure for it.

#11

Yeah, the underlying psychotic structure would remain even when therapy’s applied, but he didn’t even consider it “an illness” per se. Although he did not formulate a “psychotic discourse”, I am actually attempting to do that with my analyst, it’s kinda fun. :smiley: Divinity would figure heavily in it, and the “master-slave” dichotomy as well, I think.

1 Like
#12

as far as i’ve been taught, there’s no transference in psychosis, that’s why it’s pre-discursive (reality is deteriorated because it’s “unbonded”; not instantiated in social bond) and knowledge is located in the side of the subject (and not in the side the Other, like in neurosis, which allows the unconscious being structured as the discourse of the Other and analytic transference).

i doubt that there could be a psychotic discourse that’s not self-referential (therefore, couldn’t be “in relationship”), this is substantiated in the failure of phallic signification, which produces neologisms, refrains, empty words or full words.

maybe there could be a pre-psychotic discourse? i don’t know

1 Like