Kyberwarlord

As one grows up in the world, one is taught that emotions must be managed. Controlled. Suppressed. Especially the negative emotions. For myself, I think this suppression has developed into a kind of exile of the master. The master is a sign. Its signifier comes through intrusive voices, intense emotions of hatred. Fantasies of violence. The signified comes from a deep othering of the self from the rest of the world. That is, to “fit in” with society’s customary ethics, we suppress the libidinal hatred of others. To fit in, we split these emotions of hatred and lust, and we split it off into an entirely separate personality from that which is our “own”.

In my estimation, the manifestation of borderline/psychopathic thinking is perceived as a psychic “attack” from an external force. This external force intrudes into the main complex. One may, on a certain level, know that what they do is wrong. But on the other hand, it is a completely external force that complicates the matter.

When one is a child and teenager, they may exhibit disturbing tendencies (that are not necessarily violent) in proclivities to extreme stress, depression, or anger. For certain people, they begin therapy as a small child. (As I did.) When I was a small child, I of course did not really know what the point of the therapy sessions were. I knew that I was being treated differently from the other children. I think this had three logical conclusions: 1) that there must be a “mask” that holds back the socially undesirable traits for the child. 2) that status as different led to a kind of social exclusion and in response self-aggrandizing. And 3) that the expulsion of the “master” inevitably leads to a “rule by exile”.

This language of the “master” ruling over the ego is properly dialectical in the Hegelian tradition. In fact. Let us do away with ego, super-ego, and id. Let us be anti-id. Let us instead refer to this as the “analyst”, in a Lacanian sense. Both the analyst and the master are archetypes that confront one another in the mind of the subject. The analyst knows that the subject must not kill. After all, it goes against their ethic. On the other hand, the master knows that they must kill. After all, some people need to be killed. These two archetypes confront one another in a dialectical process of self-recognition, of a kind of meta-cognitive conflict. The meta-cognitive conflict can never be full resolved. The master looks to the analyst for a kind of recognition of the necessity of the kill. In this way, the analyst must “approve” the killing, in the manner of a trained dog let loose on an enemy.

The master is the response to hate and pain and suffering and emotions. The analyst is the response to reason and love and peace. They cannot exist without the other. One cannot have violence without love. One cannot have peace without war. The libidinous expulsion of bloodshed. The libidinous repression of tolerance. The consistent reckoning with one another causes immense stress in people’s lives.

I have been told throughout my entire life that my anger and hate and vitriol for other people is “not the real me”. Even I tell myself this. That my cruelty does not define me. What people and myself are more hesitant to say, in the same way, my love and softness do not define me either. What does define me is the eternal struggle for recognition between these two mental archetypes in my head. This is the primary object of my life. To struggle with the voices in my head.

The object of war is peace. The object of peace is war. The object of life is to struggle to choose which goal you wish to pursue the next day.

A soundtrack of eternal psychic warfare